METRIC CONVERSION ACT OF 1973

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75B00380R000500230002-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 22
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 24, 2001
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: May 7, 1974
• Content Type: OPEN

May 7, 1974 Approved Fo 046ficitlie &UMW AraanbflititTAVOR000500230002-4
" 907.60 Carboxymethyl cellulose sodium salts of a purity not exceeding 98 percent
nor less than 95 percent by weight on a dry weight basis (provided for
In item 46517, part 8A, schedule 4) Free No change
BSC. e amendment made by the first
section o is Act shall apply with respect
to articles ntered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, fconsumption on or after Jan-
uary 1, 1974.
Amend the t so as to read: "A bill to
suspend until th lose of June 30, 1975, the
duty on certain arboxymethyl cellulose
salts."
With the followin committee amend-
ments:
Page 1, strike out the atter appearing
iminediately after line 6 a insert the fol-
lowing:
"907.60 Carboxymethyl
cellulose so-
dium salts of
a purity not
exceeding 98
percent nor
less than 95
percent by
Weight on a
dry weight
- basis (pro-
vided for in
item 465.87,
part BA,
schedule 4). Free No On or be.
change turn
60/75.,..
Page 2, line 4, strike out "January 1, 1074"
and Insert "the day after the date of the en-
actment of this Act".
Mr. MILLS (during the reading). Mr.
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
further reading of the committee
amendments be dispensed with and that
they be printed in the RECORD.
The SPEAKEA. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Arkansas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
committee amendments.
The committee amendments were
agreed to.
The bill was ordered to be engross
and read the third time, was read
third time, and passed.
The title was amended so as to d:
"A bill to suspend until the close tine
30, 1975, the duty on Certain oxy-
methyl cellulose salts."
A motion to reconsider was on the
table.
GENERAL LE
Mr. KILLS. Mr. Spea
mom consent that al
have 5 legislative days
and extend their re
bills just passed.
The SPEAKER.
the request of
Arkansas?
There was no ? ection.
I ask unani-
embers may
which to revise
ks on the four
there objection to
gentleman from
PROSPECT ANOTHER CRIPPLING
?NATIO 961E TRUCKER STRIKE
(Mr. GU ER asked and was given
permissio o address the House for 1
- minutq to revise and extend his
remark
Mr. NTER. Mr. Speaker, the coun-
try nosf faces the possible prospect of
On or before
the close of
the 1-year
period begin-
ning on Jan-
uary 1, I974.".
another crippling nationwide strike by
independent truckers, at a time when
we are not yet fully recovered from the
disastrous effects of the previous strike.
With another strike apparently sched-
uled by at least one segment of the
independent truckers for May 13, I was
therefore extremely disturbed to read
in the newspaper this morning that the
Federal Mediation Service has not yet
made an effort to contact those threat-
ening a shutdown and apparently ha
no plans to do so.
At the same time, little or no effe, ?
relief has been provided for the es
of the original nationwide strik ich
resulted from the skyrocketi st of
diesel fuel and scarcity of sup
I have already introduce gislation
to provide meaningful, i diate, and
large-scale relief for the ion's truck-
ers by suspending for 6 ths collection
I the 4 cent a gallo ederal tax on
sel fuel, tied to a f e at January 15,
price levels.
ever, in vi :of the prospect of
ano strike, I eve additional action
is ca for he executive branch.
I am ero.e. e introducing today a
sense of use resolution calling on
the Presid to immediately inform the
Congress at steps he is taking or
will takei effort to avert another
nation e cri similar to the strike
which" cently F -"eriled movement of
the ion's food s ly and caused Un-
knoi economic da e.
ye a particula oncern because
statement attribu to Mr. Mike
rkhurst of Overdrive gazine pre-
cting that a new shut n will "be
tighter in some areas, like ida" than
in others.
But this is a problem that hardly
limited to my own State of Flori
It threatens the economy of the tire
Nation and all its citizens, and the re
deserves prompt attention by all o
FINANCING NATIONAL PARTY
CONVENTIONS
(Mr. STARK asked and was given per-
mission to address the House for 1 min-
ute and to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, this morning
we received a letter from George Bush
explaining, in response to efforts by a
bipartisan committee to seek ways to
finance national nominating conventions,
that the Republican National Commit-
tee at a recent meeting passed the fol-
lowing resolution:
That the Republican National Com-
mittee go on record here and now as
being strongly opposed to national fi-
nancing of national party conventions
and continue to explore other alterna-
tives.
Mr. Speaker, one can only assume that
those other alternatives will include con-
tributions from Bebe Rebozo,
Howard Hughes, and Arab oil money, as
II 3595
this type of action which we have come
to expect from the morally pd ethically
bankrupt Republican le hip.
PERSONAL e NATION
Mr. SARASIN? . Speaker, yesterday
I submitted a getbrd of my 1973 income
and Federal 'information, including a
copy of my deral income tax return,
for publi on in the CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD er Extensions of Remarks.
Unf r nately, there was a typograph-
ical r in the reprinting of the mate-
ria' page E2761 of the May 6, 1974,
'ORD which lam requesting be changed
the permanent RECORD. In line 11 of
the copy of my form 1040, the figure for
' income interest was erroneously reported
as $20,000, when in fact my interest in-
come for the year was $20 and was so re-
ported in the documents submitted for
publication.
NATIONAL PARTY CONVENTION
FINANCING
(Mr. CRANE asked and was given per-
mission to address the House for 1 min-
ute.)
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, with all due
respect to my esteemed colleague, the
gentleman from California (Mr. STARK),
I think that he just took a cheap shot.
Concerning the question of public fi-
nancing, I think that there are some very
sound and profound philosophical rea-
sons for objecting to it, and I am sure
that those reasons will be articulated
when we get into further discussion of
this matter. However, to suggest im-
propriety as the alternative for public
financing, in my estimation, is as im-
proper and as out of line as it would be
for Republicans to attempt to suggest
that because of Bobby Baker or Billy Sol
Estes one might indict the Democratic
Party.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the gentle-
man from California may wish to par-
ticipate in a more extensive debate when
we get into the public financing ques-
tion, and I would be happy to provide
him with some of the good arguments
against that concept.
CALL OF THE HOUSE
BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I
m the point of order that a quorum
Is n resent.
Th EAKER. Evidently a quorum is
not pr t.
Mr. 0 ILL. Mr. Speaker, I move a
call of the use.
A call of e House was ordered.
The call taken by electronic de-
vice, and the Ilowing Members failed
to respond:
Archer
Beyill
Blatnik
Brotzman
Brown, Mich.
Carey, N.1.
Carney, Ohio
Chisholm
Clark
Clay
Conyers
Derwinski
Diggs
No. 207]
Din
Findl
Flowe
Freling sen
Gray
Green, 0
Griffiths
Haley
Hansen, Wa
Hebert
Helstoski
Holifield
Johnson, Colo.
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500230002-4
Johnson, Pa..
Jones, Ala.
Jones, N.C.
Luj an
Macdonald
Madden
Martin, N.C.
Moorhead,
Calif.
oorhead, Pa.
organ
hols
H 3596
STATINTL
Approved For RetemAIVAIMalkiplet
Patinan Rose Stephens
Pickle Ruppe Stokes
Powell, Olen Sandman Stubblefieid
Reid Sisk Stuckey
Riegle Smith, N.Y. Treen
Roncallo, JOY. Stanton, Udall
Rooney, N.Y. James V.
The SPEAKER. On this rollcall 376
Members have recorded their presence
by electronic device, a quorum.
By unanimous consent, further Pro-
ceedings under the call were dispensed
with.
METRIC CONVERSION ACT OF 1973
Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Speaker, I move to
suspend the rules and pass the bill,(E1.R.
11035) to declare a national poliCra
converting to the metric system in the
United States, and to establish a Na-
tional Metric Conversion Board to co-
ordinate the voluntary conversion to the
metric sy3tem over .,a period of 10 years.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 11035
Be it eructed by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled,
SHORT TITLE
Sammie 1. This Act may be cited as the
"Metric Conversion Act of 1973".
FINDINGS
SEC. 2. The Congress finds that -
(1) the use of the metric system of
weights and measures in the United States
was authorized by the Act of July 28, nos
(14 Stat. 339); and
(2) the United States was one of the
original signatories to the Convention o! the
Meter (20 Stat. 709), which establishec. the
General Conference of Weights and Measures,
the International Committee of Weights and
Measures, and the International Bureau of
Weights and Measures; and
(3) the metric measurement stannards
recognized and developed by the Interna-
tional Bureau of Weights and Measures have
been adopeed as the fundamental measure-
ment standards of the United States and the
customary units of weights and measures
used in the United States have been since
L893 based upon such metric measurement
standards: and
(4) the 3overnm.ents of Australia, Canada,
United Kingdom, India, Japan, New Zealand,
and the Republic of South Africa have de-
termined to convert, are converting, or have
converted eo the use of the metric syste 21 in
their respective Jurisdictions; and
(3) the United States is the only industri-
ally developed nation which has not estab-
lished a national policy committing itself
to and facilitating conversion to the metric
system; and
(6) as a result of the study to determine
the advantages and disadvantages of in-
creased use of the metric system in the
United States authorized by Public Law 90-
472 (82 Slat 693), the Secretary of com-
merce has found that increased use of the
metric System in the Unit ed States is inevita-
ble, and hits concluded that a national pro-
gram to achieve a metric changeover is desir-
able; that maximum efficiency will eestilt and
minimum aosts to effect the conversion will
be incurred if the conversion is carried out
in general without Federal subsidies; that
the goal for the changeover period be ten
years, at the end of which the Nation weuld
he predom scantly, although not exchisisely,
metric; theft a central planning and coordi-
nating body be established and assignei to
plan and coordinate the changeover in coop-
eration with all sectors of our society; and
that immediate attention be given to mince-
tion of the public and to effective United
Si steel participation in international stand-
s) ds making.
STAT:211SENT OF POLICY
SEC. 3. It is therefore declared that the
policy of the United States shall be:
(a) to change the United States to the
metric system of weights and measures in a
carefully coordinated manner in order to
reduce the cost of such changeover;
(b) to implement tis changeover to the
metric system through the voluntary par-
ticipation of the members of each affected
sector and group in the Nation;
(c) to facilitate and encourage the volun-
tary substitution of metric measurement
units for customary measurement units in
St ucation, trade, commerce and all other
sectors of the economy of the United States
v. th a view to make metric units the pre-
dominant, although not, exclusive, language
of measurement with respect to transactions
occurring after ten years from the date the
Board commerces implementation of the
changeover plan pursuant to section 11;
(d) to enceinte:a efficiency and minimize
rn erall costs to society through application
of the general principle that changeover
costs shall lie where they fall;
(e) to assist in the development of a
lamed educational program to be carried cut
in the Nation's elementary and secondary
scnools and institutions of higher learning,
as well as with the public at large, designed
to enable all Americans to think and work
in metric terms;
DEFINITIONS
SEC. 4. For the purpose of this Act--
(a) The term "metric system of measure-
meat" means the International System of
Units as established by the General Confer-
ees* of Weights and Measures in 1960 and
interpreted or modified for the United States
by the Secretary of Commerce.
(b) The term "engineering standard"
m sans a standard which Tirel-ribes a concise
se:: of conditions and requirements to be
satisfied by a material, product, process.
procedure, convention, teat method, and the
pi ysical, functional, performance and/or
conformance characteristics thereof.
(c) The term "international standard or
recommendation" means an engineering
standard or recommendation formulated
and promulgated by an international orga-
nisation and recommended for adoption by
in iividual nations as a national standard.
aseesinsiemeNe OF NATIONAL METRIC CONVER-
SION BONIVI
anc. 5. There is hereby established a Na-
tional Metric Conversion Board (hereinafter
reaerred to as the "Board") to implement the
policy set out in this Act.
4EC. EL The composition of the Board shall
be as follows:
se) twenty-one persons appointed by the
President who shall serve at his pleasure
and for such terms as he shall specify who
shell be broadly representative of the Amer-
ican society including industry, labor, busi-
ness and commerce, the consumer, educe-
tion, state and local government, science and
eneineering, and other affected groups. The
President shall designate one of the members
appointed by him to serve as Chairman and
another to serve as the Vice Chairman of the
Beard:
ib) two members of she House of Repre-
seittatives who shall nos be members of the
same political party and who shall be ap-
pointed by the Speaker of the House of Re-
presentatives; and
c) two members of the Senate who shall
not be members of the same political party
and who shall be appointed by the President
of the Senate.
;3EC. 7. No vacancy on the Board shall Ire-
par the right of the remaining members to
exercise all the powers of the Board. Eleven
e'LaJ 7, 1974
6? /7
members of the Board shall constitute a
quorum for the transaction of business.
SEC. 8. Unless otherwise provided by the
Congress, the Board shah have no compul-
sory powers.
Sec. 9. The Board shall cease to exist no
later than ten years after implementetion of
the plan begins as called or by section 11.
DUTIES OF TIN; BOARD
SEC. 10. It shall be the function of the
Board to devise and carry out a broad pro-
gram of encouragement, coordination, and
public education with tie aim of imple-
menting the policies set forth in this Act.
In carrying out this program the Board
shall?
(a) consult with and take into account
the interests and views of the United States
commerce and industry. including small
business; science; engineering; labor; educa-
tion; consumers; government agencies at the
Federal, State, and Socal level; nationally re-
cognized standards devenping and coordi-
nating organizations; and such other in-
dividuals or groups as are considered appro-
priate by the Board to carry out the pur-
poses of this section;
(b) provide for proceduees whereby indus-
try groups, under the auspices of the Board,
shall formulate and recommend to the Board
specific programs for coordinating the
changeover in each industry and segment
thereof, and for suggesting specific metric
sizes, shapes, or other measurements for gen-
eral use consistent with she needs and ca-
pabilities of manufacturers, suppliers, con-
sumers, and other interested groups, and fur-
ther consistent with the national interest;
(c) publicize, in an appropriate fashion,
such programs and provide an opportunity
for interested groups or i edividuals to sub-
mit comments on such pi grams. At the re-
quest of interested parties, the Board, in its
discretion. may hold he rings with regard
to such programs;
(d) facilitate and encourage the develop-
ment as rapidly as practicable of new or re-
vised engineering standares based on metric
measurement units in thee specifin fields or
areas in the United States where such stand-
ards will result in rations lization or simpli-
fication of relationships, improvements of de-
sign, or increases in economy consistent with
the efficient use of energy and the conserva-
tion of natural resources;
(e) facilitate and encoreage the retention
in new metric language s tandards of those
United States engineering designs, practices,
and conventions that are internationally ac-
cepted or embody superior technology;
,(f) cooperate with foreign governments and
public and private international organiza-
tions which are or become eoncerned with the
encouragement and coordination of increased
use of metric measuremmit units or engi-
neering standards based n such units, or
both, with a view to glinting international
recognition for metric standards proposed by
the United States and to encouraging reten-
tion of equivalent customary units in inter-
national standards or recommendations dur-
ing the United States chanimover period;
(g) assist the public thiough information
and educational programs so become familiar
with the meaning and app!Leability of metric
terms and measures in cli ily life. Programs
hereunder shall include:
(1) Public informant oi programs con-
ducted by the Board throm le the Use of news-
papers, magazines. radio, television, other
media, and through talks before annrapriate
citizens' groups and public organizations.
(2) Counseling and consultation by the
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare
and the Director, National Science Founda-
tion, with educational associations and
groups so as to assure the t the metric sys-
tem of measurement is mode a part of the
curriculums of the Nations educational in-
stitutions and that teachers and other ap-
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500230002-4
May 7, 1974 Approved Fcalymigingsg90141:0,2RECURIRDP-7151311183BOR000500230002-4 H 3597
4ropriate personnel are properly trained to
teach the metric system of measurement.
(3) Consultation by the Secretary of Com-
merce with the National Conference of
Weights and Measures so as to assure that
State and local weights and measures officials
are appropriately informed of the intended
metric changeover and are thus assisted in
their efforts to Taring about timely amend-
ments to weights and measures laws.
(4) Such other public information pro-
grams by any Federal agency in support of
this Act which relate to the mission of the
agency.
(h) consult, to the extent deemed appro-
priate, with foreign governments, public in-
ternational organizations, and, through ap-
propriate member organizations, provide in-
ternational standards Organizations. Contact
with foreign governments and Intergovern-
mental organizations shall be accomplished
in consultation with the Department of
State;
(1) collect, analyze, and publish informa-
tion about the extent of usage of metric
measurements, evaluate the costs and bene-
fits of metric usage, and make efforts to
minimize any adverse effects resulting from
increasing metric usage;
(j) conduct research, and publish the re-
sults of this research on any unresolved
problems associated with metric usage, in-
cluding but not limited to the impact on
workers and on different occupations and in-
dustries, possible increased costs to consum-
ers, the impact On seciety and the economy,
effects on small business, the impact on the
United States international trade position,
the appropriateness Of using Federal pro-
curement to affect conversion to the metric
system, the proper? conversion or transition
period, and effects on national defense.
SEC. 11. (a) Within twelve months after
funds have been appropriated to carry out
the provisions of this Act the Board shall, in
furtherance and in support of the policy ex-
pressed in section 3 of this Act, develop and
submit to the Secretary of Commerce for
transmittal with his reconiniendationa with-
in ninety days to the President and both
Houses of Congress, in accordance with sub-
section (b), a comprehensive plan to ac-
complish a changeover to the metric system
of measurement in the United States. Such
plan may include recommendations for leg-
islation deemed necessary and appropriate.
(b) Upon transmittal of the Plan to the
President, the plan shall be delivered to both
Houses of Congress on the ,same day and to
each House While it is in session. The Board
shall implement the plan after sixty (60)
legislative days following the date of delivery
to the Congress unless both Houses of Con-
gress by concurrent resolution shall have dis-
approved the plan, in. whole or in part, within
the same period.
? (c) If a plan is disapproved by the Con-
gress a revised plan shall be submitted by the
Board to the Secretary within sixty days.
Such revised plan shall be subject to the pro-
cedures set forth in subsections (a) and
(b).
(d) Any amendment to an approved plan
shall also be submitted by the Board to the
Secretary and the President and delivered to
the Congress in accordance with the proce-
dures ,set out in this section. Such amend-
ments shall be subject to the procedures set
forth in subsection (b).
SEC. 12. The Board shall submit annual re-
ports of its activities and progress under this
Act to the Secretary, to the President, and
to the Congress.
AUTHORITY OF 'THE BOARD
Sze. 13. -In, carrying out its duties, the
Board is authorized to:
(a) establish a Board Executive Commit-
tee, and such other Committees of the Board
as it deems desirable;
(b) establish such committees and advis-
ory panels as it deems necessary to work with
the various sectors of the American economy
and governmental agencies in the develop-
ment and implementation of detailed
changeover plans for those sectors;
(c) conduct hearings at such times and
places as it deems appropriate;
(d) enter into contracts in accordance
with the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949, as amended, with Fed-
eral or State agencies, private firms, institu-
tions, and individuals for the conduct of re-
search or surveys, the preparation of reports,
and other activities necessary to the dis-
charge of its duties;
(e) delegate to the Executive Director such
authority as it deems advisable;
(1) perform such other acts as may be
necessary to carry out the duties prescribed
by this Act.
SEC. 14. (a) The Board is hereby authorized
to accept, hold, administer, and utilize gifts,
donations, and bequests of property, both
real and personal, and personal services, for
the purposes of aiding or facilitating the
work of the Board. Gifts and bequests of
money and the proceeds from sales of other
property received as gifts or bequests shall
be deposited in the Treasury in a separate
fund and shall be disbursed upon order of
the Board.
(b) For the purpose of Federal income,
estate, and gift taxes, property accepted un-
der subsection (a) of this section shall be
considered as a gift or bequest to or for the
use of the United States.
(c) Upon the request of the Board, the
Secretary of the Treasury may invest and
reinvest in securities of the United States
any moneys contained in the fund herein
authorized. Income accruing from such se-
curities, and from any other property ac-
cepted to the credit of the fund authorized
herein, shall be disbursed upon the order of
the Board.
(d) Funds not expended by the Board at
the time of expiration of the life of the
Board shall revert to the Treasury of the
United States.
COMPENSATION OF THE BOARD
SEC, 15. Members of the Board who are
not in the regular full-time employ of the
United States shall, while attending meet-
ings or conferences of the Board or other-
wise engaged in the business of the Board,
be entitled to receive compensation at a rate
not to exceed the daily rate currently being
paid grade 18 of the General Schedule under
section 5332 of title 5, United States Code,
including traveltime, and, while so serving
on the business of the Board away from their
homes or regular places of business, they
may be allowed travel expenses; including
per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized
by section 5703 of title 5, United States Code,
for persons employed intermittently in the
Government service. Payments under this
section shall not render members of the
Board employees or officials of the United
States for any purpose. Member of the Board
who are in the employ of the United States
shall be entitled to travel expenses when
traveling on the business of the Board.
STAFF SERVICES
SEC. 16. (a) An Executive Director of the
Board shall be appointed by the President.
The Executive Director shall be responsible
to the Board for carrying out the metric con-
version program according to the provisions
of this Act and the policies established by
the Board.
(b) The Executive Director of the Board
shall serve full time subject to the provi-
sions of section 5315 of title 5, United States
Code.
SEC. 17. (a) The Board is authorized to ap-
point and fix the compensation of such staff
personnel as may be necessary to carry out
the provisions of this Act in accordance with
the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter
III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States
Code.
(b) The Board is authorized to employ ex-
perts and consultants or organizations there-
of as authorized by section 3109 of title 6,
United States Code, compensate individuals
so employed at rates not in excess of the
rate currently being paid grade 18 of the
General Schedule under section 5332 of such
title, including traveltime, and allow them,
while away from their homes or regular
places of business, travel expenses (including
per diem in lieu of subsistence) as auth-
orized by section 5703 of said title 5 for per-
sons in the Government service employed:
Provided, however, That contracts for such
temporary employment may be renewed an-
nually.
SEC. 18. Financial and administrative serv-
ices (including those related to budgeting,
accounting, financial reporting, personnel,
and procurement) and such other staff serv-
ices as may be requested by the Board shall
be provided the Board by the Secretary of
Commerce, for which payment shall be made
in advance, or by reimbursement, from funds
of the Board in such amounts as may be
agreed upon by the Chairman of the Board
and the Secretary of Commerce. In perform-
ing these functions for the Board, the Sec-
retary is authorized to obtain such informa-
tion and assistance from other Federal agen-
cies as may be necessary.
FENDS FOR THE BOARD
SEC. 19. There are hereby authorized to
be appropriated such sums as may be nec-
essary to carry out the provisions of this
Act. Appropriations to caPry out the provi-
sions of this Act may remain available for
obligation and expenditure for such period
or periods as may be specified in the Acts
making such appropriationsJ
The SPEAKER. Is a second demanded?
Mr. PARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a
second.
The SPEAKtii. Without objection, a
second will be considered as ordered.
There was no objection.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to re-
vise and extend their remarks on the
bill H.R. 11035.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the, request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in
support of H.R. 11035, the Metric Con-
version Act. This bill was reported with-
out dissenting vote by the Committee on
Science and Astronautics, and it has the
support of the administration.
In making the change to the metric
system our country is behind the rest
of the world. In fact, as the map before
you shows, with the exception of eight
small nations, Barbados, Burma, Ghana,
Liberia, Muscat and Oman, Nauru,
Sierra Leone, and Southern Yemen?
none of whom are important industrial
powers, the United States is the only
country in the world which has not made
the decision to change to the metric
system.
Twenty-five years ago many of our
important trading partners, including
Canada and England, were still using the
customary measures. Today each one of
them is making the change to the metric
system, and only America has not of-
ficially taken this step.
The purpose of the bill is to declare,
as a matter of national policy, that the
United States will convert to the metric
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500230002-4
H 3598 Approved For Re May
May 7, 19
74
system et weights and measures on a
voluntary basis. To perform this coordi-
nating function, the bill provides for the
establishment of a National Metric Con-
version Board with a Life of 10 years, and
with a membership of 21 persons broadly
representative of all sectors of Ame:dcan
society which will be affected by this
change.
The United States is now in the early
stages of converting to the metric sys-
tem. Many companies have already an-
nounced that they are changing the
sizes of their products and the standards
to which they are manufactured to the
metric system. For example, this year
the General Motors Corp. announced
that all automobiles manufactured in
the United States, including the parts
and components made by their subcon-
tractors and other suppliers, will be made
according to the metric system within
the next few years. Similarly, the school
systems of California, Maryland, and
Massachusetts have announced that
textboan will be entirely changed to the
metric system by the year 1976.
The choice before the, committee and
the Congress is not whether we should
go on the metric system or not. That
conversion has already begun. The choice
is between continuing the conversion
process sn an entirely uncoordinated
fashion, as is the case now, or going for-
ward with the conversion process on a
coordinated basis. The testimony heard
by the committee indicated that there
was widensgreement on the desirability
of going forward with this changeover.
Furthermore, it became apparent that
many firms which are now considering
conversion are only awaiting a firm
statement by the Congress and the Pres-
ident committing the United States to
the conversion and to the metric system
before they, too, adopt the metric sys-
tem. The bill includes such a policy
statement as well as provisions for the
establishment of a National Metric Con-
version Board to carry out the coordina-
tion function.
The bill declares that it shall be the
Policy of the United States to change to
the metric system in a coordinated
manner, and that the purpose of thie co-
ordination shall be to reduce the total
cost of the changeover. The changeover
shall be carried out by means of the
vountary participation of each affected
sector and group in the Nation.
In order to encourage the efficient
changeover and to minimize the over-
all costs, the general principle -hat
changeover costs shall lie where they fall
:is included in the policy statement. That
part of the changeover period involving
active Federal participation shall be 10
years and the goal of the Federal par-
ticipation in the process shall be that
after 10 years metric units shall be the
oredorninant, but not the exclusive, :.an-
guage of measurement in the United
States. Arid finally, the policy of the
United States shall be to aessiet in the
development of a broad, national pt
education program.
The bill provides for the establishment
of a National Metric Conversion Board.
The Board shall be composed of 21 per-
sons who will be appointed by the Inesi-
dent. The members shall serve at the
pleasure of the President and they shall
serve such terms as he specifies. They
saall be broadly representative of those
groups in American society which will
be affected by the changeover to the
metric system, and Laall include repre-
sentatives of industry, labor, business
and commerce, the consumer, education,
Slate and local goVenament, science and
eagineering, and other affected groups.
The membership shall include, in ad-
dition, two Members from the House of
Representatives and ,:wo Members from
the Senate of the United States. The
President shall designate one of the
Members to serve as Chairman and an-
other to serve as Vice Chairman of the
Board. The bill further provides that the
Board shall have a Pre of 10 years and
that unless otherwise provided by the
Congress it shall have no compulsory
powers.
The bill provides that the Board shall
perform three major 'unctions: The de-
velopment of a broad, overall conversion
pan for the United States, the imple-
mentation of this conversion plan in all
sectors of American society where
weights and measures are used, and the
conduct of a program of public educa-
tion in the metric system at all levels
from elementary to ae.ult education with
the objective that the American people
become familiar with the meaning and
use of metric terms and measures in
their daily lives.
The Board shall consult with and take
ir to account the interests and views of
industry, labor, the consumer, and other
groups who would be affected by the
changeover to the metric system. The
it tent of this consultaeion process is that
each sector or industry in the country
shall be asked, on a voluntary basis, to
develop its own plan for the conversion
in, the metric system in such a time pe-
riod as that group feels to be in their
own best interest insofar as efficiency
and minimum costs see concerned.
The Board shall carry out programs
of public education and information
aimed at making every citizen of the
Uaited States familiar with the metric
system. These progrems shall include
public information activities conducted
by the Board itself through the use of
newspapers, magazines, radio, television,
and other media; co asultation by the
Secretary of Health. Education, and
Welfare and by the Director of the Na-
tional Science Foundation with educa-
tion associations and other education
groups to insure that the metric system
Is made a part of the curriculum in all
of the Nation's educeeional institutions
ar.d that teachers are trained to teach
the metric system; consultation by the
Secretary of Commetce with the Na-
tional Conference of Weights and Meas-
ures to assure that weight and measure
officials in each State and local jurisdic-
tion are fully informed of the metric
changeover activities i a the country and
are assisted in their efforts to bring
aLout timely araendtre sits to weight and
in-_,asure laws; and such other public in-
formation activities by any Federal
agency which would relate to the mission
of the agency.
The bill provides the t the Board shell
prepare a comprehensive, overall metric
conversion plan for the changeover of
the United States to the metric system
In accordance with the policies estab-
lished by the act. The elan may include
recommendations for legislation deemed
necessary or appropriate by the Board.
The plan shall be completed by the
Board within the first 12 months after
funds have been appropriated to the
Board. When it is completed the plan
shall be submitted to the Secretary of
Commerce who, no later than 00 days
after he received it shall submit it to
the President and to beth Houses of the
Congress accompanied by such recom-
mendations that he deems appropriate.
The bill further provides that the plan
shall be submitted by the Secretary to
both Houses of the Congress on the same
day and on a day on which each House
is in session. The Congress after review-
ing the plan may disaporove it, in whole
or in part, by concurrent resolution
within 60 days of receipt of the plan. If
the plan is not disapproved by the Con-
gress, the Board shall implement it after
the 60-day congressional review period
has expired. If the Congress does dis-
approve the plan, then the bill provides
that the Board shall submit to the Sec-
retary of Commerce a revised plan
within 60 days of the (late of such dis-
approval.
The revised plan sisal' be submitted by
the Secretary of Cormnerce with his rec-
ommendations, if any, to the Congress
and be subject to the same period of 60
days of review and disapproval as the
original plan. If, after a plan has been
approved and implementation has be-
gun, the Board determines that there is
a need to amend the plan, an amend-
ment to the plan shall be submitted by
the Board for review and approval in the
same manner as the orieinal metric con-
version plan.
I am convinced that this bill is good
for the country. Perhaps I will never
learn the total metric system myself,
but there is no doubt thst today's school-
children will learn it sooner or later, and
before long the housewife who goes shop-
ping will understand it.
American industry has begun to adopt
the metric system in ginwing numbers,
and those companies which are going
metric are doing so because it makes
economic sense. Even though the change
involves added cost, they are going ahead
because in the long run the change will
more than pay for itself
But the change to the metric system is
proceeding in an entirely uncoordinated
manner with the result- that the total
cost of going metric is much higher than
it needs to be, mainly because it will take
longer. This bill will provide a way to
reduce the time of the transition period
and thereby reduce the total cost.
I want to :tress, however, that H.R.
11035 would preserve the right of each
Individual and each business firm to de-
cide whether to go metric. The bill pro-
vides that the adoption of" the metric sys-
tem shall be entirely voluntary. As noted.
the bill would establish a National Metric
Conversion Board which, among other
things, would have the job of assisting
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500230002-4
May 7, 1974 Approved Fortisitmffitinta9 itieblET75RIZMR000500230002-4
those who want to adopt the metric sys-
tem and coordinate the change with
others in the same industry.
The life of the Board would be limited
to 10 years. After that time period we
expect that the metric system would be
In general use in our schools and indus-
try, although the customary units might
still be found in many places where it is
advantageous to keep them.
The Committee on Science and As-
tronautics has had this subject under
study since 1959. In 1988 our work led to
the enactment of Public Law 90-472
which called upon the Secretary of Com-
merce to investigate and appraise the
relative merits of adopting or not adopt-
ing the metric system. The result of the
- -Study was the report "A Metric America"
which was issued in 1971. It recom-
mended the adoption of the metric sys-
tem over a 10-year period.
H.R. 11035 was reported by the com-
mittee after extensive hearings last
spring. I know that some would like a bill
that goes further by providing subsidies.
The committee concluded that this would
be unwise and that no exceptions should
be made to the general principle that
"costs shall lie where they fall." A sim-
ilar bill was passed by the Senate in the
92d Congress which followed this same
Principle.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 11035 is a step in
the right direction for America. I urge its
adoption by the House today.
Mr. Speaker, we will have this map in
front of the House for just a few minutes.
The white shows the countries not com-
mitted to the metric system, and the
colored portion shows the countries that
are committed to the metric system. It
is very easy to see where our country
stands.
Mr. Speaker, regardless of what is said
following what I have to say, this bill is
completely voluntary. It does not cost
One single solid cent, except for the ad-
ministration of the bill. It is simply an at-
tempt to try to give guidance to some-
thing that is happening in a haphazard
way.
Mr. Speaker, the committee held ex-
tensive hearings on this bill. It has been
pending in the Congress since 1886. I
never expect to learn the metric system,
and the only reason I am supporting the
bill is because I think it is good for our
country.
There are statements being made
. about this bill that are absolutely false,
and I hope the Members will take the
time to know ,what is in the bill and will
support the bill.
Mr. MOSHER. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. TEAGUE. I yield to the gentleman
from Ohio.
Mr. MOSHER. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
I am sure the gentleman from Texas
will agree with me that we on the Science
Committee fully understand the con-
cern that has been expressed for possibly
the impact on small business as a result
of this bill.
With that in 'mind, as an effort to
make legislative history today, will the
gentleman from Texas respond as to
whether or not he agrees with the follow-
/
ing statement I am going to read, which
is in a few brief paragraphs?
It is definitely the understanding and
intent of our committee that small busi-
nesses should be able to get loans under
the provisions of the Bible amendment
to section 7(b) of the Small Business
Act in order to meet special economic
hardship S that might result from pas-
sage of this metric bill.
For example, a small business that
could be eligible in our view for an eco-
nomic disaster relief loan would be a
parts supplier to a? major firm that
decides to go metric and informs its sup-
pliers that they must convert immedi-
ately to metric output in order for their
products to be used in the future by the
big firm.
- I spoke just a few hours ago with the
Small Business Administrator, our for-
mer colleague, Tom Kleppe, and he told
me that he agrees with our belief that
Bible amendment assistance would be
available to small firms forced to con-
vert capital equipment to metric faster
than they would normally replace their
equipment.
The Commerce Department and the
Office of Management and Budget agree
wtih this opinion, according to conver-
sations we had with them this morning.
The committee feels that this loan as-
sistance is completely in keeping with
the "no cost" nature of this legislation
and that it is consistent with our in-
tent to let the costs of conversion lie
where they fall. The small business would
be required to pay back the full loan
plus the Government's cost of borrowing.
The SBA loans, though, are clearly nec-
essary to assure that the small firms can
get the capital they need in this time of
tight money and exorbitant interest
rates.
To get the best perspective on the so-
called Bible amendment I would like to
quote briefly from Senator BIBLE'S state-
ment on the floor of the Senate on Febru-
ary 7, 1973, when he introduced his leg-
islation:
I believe that a uniform approach of one
statute would be desirable and would avoid
many problems. It would consolidate the ex-
isting enactments under a single statute and
provide a single framework for the exten-
sion of this loan program to other fields.
We believe that helping small business into
compliance with new governmental stand-
ards is sensible and it is also sound as a
budget matter.
Finally, let me note that the National
Small Business Association, representing
almost 50,000 independent firms, has
written to me advising that they support
this bill as long as they are assured
eligibility for SBA economic disaster re-
lief loans.
Mr. TEAGUE. I would certainly agree
with the gentleman from Ohio and
would not object at all to it being writ-
ten in the bill. I know the gentleman is
attempting to make legislative history.
I certainly agree with the gentleman
from Ohio.
(Mr. MOSHER asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-
tleman yield?
113599
Mr. TEAGUE. I yield to the gentle-
man from California.
(Mr. BELL asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, today, I would
like to urge my colleagues to unanimous-
ly support H.R. 11035, the Metric Con-
version Act of 1973. As the ranking mi-
nority member of the Subcommittee on
Science, Research and Development that
originally investigated this legislation, I
can attest to the fact that this particular
measure is both necessary and beneficial
to our country.
The Metric Conversion Act of 1973
would convert America's system of
weights and measures from the custom-
ary inches, feet, pounds, and quarts to
the metric system of centimeters, meters,
kilograms, and liters. Currently, the
United States is joined in its resistance
to the metric system only by Barbados,
Burma, Gambia, Ghana, Jamaica, Li-
beria, Muscat and Oman, Nauru, Sierra
Leone, Southern Yemen, Tonga, and
Trinidad.
I am convinced that this change is
both inevitable and beneficial, and that
we must now move to accomplish the
change in a planned, orderly and equi-
table fashion. Metric conversion will
provide three large areas of benefit to
the United States. First, America's posi-
tion in international trade will be sub-
stantially improved. Second, once com-
pleted, it should yield great savings at
home and in industry because of its in-
herently great efficiency. I also believe
that metric conversion by the United
States would make a significant aspect
of daily life truly international by bring-
ing the peoples ,of the world closer to-
gether.
The bill before us today, H.R. 11035,
declares a national policy of converting
to the metric system and establishes a
National Metric Conversion Board to co-
ordinate the conversion activities over
a period of 10 years. It is important to
point out and to emphasize that this
conversion is entirely voluntary.
At this time I would like to remind
my fellow colleagues that many indus-
tries are presently in the process of con-
verting to the metric system; many in-
dustries have already converted to the
system; many industries are currently
working in a system using standard
measurements at home and metric
measurements abroad. This latter sys-
tem is extremely costly, but nevertheless
must be in existence if a company desires
to remain in the foreign market. A prime
example of this is in the automobile in-
dustry. In our country today there are
many cars on the market with metric
components.
It is inevitable that we will consistently
increase our use of the metric system,
even in the absence of congressional ac-
tion. It would seem, therefore, that the
wise decision for Congress to make at
this time would be to provide the coun-
try with an orderly and effective means
for metric conversion. Individual States
have already taken the initiative in this
regard. California is leading the Nation
in metrification. By the fall of 1976 all
mathematics and science textbooks used
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500230002-4
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA7RDP_75BQ0380M00500230002-4
H 3600 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOU ay 7, 1974
in all California schools will use only
metric measurements. Ohio has road
signs designated in metric and Maryland
is fast following California's lead in the
area of education.
The time has come for Congress to take
the Initiative?we cannot wait until
there is a "crisis situation" before we
convert to metric. H.R. 11035 gives us the
opportunity, not to surge forward and
become pioneers, but rather to :catch
up with the other nations of the world.
The United States needs H.R. 11035 and
we cannot afford to delay this legislation
any longe:.
Mr. TEAGUE. There is no question
that California is in the lead and we hope
all our schools will be going to the metric
system.
Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. TEAGUE. I yield to the gentle-
man from Indiana.
Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Speaker. I appreci-
ate the gentleman yielding.
As the gentleman knows, this is really
quite an important bill, and it goes into
a great many fundamental aspects of
American society, including business and
education and the military and the gen-
eral economy. It gets right down into the
daily lives of the American people', and,
as the gentleman said a minute ago, we
do not know a great deal about it,
What I find it difficult to underst and,
I may say to the gentleman from Texas,
Is why a bill of this magnitude is brought
here under a suspension of the rules with
20 minutes debate on each side and with
no opportunity to educate ourselves. It
does seem to me a bill of this kind ought
to be brought hi here with a rule and
with opportunity to discuss it and also
to amend it. I regret that the gentle-
man and his committee have seen :et to
try to do this under a suspension. It is
too important a bill.
Mr. TEAGUE. I would say to the gen-
tleman from Indiana I agree with him
completely. Our committee went to the
Rules Committee and asked for an open
rule on this bill. They not only gave us
an open rule but they also made Le or-
der amendments that were subject to a
point of order. That is exactly the rea-
son this bill is brought before the House
the way it is.
Mr. DENNIS. The gentleman is just
saying he got a rule and he does not want
to use I think we ought to have a
rule.
Mr. TEAGUE. We got a rule making
in order amendments that were subject
to a pant of order. This is a complete
reversal of what we have been hearing
here about closed rules. We did net ask
for a closed rule. We asked for an Open
rule, but we certainly did not expect the
comMittee to give us a rule makieg in
order amendments the committee had
considered thoroughly and had voted
down. The Rules Committee not only
wanted to give us a rule but they also
wanted to write the bill.
Mr. DENNIS. I appreciate the gen-
tleman's statement, but the rest of us
have some input besides the Rules Com-
mittee and the gentleman's committee. It
is nevertheless true that withoue any
nee at all we are going to try to ram
ths through the House with 20 minutes
foi each side under a suspension of the
ru es.
Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Speaker, I will
agree with the gentleman, but I still
de not expect the Committee on
Riles to rewrite the bill after all this
herd work has been done on it.
gr. PARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. MeCeoay).
Mr. MeCLORY. Mr Speaker, I want
to agree wholeheartedly with the chair-
men of the committee. I would support
this measure coming to the floor of the
Reuse under an open rule.
I testified before the Committee on
Riles in that behalf; but what hap-
pened was that the Rules Committee
gi anted a special rule which permits
ti is coming to the floor of the House?
w th the right to offer nongermane
amendments in violation of the House
Rales?amendments which are desired
by certain limited elements of organized
labor. These proposed nongermane
amendments are contrary to the whole
pi rpose and purport of this bill and
would require the waiving rules. The
is easure before us would establish a Fed-
e i al mechanism enebling the private
economy and our private educational in-
stitutions to voluntarily convert to the
is etric system over a 10- to 12-year pe-
riod. However, those nongermane
amendments would make a boondoggle
pl.ecisely of the kind trie gentleman from
Indiana is opposed to
I sponsored a much stronger bill, but I
reconciled myself to supporting this bill
e hich comes eo the ['Weir of the House
today, even though I felt we needed a
lot more discipline because we are lag-
ging behind. As the map which was
displayed indicated, we are the last in-
dustrial country in the world that has
rot converted, or is not in the course of
cenverting to the metric system.
Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MeCLe)RY, I yield to the gentle-
r ian from Indiana
Mr. DENNIS. I just wonder what the
Ii ig rush is, We have been 200 years with-
cut this.
Mr. MeCLORY. Let me answer that.
Mr, DENNIS. This is one of the last
things the people in my district, whom I
represent, are asking for.
Mr. MeCLORY. Me. Speaker, there is
ito great rush here. We have been at this
rince the founding of our Nation. In
1790 George Washington directed
Thomas Jefferson, who was then Secre-
t ary of State, to investigate the subject
of a system of weiehts and measures.
This authority to fix standards of weights
and measures is provided in the Consti-
tution, as the gentleman knows. In 1821
Secretary of State John Quincy Adams
recommended that the new French sys-
tem would be a viable system for our
Nation to adopt.
In 1968 the Congress authorized a 3-
'ear study, a very responsible 3-year
study which was completed and came to
is and to every Member of Congress in
July 1971. This report provided the pre-
cise kind of mechanism that we are
recommending today
It has taken a long time to get this
measure to the floor of the House and
it has taken a long time for this Nation
to come of age, so far as the adoption of
a viable system of weigh LS and measures
which we can use on an international
basis. Today is the day of decisio:n and
today is the day when the Congress
of the United States should :recog-
nize that we are in the 20th century,
that we are a world power dealing with
nations throughout the world with whom
we have to carry on extensive trade and
commerce. That is the reason why this
legislation can benefit the entire Nation.
The educational institutions of our
country are already converting. General
Motors is already convecting and 40,000
General Motors suppliers are already
converting.
it is possible, of course, that they may
want to do it in their own private indi-
vidual way; but I say that the Federal
Government has a responsibility to es-
tablish the mechanism by which all in-
dustry may act on a volentary basis, and
so that all education on a voluntary
basis over a 10- or le-year period of
time may convert to the metric system of
measurements.
The nongermane amendments that I
expect will be offered, if this measure
comes to the floor under the rule voted
by the Rules Committee, will authorize
Federal handouts, in the form of Fed-
eral subsidies, gratuities, and loans for
businesses and for workers.
Let me say that 14e,000 automobile
repair shops without any Federal sub-
sidies, and without any Federal compul-
sion, are already repaii ing foreign cars
manufactured according to metric meas-
urements. We do not reed that kind of
a subsidy program. Our private economy
can and should absorb the costs. We
should "let the costs lie where they
fall"?as the report recommends. The
exaggerated estimates :if what this Pro-
gram of gradual conve rsion would cost
are outlandish.
Every nation that h s converted has
found tremendous advantages which de-
velop in the course of conversion, and
the costs are not what they are estimated
to be. In the course oe converting they
have developed labor-eaving and cost-
saving. practices. Converting to the met-
ric system would enable the Nation to
Improve and advance.
Let me suggest that we support this
bill today. The bill after it leaves here,
of course, will go to time Senate; but I
think this is a good bill in its present
form. All the offers of amendments have
been reconciled by the .ornmittee. I have
resigned myself to take this bill in this
form.
The other amendments that the gen-
tleman from Hawaii Ala MATSITNAGA)
would like to offer were carefully con-
sidered by the committee over a long
period of time. This is a very late date in,
our history for us to consider this leg-
elation. I hope it will be adopted and
approved overwhelmingly today.
Mr. Speaker, even without this legis-
lotion the United States is in the process
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500230002-4
Approved Foratrese.20&1/08/2
May 7, 1974 Ktsaiumat9likl'hitir-ZIWPAR000500230002-4 H 3601
of converting to the metric system of
weights and measures. The present legis-
lation, H.R. 11035, does not determine
whether or not this country will go met-
ric. However, what we decide here today
answers a simple question?will the
changeover to the metric system in this
country result from costly drift, or will it
progress through efficient design? In my
opinion, we must, by passing this bill,
bring our unplanned and uncoordinated
drift to a halt and provide a structure for
change, which will thereby save the peo-
ple of this country millions of dollars that
otherwise will be lost through inefficiency
and waste.
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier,
Thomas Jefferson, then Secretary of
State under President Washington, at-
tempted to establish a uniform and stable
system of weights and measures, in which
all units of measure would be divisible by
10. At about this same time the metric
system was developed in France. It pos-
sessed many qualities that had appealed
to Jefferson, and it has had great and
lasting influence throughout the world.
Mr. Speaker, to a degree Jefferson's
early efforts in this country bore fruit,
but only after the passage of many years.
The Congress sanctioned the metric sys-
tem in 1866 for use in this country. Later
this country endorse the Treaty of the
Meter and joined every other major
country in the world in endorsing the
metric system as the internationally pre-
ferred system of weights and measures.
In 1893, the metric system was adopted
as the standard of measure for this Na-
tion.
-All during this time there were great
pressures applied to Congress to prevent
the country from adopting the metric
system as the predominant language of
measure. There were several reasons for
this obdurate opposition. For example,
some people objected to the metric sys-
tem beeause it was considered to be "for-
eign" and thus not to be trusted. Foreign,
however, did not mean England and its
dependencies. These English-speaking
countries represented our major trading
partners. Along with Japan, these same
countries are still major trading part-
ners?but with a difference. They have
all made conversion to the metric sys-
tem. Thus, if we are to retain our old
trading partners, remain competitive,
and enlarge our position in world trade,
we too must convert to metric.
? This is a step that many companies
have recognized as vital and have taken
on their own initiative, allowing costs
to lie where they fall. For example, one
of the most outspoken opponents of the
metric system for many years was the
automobile industry, but it has now be-
gun a voluntary conversion program.
This step was not taken because the in-
dustry suddenly realized that the metric
system was the superior kind of meas-
ure?only becau-e it became economi-
cally necessary to convert and thereby
remain competitive.
Mr. Speaker, so far in this country eco-
nomic compulsion has been the driving
farce for voluntary conversion. H.R.
11035 will retain this free enterprise
characteristic. The bill calls for a volun-
tary conversion over a 10-year period so
that at the end of the goal year, 1986, the
Nation will be predominantly but not ex-
clusively metric. Thus, large and small
business and other sectors of the econ-
omy are not being compelled to convert
to the metric system. To the contrary,
all segments of our society will volun-
tarily decide to convert when it becomes
economically feasible, if not proffitable,
for them to do so. The Metric Conversion
Board, made up of representative seg-
ments of our economy, will coordinate
and plan continuing metric conversion,
taking all viewpoints into consideration.
In addition, it is important to point
out that attempts by certain groups to
adversely influence the Congress against
metric conversion by citing conversion
costs of billions of dollars, with little or
no real substantiation for such claims,
have been of no avail. Up to this time we
have had no such costs and we expect
none in the future. If this country was
not already going metric and if adopting
this legislation meant that we would in
a mandatory way change over to metric
the next day, then and only then would
conversion costs be' of the proportions
claimed by these groups. Out of consid-
eration of and concern for conversion
costs, Congress decided to extend the
voluntary conversion period over 40
years?more time may be granted by the
Metric Conversion Board if it is neces-
sary?so that we can have a reasonable
length of time in which to convert. In
10 years many instruments, machines,
and so forth, will wear out, and can be re-
placed with metric equivalents. It is the
intent of Congress that at the end of 10
years we will be predominantly but not
exclusively metric. Thus, we are tacitly
recognizing that the process of conver-
sion may not be 100-percent completed
after 10 years, but that which may re-
main will have been planned for and
coordinated with the rest of the econ-
omy.
Mr. Speaker, three labor unions,
which by no means represent all labor,
have been making claims about huge
conversion costs and how such costs will
hurt the worker and the country. We
know that over 10 years the costs will not
be high and that in the experience of
the rest of the world, the workers, have,
indeed, benefited from metric conversion.
For example, I recently received a tele-
gram from the English Metrication
Board in London, in which it is made
quite clear that workers in Great Britain
have supported metric conversion. The
main point English labor wanted to make
clear was that it did not favor a pro-
longed conversion period. The telegram
reported that by the end of 1973 over 80
percent by value of all new design in
Great Britain was metric, except in the
public sector where the changeover is
virtually accomplished. In addition, al-
most all materials and components are
now being made in metric sizes in that
country.
Mr. Speaker, I have been told that in
every country in the world that has re-
cently undertaken metric conversion the
workers have supported such a change. I
can only conclude that they have taken
such a position because it serves their
best interests. Thus, I am sure that the
majority of the workers in the United
States support metric conversion and the
present legislation. Experience in this
country has shown that companies re-
place measurement-sensitive tools for
their workers and provide on-the-Job in-
struction of the metric system to their
workers, some of whom have found the
metric system easier to learn than the
customary system and have said so for
publication.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to note
that most of the tools used by workers in
this country and elsewhere are not meas-
urement sensitive, that is, very few tools
now in use would have to be replaced
with metric tools. For example, a car-
penter may need a new measuring tape
or simply use the metric measure on his
dual unit tape, but he will not need to
buy new hammers, saws, nails, et cetera.
For auto mechanics, such a changeover
will make little difference since they have
been repairing metric made foreign autos
for years and have had the tools for just
as long.
Mr. Speaker, in regard to education,
we have been instructing our young
scientists and engineers for many years
in the use of the metric system. It is
worthy of our attention to note that the
metric system has been and still is the
language of measure in our outstanding
and famous scientific community. Most
of our scientific institutions are pre-
dominantly metric and have been for
years. In regard to general public in-
struction, I have heen told that Cali-
fornia has begun the conversion process
in all of its public schools, and that other
State school systems are taking similar
stens.
Mr. Speaker. I have a deep and abiding
faith and confidence in the ability of the
American People to learn and adapt to
new conditions, even a different manner
of measure. There are abundant exam-
ples of this ability to ehange throughout
our history and even in the present. This
Is what makes our country great and
strong. However, the nnestion is not will
we change, but how will we change? This
is what is so trivial about this legislation.
In order to prevent waste, dunlication
of effort, and other costly nroblems, we
must have a structure for a planned
change. This is the only way to prevent
waste and the astronomical costs and
damage to workers. Some groups are so
overly concerned about their particular
interests that they fail to recognize the
voluntary nature of our planned and co-
ordinated conversion to metric. They fail
to understand that each sector of the
economy will be renresentod and have its
interests represented on the Metric Con-
version Poerd. In another regard, we
must coordinate and promote metric
conversion if this Notion is to have any
"romance on the estal-lishment of world
metric standards. in which we must par-
ticinate antivolg?if we are to remain
cebronetittee In world markets. I call upon
.all eollea Press tn sonnort the present
legislation and vote for its nassage.
Mr. Speaker, why it is that when we
propose a Federal program?or we pro-
pose the cooperation and assistance of a
Federal department or agency?we feel
Approved For Release 2001/08/29: CIA-RDP75600380R000500230002-4
H3402
Approved For Retwalpg96319ACM8g53BOMOE00500230002-4
there has to be a Federal 81Ibt.,idy, (do
not know.
Opponents of this legislation teday,
purporting to speak for the working men
and women of the Nation, want ts to
vote a subsidy, a gratuity, for tools for
workmen?or reparation. The working
men and women of the Nation are not
so useless?so helpless?that they cannot
secure their own tools?without the cre-
ation of s, new Federal bureaucracy and
a handout of Federal funds.
According to my advice there are 145,-
100 automobile repair shops in this coun-
try, all of which already have the tools
with which they can repair Volkswag-
ens?and other cars made accordin g to
the metric system.
Carpenters will be able to use their
same hammers. And it will take tnem
but a few hours to adjust to the use of
centimeters and wears on their new
rules and squares and other measuring
devices.
And whatever they do, they will do
voluntarily with the other ce.rpenters
end tradesmen?over a 10- or 12-year
period--with a maximum of coopera-
tion?and a minimum of governmental
interferenee?as well as a minimum of
personal expense--or inconvenience.
This is a relatively weak bill. It pro-
vides very little in the way of Federal
compulsion. In my view, we would bene-
fit far more from a measure which con-
tained greater discipline?and which
would avoid the opportunities for virtual
nullification of this legislation by the
possible disapproval of a metric conver-
sion plan ar other steps which are pos-
sible under the pending measure,
But one saving?all important--f ea-
tareof ti-ns bin is that it does not pro-
vide for Federal subsidies or grants or
gratuities which would convert the whole
sabiect to metric coriversion into a
bureaucratic boondoggle, and a maze of
confusion, favoritism, and conflict.
Let me ask, for instance, what justifi-
cation could we have for providing Fed-
eral grants to any eeonomic segment of
our society whether it be in the area of
education, or in behalf of business large
or small, or the working men and worr.en
of the country, unless at the same time
we were willing to provide equal benefits
for those educational institutions and
systems which have already undertaken
a program of metric conversion with
their own resources, their own funds, or
with monee borrowed in order to carry
out a voluntary program, including funds
which they have already rePaYed-
The metric study which was under-
taken over a period of 3 years, and
which was followed by a survey of busi-
ness, large and small, as well as the edu-
cetional community and other areas of
interest in this subject, indicated no
justification for any such subsidy or
grant programs. The report contained a
flat proposal that the costs shall fall
where they lie. Indeed, that has been the
experience of other nations. This bill car-e
ries out that principle and avoids that
hazard to the maximum.
And I urge you to give it your over-
whelming support.
Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii
(Mr. Merstreece) .
(Mr. MATS ()NAGA asked and was
given permission to reeise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MATSUNAGA. :.fr. Speaker, I rise
In reluctant opposition to the motion to
ss spend the rules an pass H.R. 11015,
the proposed Metric Conversion Act of
l73.
My reluctance stem, from two sources.
First, I find myself cepoeing two great
ft:ends fog whern I ha ve the greatest re-
spect, the distinguished gentleman from
Texas (Mr. TeAcue) . and the distin-
guished gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Diens), the chairmen of the full com-
mittee and the subcommittee, respec-
tively, out of which th bill was reported.
These two gentlemen have worked dili-
gently to come up wieh a measure that
would ease the trauma of metric transi-
tion for as many Americans as possible.
Second, I find mvsele in the most awl:-
ward position of opposing the passage of
a Jill which, in principle, I favor. As a
matter of fact, I hone sponsored bills
similar to H.R. 11035 in this Congress and
the 92d Congress. My abjections go, not
to the substance of Het. 11035, but to its
being considered under suspension of the
rues.
H.R. 11035 was the eubject of intense
consideration in the R les Committee, of
which lam a member, A rule was granted
foi this bill on March 11 of this year. It
is an open rule, permitting full and open
discussion of the merits of the bill and
of any amendments a Member of the
House might wish to offer. It also makes
in -order the offering of two possibly non-
get mane amendments, covering matters
which were considered by the legislative
committee but rejected
Yet today the House is being asked to
approve this highly controversial bill
under a procedure neore properly re-
served for noncontroversial matters?a
procedure which completely precludes
any amendments.
I am convinced that at least three
amendments to H.R. 11035 are necessary.
The first is one to ext:nd the transition
period from 10 years to 15 years. The
committee took its 10-year figure directly
from the study, "A Metric America,"
from which the basic conversion,recom-
naendation was taken. 'filet study offers
no solid justification for choosing 10
years. Some wanted mote time, the study
said, and some wanted less. My own con-.
taces among business nd labor repre-
seneatiyes almost universally favor a
longer transition period The administra-
tion, through the Department of Com-
merce, has informed it that it "would
have no objection te extending the
changeover period Iron 10 to 15 years
and prolonging the life of the Board
from 10 to 15 Team."
Another amendment I am unable to
offer today because of the procedural set-
ting concerns small t isinessmen. My
amendment would make eligible for SBA
loans those small busineesmen who would
suffer serious economic ajury as a result
of the conversion plan. The National
Federation of Indepee dent Business,
May 7 1974
with about 350,000 members, testified
some time ago that it would oppose any
metric bill not includit g this loan au-
thorization. In fact, the "Metric Amer-
ica" study admitted th et:
The Gocernment wouli have a special
responsiblity toward smog businessmen in
the conversion period, and that training pro-
grams and other forms of t clinical assistance
might warrant Goyernmet support.
The third amendment to H.R. 11035
which I am being deniee the privilege of
offering, relates to worker assistance.
Many thousands of int- ividual workers
are required by empleeers to furnish
their own tools. Many work for several
employers in the course of a year. One
labor union alone, the .Ttlited Brother--
hood of Carpenters an 1 Joiners, esti-
mates that its members would lose some
$350 million dollars if H. n. 1 1035 were to
pass as reported. It is b .yond the tech-
nical capacity of an individual Member
to calculate what the iverall costs of
worker assistance might be; indeed, the
committee itself finds it impossible to put
an accurate price tag on overall conver-
sion. So my amendment [s formulated in
the most flexible terms tossible, to give
the Board the authority needed to assist
workers who would be injured by the
conversion. This, too, was recognized by
the "Metric America" study. In addition
to technical training tea. self-employed
craftsmen, which "migla warrant Gov-
ernment support," the re c)r t states that:
Workers loss of exper!er-_?e would be real
an..substantlal, and that 1. would be impor-
tant to ensure that this problem is dealt with
equitably in the design of e national plan.
Mr. Speaker, the undelying principle
in HR. 110:35 is that metric conversion
should "let the costs lie where they fall."
This ignores the fact thin ' the legislation
itself causes the costs to fall differently
than if no legislation were enacted.
indeed, if the legislatiot, were not de-
signed to speed up the onversiert proc-
ess, there would be hitt le justification
for it.
Unfortunately, the suspension proce-
dure provides no opportunity to debate
these issues fully. I urge my colleagues,
therefore, to oppose passage of H.R.
11035 under suspension ( f the rules, so
that it can be considered under the rule
already accorded it by the Rules Com-
mittee.
Mr. TEAGUE. Will he gentleman
yield for just 1 minute foe a question?
Mr. MATSUNAGA. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Texas.
Mr. TEAGUE. Did the eentleman ap-
pear before the committee or express any
interest in these ideas before it went to
the Rules Committee?
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Did t: appear before
the committee?
Mr. TEAGUE. Yes.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. No, because I was
not notified as to when thc hearings were
being held.
Mr. TEA CRIE. At the be sinning of this
Congress it was announce ,1 that this bill
would be taken up. If the tentleinan had
been really interested, he would have
let it be known.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. n'peaker, I will
point out to the gentleman that the
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500230002-4
May
7, 1974
Approved
F?r 08M 1A-E'^P75(Dru"NR000500230002-4
551Ma9 itiC011115 tuot
amendments Which I propose were even
recommended by his study called "Metric
America." Why the gentleman's com-
mittee, after 3 years of study coming up
with a recommendation, turned down
the recommendations, I do not know.
Mr. TEAGUE. If the gentleman will
yield further, every amendment the
gentleman has suggested was considered
and. was voted down.
In fact, some of them were considered
so far out of line that they did not even
vote on them. The amendments were
considered in committee, and the De-
partment of Commerce recommended 10
years; they did not recommend 15 years.
Mr. Speaker, I would not object to 15
years. It is completely voluntary. There
Is not one compulsory thing in this bill
except to provide for a study.
The SPEAKER. The time of the gentle-
man from Hawaii (Mr, MATSVNAGA has.
expired.
Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2
additional minutes td the gentleman
from Hawaii (IY1r. MATSIINAGA).
Mr. McCLORY. Mr, Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, I
wish first to respond to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Teaotra) and then I
will yield to the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. McCLORY).
The gentleman will recall that when
this measure was taken before the C0111-
mittee on Rules, hearings were held. At
that time real interest was created
among labor representatives, and the
Carpenters Union, in particular, was
really concerned ablaut this bill as it was
reported out by the gentleman's com-
mittee, and its representatives suggested
an amendment. I would like to offer such
an amendment. ,
Mr. Speaker, the small businessmen's
association, the National Federation of
Independent Business, consisting of
350,000 or more members throughout the
-United States, voiced opposition to the
bill as it was reported out of the gentle-
man's committee, and I proposed to quell
that objection by offering an amend-
ment, as was proposed by that business-
men's association.
These amendments, the gentleman
Will recall, are in keeping with recom-
mendations in the committee's very own
report called "A Meta ic Amerlea."
Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will
check, he will find that to be so. I see
that the gentleman is shaking his head.
The amendments which I propose to
offer, in any event, were discussed fully
in the committee and rejected. But why
should we not, under the open rule which
was granted by the Committee,on Rules,
have an open debate here on the floor,
and allow the House to determine
whether the amendments should be
adopted or rejected?
I am all for the bill. As the gentleman
knows, I was one of only four members
in the Committee on Rules who voted to
report the bill out in its original form
under an Open rule. That effort, how-
ever, failed, and it was only after I had
worked up an amended rule, making
my amendments in order, that the rule
was granted. All I am asking is that the
bill, H.R. 11035, be called up for con-
sideration by the House under that rule,
instead of under suspension of the rules.
Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MATSUNAGA. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Texas.
Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Speaker, I will ask
the gentleman one more question:
Did not the report state that the costs
shall be borne where they lie?
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, this
Is what the ,committee proposal intends
to do. However?
Mr. TEAGUE. It is what the report
says.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Yes, the report
says that, and my amendments would
put the costs squarely where they lie, and
would be directly in line with what the
committee intended.
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
The SPEAKER. The time of the gen-
tleman from Hawaii (Mr. MATSUNAGA)
has expirecL
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, I re-
gret that I do not have any further time
in which to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. TEAGUE_ Mr. Speaker I yield 1
additional minute to the gentleman from
Hawaii (Mr. MATSUNAGA), SO that the
gentleman from Illinois may ask a ques-
tion.
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MATSUNAGA. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Illinois.
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Speaker, the ques-
tion I have is this:
The legislation before us provides that
there would be a plan which would .come
back to the House of Representatives
after a year, and there would be 60 days
provided within which_ the House and
the Senate could disapprove the plan.
Among the powers given to the Metric
Conversion Commission is the power to
recommend legislation for the House
and the Senate to consider. So that if
any such legislation was recommended
by them or by the representatives of
labor, under the Metric Planning Com-
mission, if it was recommended that we
should have a subsidy provided for labor,
and that we should pay for the tools of
the working men and provide subsidies
for an educational program?which I do
not think is essential at all?but if that
were decided, then we would have an
opportunity at a later time to pass upon
that proposition.
We do not need, Mr. Speaker, ta build
this provision into the bill at the present
time and create another bureaucratic
monster.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, I was
granted 1 additional minute so that the
gentleman could ask a question, not make
a statement.
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Speaker, I will ask
the gentleman: Is that not a fact, that it
would be in the bill and we could get
those proposals from the Commission as
provided?
The SPEAKER. The time of the gentle-
man from Hawaii (Mr. MATSUNAGA) has
expired.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, I am
afraid the genticman has used all the
time at my disposal.
11 3603
Mr. PARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4
minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Gitoss).
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield for 30 seconds?
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I will yield
to the gentleman if he will yield me addi-
tional time.
Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Speaker, I will yield
to the gentleman whatever time I use.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congrat-
ulate the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Gaoss) for coming before the committee
and offering his thoughts. The gentleman
gave us his views, after giving a lot of
thought and study to this bill, which I
know the gentleman opposes.
Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman
from Texas for his remarks and say to
him that while we are on opposite sides
of this issue it is not often we find our-
selves so arrayed.
Mr. Speaker, before the end of this
debate of only 40 minutes, on a bill that
is estimated to cost the people of this
country between $60 billion and $100
billion, I would like to hear an explana-
tion of why it is before us under suspen-
sion of the rules instead of the rule that
was granted some 6 weeks ago that would
have permitted 2 hours.
Mr. TEAGUE. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. GROSS. I would like to make my
statement.
Mr. TEAGUE. I will yield the gentle-
man another minute if,he will allow me
time to answer that.
Mr. GROSS. How many minutes did
the gentleman yield?
Mr. TEAGUE. It is the amendments
that have been offered that would cost
$60 billion. It is not what is in the bill
but it is the amendments that have been
offered that would cost that.
Mr. GROSS. How much time did the
gentleman yield, Mr. Speaker,
Mr. TEAGUE. Whatever I used I will
yield.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, how imuch
time did the gentleman consume?
The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman
from Texas yield 1 minute to the gentle-
man from Iowa?
Mr. TEAGUE. I yield the gentleman 1
minute.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, last year I
presented to the House a study by the
General Accounting Office which thor-
oughly discredited the Department of
Commerce report urging the establish-
ment of an accelerated program to con-
vert this country to the metric system.
I asked the GAO to make a study of
the report because I suspected it was
biased. Those suspicions were fully con-
firmed.
I have also obtained a transcript of a
meeting held by members of the Com-
merce Department's Metric System Study
Advisory Panel, at which the Depart-
ment's report to Congress was discussed.
Mr. Speaker, this document is a blue-
print of how to deceive the American
people and Congress. I do not believe I
have ever read a more damning record
of such intent.
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500230002-4
II 3604
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP751300380R000500230002-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE fay
The writers of the Commerce Depart-
ment report, urging conversion to the
metric system, were afraid that if the
American people knew the true costs of
this project they would reject it out of
hand. So, they simply decided not to tell
them. And they decided not to tell the
Members of Congress.
The comments of members of the ad-
visory panel are most interesting. These
people knew the cost of the proposed
conversion would be a staggering $60 bil-
lion or more. Not $10 billion, or $20 bil-
lion, but $60 billion.
It bothered panel member William J.
Harris, a vice president of the Associa-
tion of American Railroads. He said:
I think the $60 billion figure is just going
to stick in people's minds and . . stick in
people's throats, and I don't know what to
do about it . , It comes out awfully hard,
even though you have explained around ie
Panel member Daniel De Simone, who
was also the director of the study re-
sponded in this fashion:
Bill, what you say about the $60 billicari
figure has been said by many other people
who consider It rather scary and unwarranted
in terms of the data we have analyzed.
The next panel member to comment
on this staggering cost figure was Wil-
liam D. Rinehart, assistant general man-
ager of the American Newspaper Pub-
lishers Association Research Institute,
who had this to say:
The bill, as provided by Congress, asked
the Commerce Department to evaluate the
cost. Sixty billion, if that's the cost, I think
it is the responsibility of the Secretary of
Commerce to record it as such.
To hide it or to put it into some other
form in this report would cause the is port
to be dishonest.
This is precisely what happened.
Earlier in the meeting, however, Mr.
De Simone had, in effect, dismissed the
necessity of stating the cost in the report
by saying,
We can almost presume that Congress-
men and Senators will not read the whole
thing.
That bears repeating.
We can almost presume that Congress-
men and Senators will not read the whole
thing.
Perhaps he was tight.
Thomas Hannigan, director of re-
search and education for the Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers said:
What vie should be doing is something for
the Congressmen, as the law requires . . .
it's an attempt to bypass Congress, an at-
tempt to go to the constituents without go-
ing through Congress.
It is a biased promotional effort and, there-
fore, actually in effect going beyond Con-
gress.
Mr. Hannigan went on to criticize the
report's drafters and said,
. . . I cannot go along with this report
with my name on it, because it's going to be
subject to intense criticism, the mass public
is against it.
Mr. Speaker, the General Accounting
Office has told us that the Commerce De-
partment's metric report is twistea, dis-
torted and misleading.
One of the Department's advisory
panel members decries the "terrible bias
that flows through here" and calls it
nothing more than "a biased eromotion-
-
al elfort."
Another member fears what would
happen if the Congress and the public
were told what the cost will be and, as
any of you who have read the report
know, the $60 billion cost figure does not
appear in it. Of course, the author, Mr.
De Simone, did not expect many of us
to lead the report in the first place.
I do not believe it would be either fair
or principled for Members of this body
to approve legis.lation, on the strength
of a biased report, that will cost the
American taxpayers $60 billion.
If such a question were put to the peo-
ple themselves, I am convinced that they
would flatly reject it. The transcript of
the advisory panel meeting shows the
sarie conviction.
The proponents of this legislation
would have you believe that the conver-
sio a mandated by it will be a purely vol-
e/nary thing. If voluntary conversion is
what is sought, then I submit there is no
need whatsoever for this bill.
The proponents of' this legislation
would have you believe that the Ameri-
can people are fairly beating down the
doors of Congress, demanding that it be
passed. Nothing could be further from
the truth.
know of no housewife who is looking
forward to buying a complete new set of
measuring cups and spoons, or of having
to learn to cook all over again using
metric recipes.
Flank Aaron will no longer hit a base-
ball a country mile ard you will not be
able to walk that far for a Camel. Metric
will be good for the advertising agencies
and some special interests, but bad,
thoroughly bad for the average American
for he will have to pay the $60 billion
this legislation will cost.
I want to remind Members of the
Huse once again that no less an author-
lie than the Comptroller General of the
United States has said that this 10-year
ei ash conversion program will:
Be more costly than the 50-year no-plan
crange-over--contrary to what was shown
kr,' the (Commerce Department's) Study.
The General Accounting Office also
concluded that this crash metric con-
version program:
Would tend to increase costs and prices of
(united States) products and thus place
these products at even more of a competitive
disadvantage vie-a-vis she products of for-
e,gn firms that are already metric.
In addition to increasing costs of U.S.
products, the General Accounting Office
has found that this program will also
dramatically increase imports of metric
products into this country.
And there is no proof whatever that
this legislation will bring one scintilla of
benefit to the people of this country.
The one sure thing involved in all of
this is a minimum price tag of $60 billion.
We already have enough problems in
this country without saddling our people
with such an enormous additional
burden.
The people of this country have given
no indication they want this legislation
and I urge that it be overwhelmingly
defeated.
7, 1974
Mr. PARIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. ANDERSON).
(Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr.
Speaker, I am grateful to my good friend
and colleague from Ohio (Mr. MOSHER)
for granting me this time given the lim-
ited time available under this suspension
procedure and the fact that I am not a
member of the committee. I am in whole-
hearted and enthusiastic support of the
Metric Conversion Act as reported by tine
committee and intend to vote for it on
final passage today.
Mr. Speaker, we have often been ac-
cused of being a Congress by crisis?
responding and acting on problems only
when they reach crisis proportions. And
I suppose there will be some who will
argue here today that because we are
not currently saddled with a metric
crisis, this legislation is unnecessary. We
have enough immediate crises to deal
with, they will argue, wither/it having to
worry about a long-range program for
converting to the metric system.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take issue
with that attitude. I would suggest that
our public image would not be so low
today, and we would not be confronted
with as many crises today, if we had only
bothered to do a little long-range plan-
ning on problems before they got out of
hand and became crises. That is exactly
what we are being asked to do in this leg-
islation today. And I do not think I am
overstating the case one bit by suggest-
ing that unless we act now on metric
conversion, it will one day come back to
haunt us as a crisis.
Mr. Speaker, I am preud to claim as a
constituent one of the most renowned
experts on metrication, Mr. Kenyon Y.
Taylor, president of Beloit Tool Coen
and coauthor of two books on metric
conversion. Here is wh:ai he had to say in
his testimony before the House Science
and Astronautics Committee:
When international nrossures force COD-
version, assuming we do not have a coherent
national program, only those few companies
which have planned ahead, or which are
multi-national and have foreign operations
capable of supplying guidance and products,
will be able to survive. The smaller Indio.-
trial organizations which have no foreign
components, which have not systematically
prepared for conversion, will find themselves
faced with excessive re-tooling costs as well
as intense international competition with
extensive metric experience.
Mr. Taylor went on to testify, and
again I quote:
Conversion to the metric system is inevi-
table. As the world becomes smaller, as com-
petition for trade incrvases, the United
States?to date the only major power not
utilizing the metric system?will find itself
Involved in an expensive crash program
which no doubt will result in too little too
late, unless we begin planning now.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I appreci-
ate the fact that there are some who
object to this bill on the grounds that
metric conversion will be costly and dis-
ruptive. But I would submit that if we
do not act now on a rational and na-
tional long-range conversion program,
we will one day be faced with staggering
Approved For Release 2001/08/29: CIA-RDP75600380R000500230002-4
May 7, 1974 Approved Fo1NtarnmolF9R:2oise7meapR0005oo230002-4 H 3605
costs and chaos by comparison. To those
who say, we cannot afford to, I can only
respond, we cannot afford not to. I
therefore urge passage of this bill today.
At this point in the RECORD, Mr.
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
Include the full text of Mr. Taylor's
statement to the House Science and As-
tronautics Committee. -
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Illi-
nois?
There was no objection.
The letter referred to is as follows:
BELOIT TOOL CORP.,
South Beloit, Iii., March 22, 1973.
Hon. JOHN W. DAVIS,
Rayburn Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN DAVIS: Following your
suggestion subsequent to the opening session
of the Metric Sub-Counnittee meeting on
Monday, March 19, 1973, I would like to con-
firm for the record my verbal comments to
you and other members of the Committee.
We urgently need a Federal Metric Con-
version Coordinating Commission which can
provide guidance and serve as a clearing-
house for information on metrication?con-
version to the Metric System. While many
industrial enterprises of all sizes already have
begun the process, including large organiza-
tions such as IBM, Caterpillar, Minneapolis
Honeywell, and others, many more, particu-
larly the smaller ones, have not. Sources of
Information and assistance are extremely
limited. No overall national direction exists.
When International pressures force conver-
sion, assuming we do not have a coherent
national program, only those few companies
which have planned ahead, or Which are
multi-national and have foreign operations
capable of supplying guidance and products,
Will be able to survive. The smaller industrial
organizations which have no foreign com-
ponents; which have not systematically pre-
-pared for conversion, will 'find themselves
faced with excessive retooling costs as well
as intense international competition with
extensive metric experience.
Subsidies are not needed. Additional
lengthy studies are not needed. Trial runs
are not needed. What is needed is a Federal
commission which can implement a well-
planned schedule for orderly conversion to
a metric America within a logical, accept-
able time frame, administered by Congress
and free of domination by large industry or
speciaj interest groups, enabling thousands
of small business concerns to convert to the
metric system in an orderly manner at mini-
mum cost. I favor the time frame of tea
years, as is proposed in legislation (HR 2351)
Introduced by Representative Robert McClory
(R-Ill.) which would establish the metric ?
system as the nation's only legal system of
weights and measures a decade after passage.
We need a law such as this to encourage
smaller industrial organizations to begin
metrication now, and to take advantage of
assistance available from the federal com-
mission which also would be established. We
need this legislation not so much for the
sake of the small industrialists, blit more
for the sake of the vital segment of the econ-
omy which they represent.
Four niyths now discourage many small
industrial organizations from implement-
ing conversion procedures: The first myth
has it that conversion involves extensive
costs. From everything we have seen and
hoard, and we have been en ;the front-lines
for the past ten years, estimated costs of
conversion as presented in the U.S. Metric
Study report and in testimony in Senate
hearings seem greatly exaggerated. In fact,
given some basic planning, firms presently
undergoing conversion estimate that what
costs are incurred can be recaptured in a
period as short as one year. Present tax pro-
visions involving investment credit and ac-
celerated depreciation make retooling very
feasible, and costs of supplying employees
with necessary personal hand tools have
proved to be only a fraction of estimates.
The second myth is that conversion to the
metric system will have negative impact
on the average factory worker. We now have
enough experience to know that this is un-
true. Even older employees accept and adapt
to the new system quickly. What special
training is required can be provided very in-
expensively on an on-the-job or pre-em-
ployment basis. Any unusual problems can
be handled through collective bargaining at
the plant level.
The third myth intimates that conversion
will create virtually endless confusion and,
as a result, reduced productivity and ef-
ficiency. But the facts of the matter indicate
the opposite. Some companies already have
found that use of the metric system in their
foreign operations results in simpler, more
accurate computations, reduced inventories,
and a rationalized product line which can
move freely across national borders without
tariff. The Common Market, for example, has
ruled that after 1978 importation of non-
metric products will be disallowed.
The fourth myth is that metrication will
never, occur so there's no need to worry about
it. But I submit that conversion to the
metric system is inevitable. As the world be-
comes smaller, as competition for trade in-
creases, the United States?to date the only
major power not utilizing the metric sys-
tem?will find itself involved in an expen-
sive crash metrication program which no
doubt will result in too little too late, unless
we begin planning now. Present demand for
information and assistance in regard to
metrication far exceeds available supply. The
main source of information and assistance
is Beloit Tool Corporation. Just to give you
an idea of the demand, we have sixteen men
in. the field whose job is to conduct seminars
and other educational programs on metrica-
tion. Several thousand representatives of in-
dustry already have attended more than 400
such seminars in the last three years alone.
As another example, not too long ago I co-
authored two books on metrication, "USA
Goes Metric" and "Discover . . . Why
Metrics". The demand was so overwhelming
that we had to establish our own publishing
house, Swani, and to date more than 150,000
copies of the books have been distributed.
But our resources are limited and we can
only hope to satisfy a small fraction of the
overall demand.
In addition to my corporate responsibili-
ties with Beloit Tool Corporation, I am af-
filiated with the Center for Metric Educa-
tion, University of Michigan at Kalamazoo,
which was established by the Office of Edu-
cation to develop metric curricula for 1100
vocational and technical schools; Metric Ad-
visory Council of the Society of Manufac-
turing Engineers, and the Metric Advisory
Council of the Metal-Cutting Tool Institute.
In all these areas the need for strong leader-
ship from Congress is evident.
Sincerely.
KENYON Y. TAYLOR,
President,
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr.
Speaker, with regard to the argument
presented by the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Gaoss) as to the $60 billion that
the gentleman was talking about, let me
say that not one dime of that is man-
dated as an expenditure under this bill.
Not one clime of that is going to come
out of the Federal Treasury, but only
from those companies who choose to vol-
untarily convert to this system.
The SPEAKER. The time of the gen-
tleman has expired.
Mr. PARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield my-
self 5 minutes.
(Mr. PARRIS asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. PARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I had an
amendment to this bill, but inasmuch
as the bill is being considered under a
suspension of the rules, as the gentle-
man from Hawaii (Mr. MATSUNAGA) has
suggested, there is no opportunity to of-
fer that amendment. I would therefore
respectfully refer the Members to page
21 of the committee report on which that
amendment is discussed at some length.
The amendment simply would have
provided for the authority of the execu-
tive branch of this Government or the
Congress, to approve any conversion plan
developed by the board to insure that the
people who will implement this proposal
In the real world will have an input into
the final product.
Mr. Speaker, if I had had the chance
to offer this amendment I am confident
that every Member in this body would
favor its adoption. If you oppose the bill
and the conversion program it would be
one more step in the final adoption. If
you favor conversion, then approval of
the executive branch would strengthen
the conversion, and unify the efforts for
conversion. If you are on this side of the
aisle, then you put the monkey on the
back of the administration for approval.
If you are on the other side of the aisle
you give the administration an opportu-
nity for effective input into a final plan.
If you are a liberal, you insure greater
input of Government in the process of
conversion. If you are a conservative,
you have more control over the inde-
pendent board prior to conversion.
Mr. Speaker, as I have suggested, I am
sure everyone in this House would have
supported this amendment if I had the
chance to offer it for consideration.
What this plan is going to do is to
create a Board composed of 21 people
appointed by the President who will be
broadly representative of the American
society, including industry, labor, busi-
ness and commerce, the consumer, edu-
cation, State and local governments, sci-
ence and engineering, and other affected
groups?whatever that is.
In the subcommittee, and in the full
committee, the plan was originally con-
ceived to be subject to approval by the
_President. That was stricken out. The
plan then was conceived to be approved
by the Secretary of Commerce, and that
was stricken out. Now this bill before us
has no approval of any representative of
the executive branch or of any agency
designed to implement the program. It is
not even required to be shown to the
Department of Commerce prior to the
time it is submitted to the Congress, and
we then have 60 days in which to reject
it by concurrent resolution.
I respectfully suggest that we cannot
blow our collective noses around here in
60 days.
Mr. Speaker, I commend both Chair-
man TEAGUE of the full committee and
Chairman DAVIS of the subcommittee for
their long and tireless efforts on behalf
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500230002-4
IT 3606
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500230002-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE May 7, 19 74
of this legislation. I feel that the legisla-
tion they are now proposing reflects an
imagiriateve and generally well-reasoned
approach to metric conversion. But I do
feel that the bill does reflect one major
shortcoming?a shortcoming which can
be remeeied with only a minor change
of language. I refer to a provision that
would require that the plan generated
by the Nntional Metric Conversion Board
for metric conversion within the United
States be submitted to the Presider t, as
well as ta the Congress, for review and
approval.
Mr. Speaker, the original administra-
tion metric bill submitted to the Con-
gress provided for the metric conver-
sion plat to be submitted to the Presi-
dent for review and approval, and, to the
Congress for review only. My amend-
ment, in essence, addresses what I feel to
be the appropriate role of the executive
branch and the Congress with respect; to
the review and approval of the metric
conversion plan.
The recommendations in the admin-
istration bill were the results of an ex-
haustive 3-year study commissioned by
the Congress and directed by the Denart-
merit a Commerce. The 42-member
panel which performed the study based
its findirgs on extensive public hearings.
supplementary investigations, plue in-
vited oral and written contributio:os to
numerous conferences. Altogether, some
200 presentations were offered an dis-
cussed not including approximately 100
additional written papers which were re-
ceived.
Based upon these findings, the Secre-
tary of Commerce recommended that
final review and approval/disapproval
Power fcr the metrication plan be ested
in the Congress and the Presidert re-
spectively. This recommendation that
the President be the sole approving au-
thority was in recognition of the fact that
metric conversion in the United States
impacts significantly on such vital areas
as the U.S. stake in world trade, our re-
lations with global trading partners, the
transacting of domestic business ir both
the public and private sectors, and in
fact, our national security.
However, based upon further inde-
pendent analysis or study, the provision
requiring formal executive branch ap-
proval has now been deleted by the Sci-
ence Committee. The rationale which
was pro:pounded for the amendment was
that the Secretary of Commerce? as
spokesman for the President, would pro-
vide appropriate executive perspective
through his "recommendations."
Mr. Speaker, I take exception to our
preempting the executive branch from
Playing a more substantive role in the
conversion of this Nation to the metric
system: I disagree because the counsel
and expertise upon which the Chief Ex-
ecutive and the Commerce Department
will base its recommendations represent
a significant and independent source sep-
arate and distinct from that of either the
Nationed Metric Conversion Board or the
Congress.
Instead of a truly substantive involve-
ment, the executive branch now has no
authority in this entire matter except to
transmit its recommendations to the
Congress for consideration. In fact, there
is not even a requirement that the Sec-
retary of Commerce be permitted to see
the metric plan until the plan has been
completed and prepared for final trans-
mittal to the Congress. I would emphas-
ise one further point in this regard. Al-
though the administration originally ac-
quiesced to the final recommendations
of the Science Committee downgrading
the role of the executive branch, the ad-
ministration has now changed its posi-
tion and is strongly in favor with the
amendment I am proposing today. The
administration's support for the change
I am recommending was communicated
directly to me within the past several
weeks. The rationale for the administra-
tion recommendation is identical to that
which I have been discussing and which
appears on page 21 as my additional
views in the committee report.
In my opinion, we are implementing a
major and far-reaching change in our
system of weights and measures by the
passage of this bill said the subsequent
adoption of the conversion plan. Clearly,
tie public interest demands that thie Na-
tion summon its full executive and leg-
islative resources in accomplishing the
conversion.
I therefore regret that the legislation
in its present form adopts the parochial
point of views that the Congress be es-
tablished as the only body of expertise in
approving or disapproving a formal plan
for the conversion of our Nation to the
metric system.
Mr. Speaker, the United States has
been foundering long enough in its total-
ly uncoordinated conversion to the metric
system. It would be desirable if we took
the necessary step to provide for a more
planned and coordinated conversion?a
conversion which means significant in-
ternational trade advantages, a more
simplified commercial system, a stimu-
lated industren and a large savings for
the American consumer, but we can not
abrogate our responsibilities to insure
that that conversion plan be realistic and
effective.
Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. PARRIS. I yield to the distin-
guished chairman.
Mr. TEAGUE. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
I should like to say to the gentleman.
that I, for one, support his amendment.
If it comes up in conference, I shall vote
or it.
Mr. PARRIS. I appreciate very much
;he chairman's statement, and I appre-
alate his position in that regard.
I would simply suggest, Mr. Speaker,
that this is perhaps a technical but, in
my opinion, fatal defect in this bill, and
that the public interest demands that
this nation summon all of the expertise
of the legislative and the executive
branches in developing a plan and ac-
complishing a conversion to make a
major change in our basic system of
weights and measures, rather than leave
the final development and implementa-
tion of a conversion plan to an appointed
board, which we will not in realistic
terms be able to control.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-
tleman yield
Mr. PARRIS. I yield to the gentleman
from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I noted that the gentle-
man fie= Illinois (Mr. ANDERSO:g) did
not say who is going to pay this enormous
bill. He questioned my statement, but he
did not say who was going to cough up
at least $60 billion. The gentleman in
the well of the House and every other
Member of the House knows very well
that the toolmakers in Rockford, :111., are
going to hand the cost right on down to
those who buy their tools, and so will the
manufacturers of every other product.
Mr. PARRIS. The people who are
going to pay for this, ultimately, are the
people who pay for everything in the
United States?the consumers.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr.
Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PARRIS. I yield to the gentleman
from Illinois.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, at a time when we are
concerned with our balance of payments
and our position in world technology in
highly sophisticated products, the peo-
ple of this country are surely going to
pay if we do not see the wisdom of adopt-
ing the metric system that will enable us
to be truly competitive in the markets of
the world?in Trinidad, in Southern
Yemen, Tobago, and countries like that,
fine, but then do not expect the United
States to remain a competitive force.
Mr. PARRIS. I would respectively sug-
gest the gentleman review the comments
made by the GAO in its report printed
in the hearings on this legislation, and
particularly as it relates to the expected
increase in imports after conversion.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-
tleman yield?
Mr. PARRIS. I yield to the gentleman
from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. That is exactly right. Let
him read the GAO report.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. PARRIS. I yield to the gentleman
from Hawaii.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's case em-
phasizes the need to defeat the bill as
presented under the suspension of the
rules, because even the chairman of the
committee recognizes the merits and
soundness of the gentleman's amend-
ment. Yet he is proscribed from offer-
ing it because the bill is being consid-
ered under suspension.
Mr. PARRIS. I would say to the gen-
tleman I have great and high regard for
the chairman of the committee and for
the chairman of the subcommittee, who
put a great deal of effort into this leg-
islation, but it is simply in its present
form, a defective legislative proposal.
The SPEAKER. The time of the gen-
tleman has expired.
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500230002-4
May 7, 1974 Approved F?1&5ftrEggilitIMPRLed9ii0EZWOMR000500230002-4
Mr. PARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1
? minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
MOSHER).
(Mr. MOSHER asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks, and to include extraneous
matter.) '
Mr. MOSHER. Mr. Speaker, the Na-
tional Small Business Association says
that its position on metric conversion by
H.R. 11035 is that is supports voluntary
conversion which this bill calls for, pro-
vided there is economic-disaster-type
loans made available to small business.
Earlier in the session in colloquy with
the chairman of the cornmitte, we cer-
tainly made legislative history here,
Indicating the committee's intention, and
I think the Congress intends that such
loans Wotild be available.
The letter is as follows:
NATIONAL SMALL IIITSINESS ASSOCIATION,
Washington, D.C., May 7, 1974.
Hon. CHARLES A. MOSHER,
House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. MOSHER: National Small Business
Association's position On the metric conver-
sion bin, H.R. 11035, is that it supports
voluntary conversion, provided there is
economic disaster-type loans made available
to small business. -
It is our understanding the Small Business
Administration has determined that under
existing authority it may make economic dis-
aster-type loans under Section 7(b) (5) of the
SBA Act. It is also our understanding that
the Office of Management and Budget and
the Commerce Department concur in this
decision.
It is important that the foregoing refer-
ences to the SBA and OMB and the Com-
merce Department be made part of the legis-
lative history.
Should the vote go against the metric bill
today NSB will make every effort to see that
An amendment providing economic disaster-
type loans at reasonable 'interest rates is
introduced on the floor the next time the
bill is considered.
This loan provision is not inconsistent with
the expressed intent of the Congress which
states that costs of conversion must lie where
they fall. A loan provision is not a grant. It's
merely federal assistance aimed at aiding
compliance where necessary because of either
legislative or economic compulsion upon
erriall business.
Sincerely,
CARL BECK
Chairman, Metric Committee.
Mr. MOSHER. Mr. Speaker, I suggest
that metrication means doing what
comes most naturally. In weights and
measures, that is.
This metric conversion prograni is a
superb example of American common-
sense and practicality. It is a move for
greater accuracy, efficiency, economy and
rationality.
So, Mr. gpeaker, I enthusiastically
join with the Science Committee and
subcommittee chairmen, Messrs. TEAGUE
and DAVIS, and with nearly all members
of our Science Committee, in strong sup-
port of H.R. 11035, which will declare as
national policy our intent to convert to
the metric system in the United States,
to convert on an orderly basis, but to
.,convertkvoluntarily.
I emphasize most emphatically that
this legislation will not mandate metric
on anyone. I repeat, it is a voluntary
program.
Opponents talk a lot about heavy costs
for industry as the price for metric con-
version.
But I say it need not cost any industry
anything, unless that industry decides
of its own accord, voluntarily, that going
metric will be a good investment that
will in the long run?or immediately,
probably?will be profitable.
Thus, our bill provides that only "the
rule of reason" is the rule that shall pre-
vail when any industry or firm shall de-
termine voluntarily whether or not to go
metric.
The costs to the Government, to the
taxpayers, will be only those of admin-
istering the conversion program; and,
again, I aigue those costs will be more
than warranted as a sound investment.
In fact, so sensible is metric conver-
sion, and necessary from a good business
point of view, it is happening very rapid-
ly in our country anyway. This bill will
only pick up that existing momentum
and channel it most efficiently; it is a
bill that only provides leadership, not
coercion.
Abundant testimony before our Com-
mittee supports the need for it, especially
if America is to maintain its world pre-
eminance in science and technology.
Mr. Speaker, I submit we on this world
may still be in our infancy, in what we
need to know and what we will learn and
produce, in the realms of science and
technology, and to the extent we in the
United States persist in our "off horse"
measures, to that extent we will increas-
ingly fall behind the rest of the world,
losing our leadership that is so crucially
important for us, and I believe for hu-
manity in general.
It is said that the establishing and
acceptance of world standards in tech-
nology is still only some 10 percent com-
plete, but the progress is rapid, and to
the extent that American standards are
ignored?as they will be, if not in metric
terms?to that extent American industry
and the American economy, including
American labor, will be sorry losers.
Mr. Speaker: in the last 20 years the
Metric system has become the dominant
language of measurement in the world.
The United States stands almost alone
today in our failure thus far to go metric.
We are the unrealistic, hidebound, im-
practical island of outmoded weights and
measurements.
But even within this country, the
metrication is slowly but steadily in-
creasing in use. And therein lies the
problem.
The growing use of metric weights and
measures in the United States is proceed-
ing in a relatively haphazard and un-
planned way, with individual companies,
industries, and local governments mak-
ing the changeover whenever and in
whatever way it appears advantageous
to do so.
The conversion thus far has therefore
been best characterized by thf confusion
and misdirection which has resulted.
The legislation now under considera-
tion here seeks to provide the necessary
direction and coordination in this coun-
try's continuing conversion.
The primary motivation for the
11 3607
changeover, however, is not so much to
bring order to an otherwise chaotic
process of conversion; there are other,
more compelling arguments.
First, there is significant potential for
increased exports of our manufactured
products made to metric standards; the
people and industries in countries that
have been predominantly metric for
many years do much prefer to purchase
metric designed products. Our gain in
exports is estimated to be on the order
of $600 million annually.
Second, there is the potential for
cost savings when a common design can
be used for products both here and inter-
nationally. If there is to be global uni-
formity of manufacturing procedures, it
Is now evident that it is our inch-pound
measurement units which must yield
since the millimeter-kilogram units are
so firmly entrenched on a worldwide
basis.
Furthermore, changing to metric de-
signs affords the opportunity of greatly
reducing the excessive varieties and sizes
of products. The gains that can be real-
ized by rationalizing our "off the shelf"
product lines are immense. Not only can
money be saved because of reduced in-
ventories and greater production of each
size, but also in materials saved, the
value of which we are more aware now
that the need for conservation of our
resources is becoming more clearly
recognized.
I also feel it important to emphasize
that the goal of the metric legislation
is to promote a voluntary conversion in
which this country would become pre-
dominantly, although not exclusively,
metric.
The objective of this legislation is not
complete conversion regardless of costs?
it is instead metrication to the extent
reasonable at a minimum cost. The point
is that the conversion will proceed in
some sectors at a relatively rapid pace, in
certain others at a slower pace, and final-
ly, in some sectors, there may never be a
measurable impact.
And just as industry will convert to the
metric system only as it is economically
justifiable to do so, so will the Federal
Government. Where an agency deems
extra funds necessary for metric con-
version, the request will have to be just-
ified on the basis of the benefits to be
obtained from the change recommended.
I would further stress to My colleagues
that the present bill, as it authorizes the
establishment of a National Metric Con-
version Board responsible for the gen-
eration of a conversion plan, requires
that the proposed conversion plan be re-
ferred to the Congress for appropriate
review.
? Thus, once the formal metric conver-
sion plan has been drawn up, the solo
power to approve or disapprove is vested
in the Congress. I know that I can speal:
for my colleagues on the Science Com-
mittee when I point out that this com-
mittee will continue with a very vigorous
oversight effort with respect to both the
.Board's activities in generating the plan,
as well as the subsequent conversation
itself once the plan is adopted.
Mr. Speaker, the longer the United
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000500230002-4
?
3608- Approved For RtimtiggAimat ?kwf13513196.19W00500230002-4 r y 7, 197:4'
States waits to convert to the metric
system, the longer this country will have
to pay the extra costs associated with
maintaining, and operating under, a C.ual
measurement system. Clearly, it is time
to get on with the business of conveys on.
The time has come for a national deci-
sion on a :Positive course of action and I
sincerely welcome the opportunity to
lend my support to this initiative.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MOSHER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. I thank the . gentleman
for yielding.
Is the gentleman suggesting that eco-
nomic-disaster loans must be a part, of
the conversion to the metric system?
Mr. TvIOSHER. I would say certainly
not.
The SPEAKER. The time of the gen-
tleman has expired.
Mr. PARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1
minute to the gentleman from California
(Mr. GOLD WATER) .
(Mr. GOLDWATER asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. Speaker, I
join with my colleagues of the Science
Committee members in offering my en-
thusiastic support for the metric em-
version legislation presented here toe.aY.
Mr. Speaker, over 3 years ago the Con-
gress requested a comprehensive study of
the metriv question because this body
sensed that the world trend toward
metric usage called for a new assessment.
This investigation proceeded over many
different avenues including public hear-
ings, detailed surveys of international
trade, business and industry, education,
and national security, to mention only a
few. The result of this effort plus the
combined activities of the Science Cc m-
inittee is reflected in the legislation now
bofer us--aegislation long overdue.
At the :present time, this country is
the only major industrialized country
which does not use the metric system..
With the countries of Canada, Great
Britain, and Australia presently in the
process of converting to metric usage,
only eight small, underdeveloped nations,
in addition to the United States, have
yet to start metrication.
Moreover, we continue to see increas-
tog use of the metric system in this come-
try with a great majority of businessmen,
educators, and other informed advisers
emphasizing that metric Conversion in in
the best interests of our country. We also
see convincing evidence that it is far
Letter for the Nation to move to the
metric sysoem by plan rather than by no
plan at all.
After thorough study, this committee
believes that a most effective means to
convert is through a national commit-
ment to a coordinated but voluntary
changeover. It also appears that this
Nation should begin as quickly as r os-
sible in adopting the metric system in
order to facilitate U.S. participation in
developing the expanding body of inter-
national engineering standards which
serve in turn to regulate world trade in
scientific and technical products.
The legislaticn also reflects a number
of key principles which will serve to guide
the conversion.
'The first reflects the so-called rule of
reason. In effect, conw rsion to the met-
ric system will be made only where and
wi en it is advantageous to do so. In
other words, individual organizations will
make this determination on their own as
to the worthwhileness et' converting their
own particular operations.
There is also no provision for subsidies,
coot reimbursements, tax remittances, or
the like. The committee has concluded
that this type of financ:.al assistance may
eneourage unreasonable or unnecessary
changes whereas the policy we desire to
eneourage is on.e in which changes will
be implemented only if reasonable and
commensurate with beotefits to be gained.
:In addition, the changeover will be
ere irely voluntary. This principle is in
keeping with congressional intent to pro-
vide the greatest flexibility in conversion
and to prevent excessive cost burdens be-
ing imposed on any sectors of our society.
Finally, although the Federal Govern-
ment will be responsible for coordinating
the overall conversion program, the ini-
tiative for both planning and the actual
converting will rest wit b the private sec-
tor. The plan itself, in fact, will be solely
the work of representatives from such
dherse activities as labor, consumer al -
fairs, education, constt uction, engineer-
inr-oriented industry, and the like.
Based upon these key principles, the
legislation now before us reflects a
changeover period of 10 years after which
the United States would be predomi-
na itly, though not eeclustively, metric.
This 10-year period represents only a
guideline however--a time period which
will be the common goal of those spar-
tic .pating in the conversion. A specific
time period is also clearable in order to
entourage a near-term conversion since
sit dies have shown that it will be less
cos tly to change the earlier the conver-
sloa proceeds.
Mr. Speaker, this committee has been
studying the metric conversion for a
number of years?even before the enact-
ment of the 1958 legislation which au-
thorized the 3-7ear National Bureau of
Standards effort. Our conclusion which
we have seen reinforced by virtually all
with whom we have wprked is that the
United States should change to the inter-
ne ,iona/ metric system in a deliberate
and careful fashion, and that this be
done through a coordinated national
program. H.R. 11035 reflects the firm
commitment of the Congress to a positive
program for changeover. The legislation
als a responds to the progressive elements
of our. society which recognize both the
inevitability and desirability of an effec-
tiv 3, prompt, and planned conversion
program.
I urge all Members of the Committee
of the Whole House to agree with me in
providing this bill our fullest support.
Mr. TEA GUE. Mr. Soeaker, I yield to
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Leaceer)
such time as he may consume.
Mn LUK:EN asked L ad was given per-
mi ;glen to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. LUKEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the,
distinguished chairman of the Commit-
tee for giving me this time and commend
him for all the effort he and his Com-
mittee have expended to bring us this
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of metric
conversion. And I therefore regret to op-
pose this bill today. I do so only because
the procedures under e hich the bill is
presented preclude a fair chance for
decision on a few important issues.
First, I believe the bill as it stands is
unfair to the small butinessman. The
costs to him that conversion will require
are in many cases prohibitive because of
the small profit margins he must work
under. Nonetheless, small businessmen
do not oppose metric conversion, nor do
they demand that the Governenent pay
their conversion costs. What they do ask
for is reasonable help to see them
through the transition period. Small
businesses which would suffer economic
injury should be allowed to take out SBA
loans to cover the costs. .after all, is that
not what the SBA is fon.'
My second concern with the bill as it
stands is for the worker who must main-
tain his own tools to do he job required
by his employer. Electricians, carpenters,
plumbers, and others have an enormous
personal investment in their tools. It
would be unfair for us to simply legislate
the obsolescence of whet to them is a
major capital investmense It is only fair
that the Government minimize the eco-
nomic hardship of conversion for these
workmen.
Mr. Speaker, as I seer I do not oppose
metric conversion. On the contrary, I
favor it. I think this country must con-
vert to improve opportunities for small
and large business to compete with for-
eign producers. I believe conversion will
enhance jobs and create new jobs. And
I believe we must decide the issue soon
so that our schools can know how to plan
their lessons and so that businessmen
and workers can begin to plan their con-
version budgets.
But conversion must be done the prop-
er way. A matter as important as this
one must be allowed to enjoy the bene-
fits of the full legislative process.
By defeating this bill today we will not
kill conversion. We will simply let it come
up another day, open to amendments and
debate on those amendments. Indeed, the
open rule for the bill has already been
prepared.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues
to do as I plan to do. Vote against this
bill today. And then, later, we shall take
it up again and debate it properly. At
that time we can pass legislation for
metric conversion in a way that is fair
to all.
Mr. PARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Tennes-
see (Mr. QTTILLEN)
Mit QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank
the gentleman for yieldine.
I rise in support of this measure.. It is
important and it is long overdue. I re-
mind the Members of this House, prog-
ress does not stand An America is not
a backward country. America has always
taken leadership throughout her history.
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500230002-4
?
May
7, 1974
Approved For IRONGIONNIMIRA :a66107_541120N000500230002-4
I know this bill is long overdue and
should be enacted now for the benefit
of commerce. Our international trade is
being hampered.. Our small businesses
will not be damaged, but will be helped.
The labor force of this country will not
be damaged, but new jobs will be created.
The Government Of this country is aware
of what nmat be dope. This is not a hand-
out but a helping hand.
Mainly this measure is long overdue.
We must enact it ancl we must get started
on a volunteer basis and go forward if
we are to compete in the world market,
and compete we must.
Mr. PARRIS. Mr. Speaker, we have no
further request for time.
I would remind the Members of this
House that we have heard a great deal
of comment around here over the last
few months about responsibility and the
exercise of congressional perogatives. I
would suggest to the Members of this
House, when we promote a plan the sig-
nificant impact of which has been dis-
cussed here this morning without the
input, which is unrealistic, of the execu-
tive branch of this Nation, I think that
constitutes a fatal .defect in this legis-
lation, and I would respectfully suggest
that this bill should therefore be rejected
by this House.
Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4
Minutes to the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Davis), chairman of the subcom-
mittee which has done so much work on
this legislation.
(Mx. DAVIS of Georgia asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.) .
Mr. BURLISON of Missouri. Mr.
Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. I yield to the
gentleman from Missouri.
(Mr. BURLISON of Missouri asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. BURLISON of Missouri. Mr.
Speaker, conversion to the metric system
Is a monumental step surrounded by
considerable controversy. My vote today
should not be interpreted as taking a
position on the substantive merits of the
issue. My "nay" vote merely says that the
Issue is too important and too controver-
sial to be disposed of under suspension
of the rules. This bill should be fully and
completely deb'ated and subject to
amendment at the House's will.
Mr. SYMINGTO/sT. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr, DAVIS of Georgia. I yield to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. SYMING-
TON) . ?
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I
thank the gentleman for yielding.
If this bill made any specific demand
on any sector of the economy, I could
understand and maybe appreciate some
of the objections made to it. This bill does
not do that. It provides, after all these
long years, for the creation of a plan
which is then to be submitted to the
Congress for approval.
There is nothing in the bill which pro-
scribes a conversion period which such
Plan Might recommend or the compensa-
tion to labor that the plan might recom-
mend or indeed the total likely cost as
predicted by a metric study which is 3
years old and which is not binding for 1
minute on the nature and content of the
plan.
I wish to assure my colleagues that
the gentleman from Iowa was not alone
in his concern with the report of the
General Accounting Office concerning
the U.S. metric study.
When these preliminary findings were
made known to the Subcommittee on
Science, Research, and Development, an
additional hearing was scheduled on
May 10, 1973, so that we might carefully
consider their possible significance with
respect to the legislation then before the
Subcommittee. At that time, we not only
were privileged to hear the comments of
the distinguished Representative from
Iowa, but we also asked the Director of
the National Bureau of Standards to dis-
cuss the GAO charges concerning the
report prepared by that Bureau.
Let me point out, however, that the
decision of our committee to recommend
the particular legislation that is before
you today was not based as much on the
findings of the NBS study as on the very
substantial rate of the changeover to
metric now in progress in our country.
The GAO letter of March 27, 1973, to
Representative GROSS reported three
preliminary findings.
First, it was noted that the metric
study report mentioned a possible $600
million increase In exports resulting
from metrication, but neglected to men-
tion a possible increase of $100 million
In imports. Dr. Richard W. Roberts,
Director of the National Bureau of
Standards, explained that the $100 mil-
lion was considered by the Bureau of
Domestic Commerce of the Department
of Commerce to be so uncertain of pre-
cise determination concerning interna-
tional trade, that it was not included.
Perhaps more important, he pointed out
that even if the net gain of exports over
Imports were taken as $500 million?
instead of $600 million?as of 1970 when
the data were collected, the gain would
be much greater today and will be even
greater in the future.
The second GAO finding was that the
metric study did not take into account
the time value of money in its analysis
of the cost of metrication by plan versus
no plan. The GAO found that had this
factor been considered, planned conver-
sion would be less costly if the costs of
conversion were $10 billion or less, but
would be higher if conversion costs were
at the $25 billion or $40 billion levels also
mentioned as examples in the report. Dr.
,Roberts acknowledged that this more
sophisticated cost analysis could lead to
such a conclusion. However, he empha-
sized that under the metric legislation
being considered by the subcommittee,
the changeover to metric will be made in
accord with the "rule of reason," with
changes made only when the costs in-
volved will be compensated by benefits.
Under these conditions, the best available
estimates indicate that the net cost of
conversion should be less than $10 bil-
lion. Accordingly, the belief of the GAO
that the $10 billion planned conversion
would be less costly, lends added urgency
to the enactment of the legislation that
is before us today?which provides for
H 3609
planning the metric changeover now in
progress in the United States.
Finally, the GAO letter suggested that
the U.S. metric study did not inquire di-
rectly into the impact of metrication on
small business. In his testimony on May
10, 1973, Dr. Roberts assured the subcom-
mittee that the surveys of both manu-
facturing and nonmanufacturing indus-
tries, which were a basic part of the
study, included a substantial sampling of
small business. Furthermore, well over 50
percent of the small firms surveyed in-
creased metric usage.
It may also be significant to note that
only a few days after this hearing before
the Science, Research and Development
Subcommittee, the General Accounting
Office concluded its investigation of the
NBS metric study and made no further
report of its findings beyond the prelirni- -
nary and tentative report that was the
subject of our hearing.
Finally, of course, we must not confuse
this 3-year-old study with a conversion
plan which has yet to be begun much less
submitted to Congress. A key element of
such plan would be cost effectiveness.
Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia. Mr.
Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. I yield to the
gentleman from West Virginia.
(Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia
asked and was given permission to re-
vise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia. Mr.
Speaker, I strongly support this legisla-
tion. Establishment of the metric system
Is long overdue.
There is a widespread notion that the
change to the metric system is supported
only by those in industry. However, this
Is not the case; let me briefly detail the
widespread support for the weights and
measures which is already in force in
every industrialized nation in the world.
First, the changeover to metric is sup-
ported by a large number of nationally
representative groups, many of which
are nonindustrial and nontechnical. For
example, the following maior groups are
definitely committed: the American
Home Economics Association, represent-
ing the consumer; the National Grange,
representing the farmer; and the Na-
tional Education Association.
The National Education Association's
support is an indication of the interest
and support of our teachers. They have
long been in favor of the change, pri-
marily because the decimal nature of
the metric system make it easier for
them to teach and easier for the stu-
dents to learn and use than our more
cumbersome current measurement sys-
tem. In fact, the States of California,
Maryland, Michigan, Alabama, and
South Carolina are now formally com-
mitted to metric education. This list is
certain to grow as we move closer to
metric in this country.
Finally, consumers not represented by
these groups are becoming increasingly
aware of the change to metric, and those
that are aware of the change and under-
stand the reasons for it largely support
it.
The National Bureau of Standards re-
ports that those consumers viewing their
display on the results of the 1749. metric
Approved For Release 2001/08/29,: CIA-RDP75600380R000500230002-4
H 3610
Approved For Refte,Rtilai791:E*Bfig75simvgg000500230002-4/1f1y 7, 1974
study rare' y express opposition to the
Jam of going metric, especially after
viewing the world map that shows how
few are the nonrnetric countries today.
The commen response is "I had no idea
we are so Leolated." A growing riumeer
of the average citizens say that they are
aware of tee probable change to metric.
Incidentally, this erowing awareness
of the chaoge is certainly due in part to
the many stories about metric change
that have been in the Nation's news-
papers. And perhaps the positive re-
sponse shown is related to the fact that
metric editorials, appearing in nearly all
of our nevrspapers over the past 2 eears,
are 91 percent in favor of metric, 2 per-
cent opposed, and the remainder neutral.
doubt if many issues today can show
support.
Also of interest here is a finding ]n a
survey of consumers done by the Survey
Research Center of the University of
Michigan for the U.S. metric study. It
showed that those consumers possessing
accurate knowledge about metric were
strongly in favor--3 to 1?of a change.
I am sure not all of our constituents
are metrie proponents. In fact, the lJni-
verstty of Michigan survey showed that
consumers who were not so well in-
formed were not as enthusiastic about
the chanee. This clearly points out the
need for public education. But it also
suggests that such an effort will, in fact,
be successful in convincing most pei sons
of the wisdom of a change to metric.
Thus there is much support fox the
change to metric from the man on the
street?t Oat is, the man on the street who
has had some contact with or has some
knowledge of metric units of meaaure-
ment such as the meter, liter, and kilo-
gram. And it is generally agreed that one
of the first major responsibilities of the
National Board this legislation will cre-
ate is to do all in its power to see that
allef koter citizens become informed
thoroughly and accurately.
Althottgh I personally feel that this
far-reaching and important legiseation
should be debated more fully under an
open rule, it seems to me that every
Member of the House should clear,y ex-
press hi; preference on the substance of
this legislation. When it comes down to
a question of favoring Or opposing the
metric systtem, I cast my vote in favor of
the metric system.
(Mr. :DAVIS of Georgia asked nr d wes
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous mate-
rial.)
Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. Mr. Breaker,
I would like to address a few general
remarks concerning conversion to the
metric system. In the first place, my
good friend, the gentleman from Ha-
waii, (Mr. Marausseca) painted out that
the carpenters union is opposed to this
bill. For the life of me, I cannot see why
a carpenter would be. There is no such
thing as a metric saw. The saw vitt saw
a board to any length one might want to
saw it. There is no such thing as a
metric pair of pliers. There is no such
thing as a metric hammer. There is no
such thing as a metric screwdriver,
Mr.. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, vill the
gentlentan. yield?
Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. I yield to the
gentleman from Iowa:
Mr. GROSS. Will the gentleman con-
vert- 2 inches into the inetric system for
me?
Mr. DAVIS of Georg La. Yes, 50 milli-
meters.
Mr. GROSS. Fifty raillimeters?
Mr t DAVIS of Georeia. Well, that is
not precise, but it is almost exact.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
to proceed for such t me as was con-
sumed by laughter dui lug the time the
House was not in order.
Mr. Speaker, 1 inch is 2.54 centimet-
ers. Two inches would be twice that
amount. One-half inch, by. the way, is
1.27 centimeters. That happens to be the
only inch measurerai nt that is used
worldwide and they are used in the tapes
of airport towers, seismographs and
other tape-recording instruments x.11
over the world. Other countries do not
call it half an inch. They call it 127
centimeters.
What I am saying is that we are not
changing the size of anything. Every-
thing will still be the same size when
we are finally on the 'iletric system. We
will just have another name for tne
siee, that is all. Everybody will be the
same height. I hope I weigh a little less
than I weigh now.
What I am trying to say, it is a matter
of language.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. I yield to the
gentleman from Hawaii.
Mr. MATSTJNAGA. Lest the Members
are left with the wrorig impression that
carpenters use no teols where metric
conversion would be involved, the gen-
tleman would conceit there is not a
steel square, there a not a try-square,
there is not a rule but which needs to
be converted and watch the carpenters
union estimated will cost its members
about $350 minion.
Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. I cannot be-
lieve that; plus the fact we all know
that a steel rule 1;? ears out, all tools
wear out, and can be replaced, with the
metric system.
Furthermore, inches can be converted
to centimeters, and '30 forth, by a small
conversion table no 'arger than a credit
card. The amount of trouble involved
night well be compared to that which
eonfronts a checkote clerk in a super-
market in computing the amount of
sales tax due on a purchase.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House,
H.R. 11035, has two purposes. One is to
confirm, as a matter of national policy,
a change to the metric system of weights
and measures whico is already well un-
derway in this con. try. The other pur-
pose of the bill is to establish a National
Metric Conversion Board to assist and
coordinate, on the basis of voluntary
participation, the efforts of those busi-
ness firms and seta 01 systems who wish
to make the conversion to the metric sys-
tern in the most eff .tient and economical
manner.
Before I describs the content of this
bill, Mr. Speaker, there are a few gen-
eral observations which I would like to
make. It is worth noting that the United
States is not the only country which is
making the changeover to the metiie
system. In the years since the end of the
World War, all of the industrialized
countries who in 1945 shared with us the
use of the inch, the pound, and the de-
gree Fahrenheit, have begun the process
of changing to the metric system. Eng-
land began in 1965, South Africa in 1966.
Ireland in 1968, New Zealand in 1969,
Australia in 1970, and our neighbor to
the North, Canada in 1971. Each of these
countries, with a substsm tial economy of
its own, decided that it was in their in-
terest to make this charge.
The result has been that the United
States today is the only industrial coun-
try which has not formally adopted a
policy of changing to the metric system.
The list of those countries who are in
the same position is short and does not
include any of our rnajor trading part-
ners. Barbs dos, Burma Ghana, Liberia,
Muscat and Oman, ?ileum, Sierra Leone,
Southern Yemen, and the United States
of America are the on'y countries which
have not made the decision to convert to
the metric system:
But while we in this country have not
formally adopted the metric system,
there is. abundant evidence that individ-
ual companies, schools, and other orga-
nizations have found it to their advan-
tage to make the chenee to the metric
system. It would be impossible for me to
recite the comPlete list of those who have
made the change, or who are now in the
process of making the changeover. But
let me give some examples which I think
will illustrate the extent of this.
The pharmaceutical industry, with its
heavy basis in scientific research, has
long used the metric 5y4em. The photo-
graphic equipment industry is also a,
longtime user of the en nee evstera. More
recently, several comeanies in the com-
puter industry including IBM and
Honeywell, have arum wiced a changeover
to the metric sestem The the construction
equipment industry Cr terpillar Tractor
and Clark Equipment have announced a
changeover to the metric system. Many
of these firms have large export sales,
but the list of firms is r et limited to those
with important markets abroad.. In the
auto industry, Ford has begun the
changeover and the er eine for the Pluto
is already made in this country to metric
measurements. General Motors an-
nounced last April that all new develop-
ment projects would be carried forward
on metric rather that in the customary
units of measurement, and the many sup-
pliers of auto parts wie be following GM's
lead. In the farm equirement industry the
John Deere Co., the Massey Ferguson Co.,
and the International Harvester Co.
have begun the change to the metric
system.
Perhaps most notatee of all, the schools
of America, have begun to teach the
Metric system, althoush it is still only in
small numbers. Het:west for copies of the
committee hearings have come from a
number of teachers end principals who
want to introduce this subject in their
schools, and the State boards of educa-
tion in California, Meryland, and Michi-
gan have announced hat their textbooks
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500230002-4
May 7, 1974 Approved For efiNGR,199110/?4a :0860751WW000500230002-4
are to include the metric system no later
than 1976.
These examples show, Mr. Speaker,
that in many areas of our society where
weights and measures are used or taught,
the change to the metric system has be-
gun. Furthermore, most of these deci-
sions to change to the metric system
have been made in the last few years and
the number of such decisions is increas-
ing fast. The testimony heard by the
committee indicated that there was wide
agreement on the desirability of going
forward with the changeover. Further-
more, It, become apparent that many
firms who are now considering conversion
are only awaiting a firm statement by
the Congress and the President commit-
ting the United States to the conversion
to the metric system, before they, too,
adopt the metric system.
In the tinned States the choice before
Us is, therefore, not whether to go met-
ric or remain with the customary system
of measures. The changeover has begun
and is now in the early stages. The
choice before us is whether we shall
continue to make the changeover in an
entirely uncoordinatedjashion as we are
doing now, or whether the Federal Gov-
ernment should, assist in coordinating
the changeover to the metric system and
thus make it more efficient and less
costly.
And that brings me to the question of
costs. In recent clays there have been
suggestions that the cost of going metric
would be very high, and several rather
astronomical figures have been men-
tioned. The committee made a close ex-
amination of this question and arrived
at several conclusions, First of all, the
$50 or $60 billion figures which have
been mentioned are based on changing
everything without regard to need or
economic merit. Such an approach is
neither feasible or desirable, and the
cost estimates based on that approach
are therefore entirely unrealistic.
This bill provides that the costs of
metrication shall "lie where they fall."
This is the principle which has been fol-
lowed by the other countries which have
changed to the metric system, and which
was recommended by the U.S. metric
study. This principle, rather than a pro-
gram of Federal subsidies, provide a
strong incentive to minimizing costs, and
will insure that the change to the met-
ric System will be dope in the most effi-
cient and least wasteful manner. If in-
dustry makes the change when and
where it is called for based on its own
judgment of the cots. and benefits, it will
have a SLOW incentive to hold down
costs. Furthermore, the timing of the
changeover will strongly affect costs. No
one would argue that a perfectly good
machine tool be scrapped simply in order
to replace it with a new one built to met-
ric standards. Instead, the dials on the
existing tool will be replaced at a frac-
tional cost, and eventually, when the
tool wears out or becomes uneconomical
to operate, it will be replaced with a new
metric tool. The bulk of the cost of the
new tool will then be replacement costs,
not Metric coats.
However, this is not to say that the
cost of making the change to the metric
system will be negligible. They will be
substantial, and an important purpose
of the bill is to reduce the total cost to
American society. The bill would achieve
a reduction in the cost of metrication in
two ways: One, by providing a mecha-
nism for the voluntary coordination of
the changeover, and two, by reduicng the
length of time which the conversion will
take. The coordination function of the
Board is based on the experience of sev-
eral of the other countries now making
the change. The Board would bring to-
gether each sector of .American industry
on a voluntary basis to assist them in de-
veloping the new metric standards that
would be needed and the time schedule
on which the changeover could be made.
No one would be bound to the 10-year
period over which the Board would be
in existence. Some sectors of industry
may find it best to make the conversion
in a shorter period of time. Others may
decide that a longer period, such as 12
or 14 years, is best for them. In that case
they would have the benefit of assistance
by the Board for the first 10 years, and
would then have to make the conversion
over the remaining 4 years on their own.
In any case the coordination function of
the Board will serve to reduce confusion,
cut dual inventories, and lessen the mis-
matching of components, and, as a result,
would reduce the total cost to the Ameri-
can economy.
The bill provides that the National
Metric Conversion Board shall consist of
21 members, appointed by the President,
and that the members shall be broadly
representative of industry, labor, the con-
sumer, education, and other affected
groups. The first function of the Board
shall be the preparation of plan for its
future work. This plan shall be submitted
to the Congress where it can be
?approved in whole or in part by a vote
in either House. The Board would have
would accomplish its educational and co-
no compulsory powers whatever, and
ordination work entirely through volun-
tary participation.
Mr. Speaker, this bill deserves the sup-
port of every Member.
A summary of the benefits and costs
analysis and a telegram follow:
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
AND ASTRONAUTICS,
Washington, D.C., February 19, 1974.
MEMORANDUM
To: Members of the Committee on Science
and Astronoutics.
From: John Holmfeld, Staff.
Subject: Costs and Benefits of the Metric
System.
During the current consideration of the
Metric Bill, Ha. 11035, which was reported
out by the Committee on Science and Astro-
nautics on October 23rd, 1973, a number of
questions related to the Metric system have
been discussed.
At the request of several members of the
Committee, a summary of the estimates of
costs and benefits developed by the U.S.
Metric Study, and contained in the report
"A Metric America", has been prepared and
Is attached for your information.
113611
THE COSTS AND BENEFITS Or METRIC
CONVERSION
(A Summary of the Benefits and Costs Anal-
ysis in the U.S. Metric Study, Prepared by
the Staff, Committee on Science and Astro-
n,autics, U.S. House of Representatives.
February 19, 1974)
SUMMARY
Conversion to the Metric Systems in the
United States will involve substantial costs
as well as large benefits. The U.S. Metric
Study concluded that over the long run the
benefits would outweigh the costs. Further-
more, the Study found that the costs could
be reduced and the benefits would come
sooner i' the Metric Conversion was done in
a coordinated, as opposed to an uncOordi-
nated fashion. However, both benefits and
costs are difficult to estimate with any degree
of accuracy.
BENEFITS OF METRICATION
The benefits of Metrication are especially
difficult to measure in dollars and cents. The
U.S. Metric Study asked a large number of
firms, including many who are making the
Metric changeover now, to provide estimates
of the benefits expected. Few were able to
provide a dollar figure for the expected bene-
fits. This is because some of the benefits are
intangible and will never be measurable,
because the benefits will come some time
in the future and are not, like the costs, con-
fined to a short period of time, and because
some benefits can not be attributed exclu-
sively to the Metric changeover.
Direct benefit
? The benefit which is expected from Metri-
cation is first and foremost that Metric is a
simpler system. It has fewer units of meas-
urement, it is easier for schoolchildren to
learn, and it is easier for everyone to use in
making calculations.
Indirect benefits
The U.S. Metric Study found that a num-
ber of indirect, but very real benefits would
arise from converting to the Metric system.
These benefits include the reduction in the
number of different parts made and kept in
stock as a result of the adoption of Metric
standards (For example, in Britain the num-
ber of standard nuts and bolts was reduced
from 400 to 200 and the number of ball bear-
ing types from 280 to 30), compatibility with
the military equipment of our allies, time
available to schoolteachers to teach other
subjects, and greater ease for housewives in
using the unit pricing system in super-
markets.
Balance of trade
The one type of benefit for which Dollar
estimates were made is the effect of Metrica-
tion on the U.S. balance of trade. The Metric
study concluded that sales of American prod-
ucts abroad would increase annually by ap-
proximately $600 million, 'and that imports
would increase by approximately $100 mil-
lion for a total net benefit to the balance of
trade of approximately $500 million per
year.
COSTS OF METRICATION
It is not as difficult to place a Dollar figure
on the cost of Metrication as it is to put a
Dollar figure 'on the benefits. However, esti-
mates of costs are still highly uncertain and
vary greatly depending on the assumptions
used and the manner in which the costs are
charged off. The U.S. Metric Study concluded
that conversion to the Metric system in the
United States will be expensive and that a
program for coordinating the changeover
could reduce the total cost.
Rule of reason
The U.S. Metric Study recommended that
in making the changeover the "Rule of Rea-
'Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500230002-4
Approved For Release 2001/08/29: CIA-RDP75B_Q0a0R000500230002-41,
II 3612 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE may 14
son" be applied. The Rule of Reasoo means
that, costs should not be incurred unless there
are corresponding benefits, In the case of
Metrication it means that no machine or
piece of equipment should be replaced solely
for the purpose of making the change to the
Metric System. Rather, a machine should be
replaced when it wears out or when, for any
other reason, it become uneconomical to
operate. At that time the changeover to the
Metric System for that machine should take
pirate and wily the additional cost of buying
a Metric machine as opposed to a macbine
with the csstomary system (if any) should
then be charged as a Metrication cost.
An extretle example of the application of
the Rule cn Reason is that railroad tracks
;should not '30 torn up simply for the purpose
of making the distance between the tails
exactly one meter. It will probably never be
economical to make that change. An acoual
example of the application of the Rule of
Reason is found in the case of school text-
books. The cost of printing and issuing new
textbooks throughout the U.S. simply to
make a change to the Metric System wOuld
be large, according to some estimates about
$1 billion. However, textbooks 'are reissued on
the average of esery.four years. If the change
to Metric is made at the time the textb sobs
are changed anyway, the cost attributalO e to
Metrication would be very small.
Two types oj costs
The cost of making the Metric changeover.
tiovolves two types of costs: The direct, "out-
of-pocket" costs and the indirect, or "paper"
costs. Direct costs are those costs attributable
solely to Metric Conversion. Examples of
direct costs are: A Metric highway sign, a
Metric dial on a machine tool, a metric micro-
meter, and the cost of carrying a dual inven-
tory. An indirect cost is a cost arising In-
directly frOm the changeover to Metric. Ex-
amples of indirect costs are: The coat of
worker training, the costs of mistakes, the
temporary lost to workers on piece work. In-
direct costs frequently are difficult to measure
in Dollars and Cents.
The manufacturing sector
By far the largest cost impact of Meirica-
tion will be felt in the manufacturing sector.
Several estimates of the costs of Metrication
in this sector were made and they differ be-
cause the, assumptions on Which they are
based differ.
The $26 Billion Cost Estimate. :rn rr.sponse
to a request for detailed'coist estimates from
4,000 VB. manufacturing coropanies, the
U.S. Metric Study received 126 such esti-
mates. The analysis of these responses and a
simple extranolation to all U.S. industry led
to a total cost estimate of $25 billion. How-
ever, this extrapolation assumes that the 126
firms are tYpical-of the more than 300,000 in-
dustrial arms in the n.s. The U.S, Metric
Study concluded that this was not the ease.
For example, a single large mining and re-
fining company had cost estimates which
were much higher than those anticipated, by
similar firms. If this Single estimate was
omitted from the extrapolation, the total
estimate was reduced by $3 billion to $22 bil-
lion. The 'U.S. Metric Study therefore per-
formed a more complex, but also more valid
analysis of the same data which led to the
following eztimate.
The $10 Billion Estimate. A staoistical
analysis of the 126 responses mentioned
above was made. This analysis eliminated, in-
sofar as possible, the lack of representative-
ness in the responses and the overestimates
found ir some of the estimates. The analysis
led to the finding that the costs for the
manufacturing sector should lie between a
high of $14.3 billion and a low of $3.2 bil-
lion. The approXimate midpoint between
these two figures is $10 billion.
The nonmanufacturing sector
Non-manufacturing companies were asked
to estimate how Metric conversion would in-
crease their annual cost ,if doing business,
The majority estimated that their expenses;
would rise by about one half of one percent
during the changeover period. When extended
to t se country as a whole, this would mean a
total cost of about $1 billion per year or
row,hly $10 billion for the 10 year conver-
sior period.
Cost of dual isventories
As any U.S. companies would have to main.
tat" a dual inventory of spare parts. For
the 10-year period the cost is estimated at
$5 jillion, or $500 millios . per year. In some
businesses, such as auto repair firms, this
cow, is already being incurred. A longer con-
version period would extend this annual cost.
The Federal Government
The cost of adopting the Metric system by
the Federal Government was made in two
pas is; one part covered the Department of
Defense, and the other covered all other
agE ncies.
Defense Department Cost Estimate. The
estimate made for the U S. Metric Study by
the Department of Defense (DOD) (Interim
Re )ort No. 9) amounted to 818 billion. This
cost estimate is based on several assumptions
which were not Used in making cost esti-
nu tea for the Manufacturing sector and
other sectors. It is therefore a good deal
hisher than it would be f such assumptions
as the "Rule of Reason" had been applied.
The assumption used in the DOD esti-
mate was that the Metric Conversion will be
made on a "difected" basis. For example,
medificatioo of the 144,000 machine tools in
the DOD Industrial Plant Equipment Center
would be made regardless of immediate needs.
This is estimated at a cost of $115 million,
and that total cost is included in the total
DOD estimate. In some areas of technology,
such as aircraft engines, the U.S. has been
edominant throughout the world, and cus-
tomary units are therefore used in many
countries outside the U.S. The DOD study
tif sumes that in these fields of technology
a total conversion will be made. In sum, the
DOD study assumes thot the Metric system
will be mandatory in all DOD activities after
the conclusion of the 10-year changeover
'nod, except for Spare parts.
The Rest of the Federal Government. The
o her 55 departments arid agencies that were
surveyed were much more optimistic about
eists. Conversion expenses over ten years
would be about $600 million. This would
amount to 30 cents per capita per year, and
after the conclusion of the ten year conver-
s on period the annual sayings were esti-
mated at 11 percent of the total conversion
costs.
The $60 billion cost estimate
The estimate of $60 billion for U.S. Met-
rication, which appears in some discussions
c f this subject, was arrived at by adding the
425 billion estimate for the manufacturing
rector, the 818 billion estimate for the De-
partment of Defense, the $10 billion esti-
inate for the non-manufacturing industry
end the $5 billion for the cost of dual inven-
t ones. This results in a total of $58 billion
which is then brought to $60 billion by esti-
mating that all other costs will amount to
e32 billion.
The $60 billion estimate is an estimate of
what a Metric conversion would cost if, over
t 10-year period, a tote:, conversion was made,
Ind all costs of replacing tools, equipment
and facilities were charged solely to the
Metric conversion. Ae noted in discussing
the rule of reason above this is not a reason-
able way to charge Metrication costs and
does not reflect the actual changeover prac-
tices now being followed by those firms,
school districts, and others who are now ac-
tually making the changeover.
comrAtISON OF COStS AND BENEFITS
The U.S. Metric Bsuely concluded that a
clear-cut balance sheet comparing benefits
and costs of metrication could not be devel-
oped. This is due to the inability to measure
benefits in dollars and cents and due to the
uncertainty attached to the eitst estimates.
The study found that the choice before the
Congress and the country is not whether to
go Metric or not. Schools, commerce, and in-
dustry in the U.S. have begun to adopt the
Metric system in increasing numbers. The
choice therefore is whether the changeover
shall continue on an uncoordinated, firm-
by-firm and school-by-school basis, as is now
the case, or whether a modest effort of volun-
tary coordination shall be made.
Based on this finding the Metric Study
concluded that the most meaningful analysis
of the cost question would consist of a com-
parison of the costs of conversion over a 10-
year period and the costs ce conversion over
a much longer period. For study purposes a
50-year period was used.
Using the same assumptions for both time
periods the Metric Studs lound that a co-
ordinated changeover aimed at making the
U.S. "predominantly, but not exclusively"
metric over a 10-year period would reduce
the total cost to the U.S. economy.
[Telegraml
1,say 2, 1274.
Hon. JOHN W. DAVIS,
Rouse Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
The National Education Association sup-.
ports H.R. 11035, conver.-don your support in
achieving final passage of this bin, which
is a major step in resolviag this extremely
important nations lissue.
STANLEY S. MOE ARLAND,
Director of Government Relations, Na-
tional Education Association,
Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Speaker, I shall
supoprt H.R. 11035, the metric conver-
sion bill, with sone
The growth in use of metric measures
in this country has beer significant. The
growth will continue whether or not we
pass this bill. Since the bill does not
impose mandatory conversion, is wholly
voluntary, and is intended to provide co-
ordination and leader,h in to the inevita-
ble development of the metric system, it
seems to be a prett.v safe piece of
legislation. -
The complaints from small business
groups would seem to be answered by the
dialog between the chairman and the
ranking minority member of the Science
and Astronautics Committee. If holdups
are forced by this bill, which seems an
unlikely prospect, small businesses should
be protected by loans through SBA. I be-
lieve that any businesses, large or small,
or any employee would be better served
under the bill, than under a system oi
random growth of the metric system.
With some national ieadership, on the
other hand, both export-oriented and do-
mestically oriented firms will get better
guidance to make, their conclusions, if
they choose to do so, in the manner that
serves their interests best.
I am sorry the bill has been handled
under suspension. This is a bad pro-
cedure. We should ha ve an opportunity
to amend. But, even under the procedure
I shall vote for the bill.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, if H.R.
11035 passes, American farmers 10 years
hence will be reporting their crop yield as
X number of hectoliters. The prospective
buyers, who a few years earlier were quite
comfortable thinking in terms of bushels.
will quickly multiply X hectoliters by
Approved For Release 2001/08/29: CIA-RDP75600380R000500230002-4
May 7, 1974 Approved FeftengsM/REVEcCdfdpPURIMOR000500230002-4 H 3613
2.84 thereby revealing Y numbers of
bushels.
In 10 years the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration may well hire
an army of mathematicians to translate
the nebulous world of OSHA regula-
tions into unfamiliar metric measure-
ments.
Small businessmen and American
workers will have shoveled out much of
their narrow profit margin for new in-
struments and tools of every kind.
And everyone will have purchased a
calculator to figure out everything from
body temperature to the amount of flour
for a recipe.
The justification for metric conversion
is, of course, to keep American industry
in a competitive position with metrical
Industrial powers. But we must realize
that if it will be easier for Americans'to
sell' American products abroad, it will
also be easier for other nations to sell
foreign products in America. And as a
GAO report pointed out, the added costs
of metric conversion will actually make
U.S. exports more costly and place these
products at even more of a competitive
disadvantage vis-a-vis the products of
foreign firms that are already metric.
Another GAO report last year esti-
mated that we may expect that U.S.
exports will increase by a total of $5
billion 'during the 10-year conversion
period. But when compared to the stag-
gering estimated cost to convert?$45 to
$100 billion?the trade advantages look
less attractive.
If we do opt for the metric system we
should decide how we can convert with
a minimum of inconvenience and cost. As
the GAO has indicated, a 10-year cOn-
version will be far more costly than a
gradual and voluntary conversion.
I think we can learn from the British
experience. Six years after conversion, a
Gallup poll shows that 57 percent of the
British people oppose the metric system.
,If disenchantment is this high in a na-
tion tied to the Metrically oriented Com-
mon Market, it is doubtful whether
America will convert more smoothly--
especially when, as indicated by a Na-
tional Bureau of Standards report, 60
percent of the American people are to-
tally unfamiliar with the metric sys-
tem.
I am most concerned about the 5,200,-
000 small businessmen and Millions of
American skilled workers who do not
have the resources of large corporations
to absorb the expense of remeasuring all
aspects of their businesses. Conversion
will be a nonproductive expense for all
businesses, but it will be worse for small
businesses because they are minimaly in-
volved in foreign trade, and hence the
cost conversion offers no ultimate benefit
in increased business. The cost of metric
? conversion for the small businessman
will therefore be doubly unjustified: it
will be nonproductive, and it will not re-
sult in an expanded fnarket.
,Tlac 10-yeax crash program may well
b nanc1afly disastrous for small busi-
nessmen anirAmerican workers. As small
businesses fold, the large corporations
would gobble up the Ord'niarkits`of the
atriall businessmen, and business owner-
ship woud be greatly concentrated.
If there is real need for small busi-
nesses?as opposed to giant international
corporations?to convert, then they will
do so as the need arises, gradually and
naturally. It makes no sense to force
them to convert against their will.
Mr. RARICK. Mr. Speaker, the com-
mittee has heard a lot of emotionally
charged rhetoric that somehow we Amer-
icans are lagging behind the entire world
because we have not converted to metric.
I would simply remind the Members that
we are the only country that has put a
man on the moon?not once, but numer-
ous times. And this was done by the inch,
pound, foot system?not by metric. Also,
I have never heard of any of these other
progressive countries turning down our
aircraft, tanks, or other sophisticated
weaponry or refusing our agricultural
products because they were harvested
and packaged by the pound, bushel, or
short ton.
As for the charges that unless we con-
vert to metric, we will lose our interna-
tional markets, one need only to look at
the foreign automobiles on our streets
and the foreign goods and materials in
our stores to question whether the mar-
ket we are losing is overseas under met-
ric or here at home from foreign imports
converted to the inch, foot, pound system.
The proposed National Metric Conver-
sion Act, which we are discussing today,
to coordinate the "voluntary conversion"
to the one-world, metric system is de-
serving of a great deal of serious con-
sideration before we attempt to impose
It on the American public. It is, after all,
a revolutionary concept to our people
who are accustomed to thinking in terms
of feet, inches, pounds, miles-per-hour,
et cetera?the American system.
The metric system has been authorized
for use in the United States since 1866,
yet except in the scientific and related
fields, the average citizen has not con-
verted to the Metric system as a means
of communication. Metric remains an
alien language, probably because it is
incompatible with our every-day lives
and is of little practical benefit. Or, it
might be said, the average American feels
if the present system works, why change
it simply for the benefit of change.
There has been so much hoopla in the
press suggesting that national conversion
to a foreign measurement system is an
"inevitable reform" that many of our
colleagues seem to accept this as a fore-
gone conclusion. We must examine some
of the realities of this legislation before
we move to hastily impose a foreign mea-
surement on our people after almost 200
years of successful use of a proven sys-
tem of measurement communication.
One great concern is the effect of this
legislation on small businesses in Amer-
ica doing business with Americans.
Truly, passage of this bill will only fur-
ther the old adage that "the big boys get
richer and the small boys get poorer."
Succinctly, as Mr. George C. Lovel points
out in his forthcoming book, "The Corn-
ing Metric Disaster"?
If one cannot produce to metric specifica-
tions as would be required by Government
Contract (by 1985), or is competitively placed
at a disadvantage with his giant counter-
parts, then he voluntarily closes shop or goes
bankrupt.
What I am saying is that we have only
recently seen the tragic effect of the en-
ergy crisis on small businesses; this will
again be the case if this Congress sees lit
to enact measurement control legislation.
Language, like economics, should be free
?left to the people, not to political edict.
My residence lot is 100 times 175 feet
or 17,500 square feet. It took me one sec-
ond to compute this because of the
multiple 10 idea?but it was not metric.
Our monetary system is decimalized, but
it is not metric. In metric, my lot is 30.48
times 53.34 meters or 1624.8032 square
meters. A lot 88 times 110 feet would be
9680 square feet or 26.9984 times 33.528
meters which comes to 95.450552 square
meters. Metric proponents claim sim-
plicity. That all one needs to do is more
the decimal back and forth?don't you
believe it. When you think of all the par-
cels of land all over the country and all
the real estate transactions recorded in
the public records, one can envision
somewhat the confusion metric would
provoke. And that is only the beginning.
Think of all the land surveys, and dis-
tances based on the mile from a central
point in Washington, D.C.?the official
land tracts based on a mile square?the
maps and the distances between places;
and try to convert to metric remember-
ing that 1 mile equals 1,609,344 meters.
In cubic measurements, one usually has
an answer with 12 decimals; thus, a 2
inch cube, or 8 cubic inches, ends up as
0.000131096512 cubic meters.
To get around this decimal problem,
metric has a table of 15 prefixes. Thus,
the above cube would be 131,09512 tetra
meters, or is it nano, or giga, or micro?
This leads to another flaw in the metric
wonderland?the "teaching math is eas-
ier" syndrome.
Because we cannot get rid of inch-
based things which surround us, we will
need to learn both systems?on top of
these add the layer of 15 prefixes which
must be taught, memorized and under-
stood. There are other deeper and more
subtle problems to the metric educa-
tional fallacy which England now is
discovering to her dismay. One educator
contends that fractions will no longer
be taught and this theme was touted in
one of the world's most widely read
digest. They may be beating a dead
horse, however, a music teacher friend
of mine observed. He reports that frac-
tions ,may have already been deleted
from the curriculum for most teenagers
today are unable to comprehend or re-
late to the simplest half-notes, quarter-
notes, eighths, and sixteenths.
Additionally, it is not clear what the
effect of this legislation will be on Amer-
ican companies operating in competition
with foreign firms. Quoting Mr. Lovell?
As U.S. producers switch to metric stand-
ards, the U.S. trade deficit will grow sharply
because the competitive advantage will
swing further to foreign producers who will
have had production experience with such
standards, whereas U.S. producers will have
to acquire it and educate U.S. consumers
to accept it. There will be added costs to
U.S. producers from retooling, double inven-
tories, errors due to unfamiliarity with the
new system, and costs arising from the ne-
cessity to continue producing to the old
specifications for many years to service exist-
ing inch-based equipment. These added
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500230002-4
H 3614 Approved For Release Z001/08/29 ? CIA-RDP75600380R000500230002-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE May 7, 1971/
costs would automatically give the foreign
metric-based producer% an additional cost
advantage by opening the gates to a "new"
flood of exports into this country.
It may prove acceptable to I ?reign
consumers but of serious long-term im-
pact or. the real world market?the U.S.
consum era.
The true effect of this legislation on
American consumers is not clean Cer-
tainly, the primstry problem stems from
the face that it will be impossible to get
rid of tee inch-foot based things sxound
us. Some of the adverse results of this
will be economic; others will be financial,
and some will be political. In each case,
the American people will be faced with
endless inconveniences ? and confusion,
which in some cases could expect to be
with us for centuries.
Proponents of this legislation argue
that the *United States alone in the world
is the cnly country that has not estab-
lished a national policy on converting to
the metric system. This is really a rather
tenuous argument. After all, this is the
greatest country in the world, with the
greatest technology. If the scientists want
to use the metric system, then they cer-
tainly have the freedom to do so; how-
ever, it seems unconscionable to ask the
carpenter, farmer, real estate agent, or
consunner to change to the metric system,
Including bearing the cost of the conver-
sion, simply because the scientists, intel-
lectuals and multinational insiness
Interests feel that it would be advanta-
geous to them for foreign trade--espe-
cially since the world market has already
accepted and is using the U.S. system.
One cf the great advantages of tile in
America is that Its people are so diverse.
I know that the Members would hesitate
to change the language of our society
from English to, say, Esperanto or Swa-
hili simply for the proposed benefit of
international trade. It is, I suggest, just
as troublesome to pass legislation such as
that before us, which proposes an inter-
national one-world measurement for use
in America.
I know our people may not understand
this bill before us today but they will next
Year and the years thereafter if it should
pass. As for me, I am an American, I am
satisfied with America and our system
which has and is serving our people well.
I shall cast my People's vote against this
legislation and I urge my colleagues to
join in opposing this anti-American leg-
islation.
Mr. KOCH. Mr. Speaker, I am voting
"no" on this bill although I wouk, vote
"yes" if it were to come up under the
regular parliamentary procedure. I be-
lieve, however, that no controversial bill,
and this measure is controversial, should
be brought to the floor under the sus-
pension Calendar which limits debate to
only 40 minutes and bars the offering, of
any amendments. I urge my good friend,
Mr. TEAGUE, chairman of the Science
and Astronautics Committee, to bring
this bill up under the rule already pro-
vided by the Rules Committee and let the
House work its will.
Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Speaker, the Metric
Conversion Act, which we have before
us, is an important proposal for improv-
ing the American system of weights and
measures by conforming it to the sys-
tems of other nations. It will undoubtedly
facilitate international exchanges in a
number of areas, as well as achieve cer-
tain domestic.; benefits.
To be sure, conversion has already
been undertaken in some sectors of the
Nation. 'The scientific community has
used the metric system for a number of
years, and students studying science, at
whatever level, have worked with it. Thus
the act really seeks to promote and en-
courage its wider use, rather than intro-
duce a totally unfamiliar system into the
United States.
In my judgment., conversion to the
metric system has two principal advan-
tages. First, the system, based on the
number 10, is easier to use than our
system. Anyone who has attempted any
type of calculation involving weights and
measures is aware of the difficulties of
our present arrangement.
From the grammar school student to
the supermarket shopper, the daily strug-
gles with ounces and pounds, inches and
feet, are very frustrating. Since our
monetary system is based on 10, it is
foolish not to use weights and measures
based on the same decimal. The con-
sinner would benefle greatly under the
new system, as well as the pupil striving
for comerehension, notwithstanding the
new math.
Furthermore, the metric system is
nearly universal among the nations of the
world. Our conversion to that system
would be very helpful for our interne-
tionel exchanges.
The difficulties I have with the Metric
Conversion Act, as presented to us to-
day, do not go to its underlying purpose.
My objection is that the bill is here under
a suspension of the rules, allowing no
amendments. That is too stifling a man-
ner in which to consider this important
neasure. This is particularly true since
the Rules Committee has already grant-
an open rule when the proposal comes
up in the regular course of business.
While the principal thrust of the bill
is exemplary, there are a few provisions
that might well benefit by amendment.
For example, the act appears to preclude
the use of Federal aid to assist the vol-
untary conversion to the metric system.
Those directives, it seems to me, are too
inflexible.
The National Metric Conversion
13oard, which this bill would establish,
will be devising a master conversion plan
over the next 12 months. It is very pos-
sible that, as the Beard focuses on the
practical problems associated with the
conversion, Fuleral financial assistance
may be necessary. It seems to me that,
we should not foreclose the Board from
Including in its plan or recommending
to the Congress a conversion program
which calls for Federal subsidies,
whether in the form of loans, grants,
tax deductions, or other incentives.
I can envision that small businesses
and workers would particularly feel the
economic impact of the conversion. Per-
sons who are employed in the crafts or
as mechanics might well have to invest
in new tools. Companies which metricate
will surely have to purchase new equip-
ment or convert their old machinery to
the new system. If it is in the national
Interest to change to the metric sys-
tem, it is surely in the national interest
to ease the financial burdens which ac-
company it.
It goes almost without saying that it
is important to complete the conversion
process at the earliest practicable date.
We should not tarry over the considera-
tion of this measure. It has been over
100 years, however, since Congress first
authorized the use of the metric system.
Thus to debate final passage using the
extraordinary procedure of a suspension
seems to me a bit hasty in light of this
history. The more prudent course, I sug-
gest, is to await the return of the Metric
Conversion Act to the floor under the
rule authorized by our committee.
Mr. RAIISBACK. Mr. Sneaker, as one
who has cosponsored similar legislation
with Congressman McCeorty, I would
just like to add my support to H.R. 11035,
the Metric System Conversion Act. The
Purpose of this bill is to declare and im-
plement voluntary conversion to the
metric system within the next 10 years.
Under the metric system, all units have
a uniform relationshie?which is based
upon the decimal. The meter?which
roughly corresponds to our yard?is the
principal unit. All measures of capacity.
surface, volume, and weight are derived
from it. The scale of subdivisions and
multiples is 10.
As far back as 1866, the U.S. Congress
legalized the metric system, and a few
years later the United States was a party
to "the Treaty of the Meter." By signing
this treaty, our country, along with every
other major country in the world, en-
dorsed the metric system as "the inter-
nationally preferred system of weights
and measures." However, our Govern-
ment then made no concerted effort to
authorize a program to actually provide
for the conversion to such a system.
In 1965, Great Britain began imple-
menting the metric system. Since at that
time the United States was about the
only Industrialized nation not using
metric units, Congress was prompted to
reevaluate our position. Hearings were
held which led to the eventual enactment
of legislation directing the Secretary of
Commerce to study the desirability of in-
creasing the use of tee.: metric system in
our country. To carry out this directive.
an advisory panel was set up, composed
of persons who represented all walks of
life. In part, the summary of their find-
ings read:
. . . eventually the United States will join
the rest of the world in the use of the metric
system as the predominah t common language
of measurement. Rather than drifting to
metric with no nations', plan to help the
sectors of our society and guide our relation-
ships abroad, a carefully planned transition
in which all sectors participate voluntarily
Is preferable. The change will not come
quickly, nor will it be without difficulty;
but Americans working cooperatively can re-
solve this question once and for all.
I think it is clear frcen this report that
we must proceed in an orderly manner
with metric conversion. In addition, the
enetric system Is in itself desirable for a
number of reasons.
First, it is already used by our Govern-
ment for several purposes, including
tariff matters and weighing foreign mail.
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500230002-4
May 7 1974 Approved Fot&qmsi9gpik2keifiVER19840R00050023000Z-4
H 3615
Second, many private industries use
metric measures. Deere at Co., which has
offices in my congressional district, be-
gan its own conversion nearly 10 years
ago?using dual dimensions in many
of their technical drawings. In fact, at
least 10 percent of manufacturers
currently use the metric system, and 90
percent prefer a coordinated policy on
this matter. Ford Motor Corp. will soon
produce our first entirely metric automo-
bile engine. And the pharmaceutical in-
dustry and the medical profession al-
ready use such measurements.
Perhaps the most compelling argu-
ment in favor of the metric system,
however, is in regard to our trading posi-
tion. At a time of integrated commerce
which has been of such benefit to Ameri-
can businessmen and farmers?and in
turn the American consumer?it is only
prudent for the United States to adjust
its systems to those internationally ac-
cepted, By 1978, nonmetric products are
not even expected to be allowed to enter
the European Economic Community, so
the metric system seems clearly in our
own best interests.
The bill before us today will provide
for conversion in an orderly, thorough
manner. It recognizes the need of co-
ordination, voluntary participation, and
the importance of education about the
system itself. Very briefly, H.R. 11035
sets up a board to devise an appropriate
program which must be submitted to the
Secretary of Commerce within a year.
The Secretary would then, along with
his own recommendations, submit this
plan to the Congress for final approval.
While I preferred the bill I originally
cosponsored as it provided for a more im-
mediate commitment, H.R. 11035 does
have an advantage of -insuring careful
planning on an action which, will virtual-
ly affect every American citizen. I there-
fore urge immediate ,enactment of the
Metric System Conversion Act.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman frpm
Texas (Mr. TEAGUS) that the House sus-
pend the rules and pass the bill, H.R.
11035.
The question was taken.
Mr. PARRIS. 1VIr., Speaker, I object to
the vote on the ground that a quorum is
not present, and make the point of order
that a quorum is not present.
? The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is
not present.
The Sergeant at Arms, will notify ab-
sent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic de-
vice, and there were?yeas 153, nays 240,
not voting 40, as follows:
[Roll NO. 208]
YEAS-03 .
Adams Broyhill, Va. Davis, Wis.
Alexander Buchanan de la Garza
Anderson, Ill. Burgener Dellenback
Andrews, N.C. Burleson, Tex. Dellums
Ashley Casey, Tex. Denholm
Aspin Cederberg Dorn
Bell . Chamberlain Downing
Bennett Cohen du Pont
Bergland Conable Edwards, Ala.
wester' Conte Edwards, Calif.
Boggs Conyers Esch
Boland Colman Fascell Dent
Bolling Cotter ,Fisher Derwinslci
BrademaS Coughlin Foley Devine
Breaux Cronin Forsythe Dickinson
Brooke Danielson Fraser Diggs
Brown, Ohio Davis, Ga. Frenzel Dingell
Frey
Fuqua
Gettys
Giaimo
Gibbons
Goldwater
Griffiths
Gubser
Gude
Gunter
Hamilton
Hanna
Mathis, Ga.
Mayne
Meeds
Michel
Milford
Miller
Mink
Minshall, Ohio
, Montgomery
Mosher
Moss
O'Hara
Hanrahan O'Neill
Hansen, Idaho Owens
Harrington Pettis
Hechler, W. Va. Pike
Heinz
Hicks
Hogan
Roamer
Howard
Ichord
Kastenmeier
Landrum
Lent
Long, La.
McClory
McCloskey
McCormack
McEwen
McKay
McKinney
Mallary
Mann
Maraziti
Poage
Powell, Ohio
Preyer
Pritchard
Quie
Quillen
Railsback
Rees
Rhodes
Robison, N.Y.
Roncalio, Wyo.
Rostenkowski
Roush
Ruppe
Ryan
Sarasin
Schneebelt
Schroeder
Seiberling
NAYS-240
Shipley ,
Smith, Iowa
Smith, N.Y.
Steelman
Stratton
Symington
Teague
Tiernan
Towell, Nev.
Udall
Ullman
Van Deerlin
Vander Jagt
Veysey
Waldie
Ware
Whalen
White
Wiggins
Wilson,
Charles, Tex.
Winn
Wolff
Wyatt
Wydler
Wylie
Yates
Young, Alaska
Young, Fla.
Young, Ill.
Young, S.C.
Young, Tex.
Zablocki
Abdnor Donohue Lott
Abzug Drinan Luken
Addabbo Dulski McCollister
Anderson, Duncan McDade
Calif. Eckhardt McFall
Andrews, Eilberg McSpadden
N. flak. Erlenborn Madigan
Annunzio Eshleman Mahon.
Archer Evans, Colo. Martin, Nebr.
Arends Evins, Tenn. Mathias, Calif.
Armstrong Findley Matsunaga,
Ashbrook Fish Mazzoli
Badillo Flood Mel cher
Befalls Flynt Metcalfe
Baker Ford Mezvinsky
Barrett Fountain Minish
Bauman Froehlich Mitchell, Md.
Beard Fulton Mitchell, N.Y.
Biaggi Gaydos Mizell
Bingham Gilman Moakley
Blackburn Ginn 1VIollohan
Bowen Gonzalez Moorhead,
Erase? Goodling Calif.
Bray Grasso Moorhead, Pa.
Breckinridge Gray Murphy, ni.
Brinkley Green, Pa. Murphy, N.Y.
Broomfield Gross Murtha
Brown, Calif. Grover Myers
Brown, Mich. Guyer Natcher
Broyhill, N.C. Hammer- Nedzi
Burke, Calif. schmidt Nelsen
Burke, Fla. Hanley Obey
Burke, Mass. Harsha O'Brien
Burl ison, Mo. Hastings Parris
Burton Hawkins Passman
Butler Hays Patten
Byron Hebert Pepper
Camp Heckler, Mass. Perkins
Carter Henderson Peyser
Chappell Hillis Podell
Chisholm Hinshaw Price, ill.
Clancy Holt Price, TeL
Clark Holtzman Randall
Clausen, Horton Range/
Don H. Huber Rarick
Clawson, Del. Hudnut Regula
Clay Hungate Reuss
Cleveland Hunt Riegle
Cochran Hutchinson Rinaldo
Collier Jarman Roberts
Collins, Bi. Johnson, Calif. Robinson, Va.
Collins, Tex. Jones, Okla. Rodino
Conlan Jones, Tenn. Roe
Crane Jordan Rogers
Culver Karth Rooney, Pa,
Rosenthal
Rousselot
Daniel, Dan Kazen.
Daniel, Robert Kemp
W., Jr. Ketchum Roy
Daniels, King Roybal
Dominick V. Kluczynski Runnels
Davis, S.C. Koch Ruth
Delaney Kuykendall St Germain
Dennis Kyros Sarbanes
Lagomarsino Satterfield
Landgrebe Scherle
Latta Sebelius
Lehman Shoup
Litton Shriver
Long, Md. Sinister
Sikes
Skubitz
Slack
Snyder
Spence
Staggers
Stanton,
J. William
Stark
Steed
Steele
Steiger, Ariz.
Steiger, Wis.
Stuckey
Studds
Sullivan Whitehurst
Symms Whitten
Talcott Widnall
Taylor, Mo. Williams
Taylor, N.C. Wilson, Bob
Thompson, N.J. Wilson,
Thomson, Wis. Charles H.,
Thone Calif.
Traxler Wright
Vander Veen Wyman
Yatron
Zion
Zwach
Vanik
Vigorito
Waggonner
Walsh
Wampler
NOT
VOTING-40
Bevill Jones, Ala.
Ble,tnik Jones, NO.
Brotzman Leggett
Carey, N.Y. Luj an.
Carney, Ohio Macdonald
Flowers Madden.
Frelinghuysen Martin, N.C.
Green, Oreg. Mills
Haley Morgan
Hansen, Wash. Nichols
Helstoski Nix
Holifieid Patinan
Johnson, Colo. Pickle
Johnson, Pa. Reid
So (two-thirds not having voted in
favor thereof) the motion was rejected.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
Mr. Rooney of New York with Mr. Nichols.
Mr. Blatnik with Mr. Morgan.
Mr. Flowers with Mr. Carney of Ohio.
Mrs. Green of Oregon with Mr. Martin of
North Carolina.
Mr. Haley with Mr. Thornton.
Mrs. Hansen of Washington with Mr.
Stubblefield.
Mr. Holifield with Mr. Brotzman.
Mr. Jones of Alabama with Mr. Leggett.
Mr. Madden with Mr. Rose.
Mr. Mills with Mr. Frelinghuysen.
Mr. Pickle with Mr. Bevill.
Mr. Patman with Mr. Johnson of Pennsyl-
vania.
Mr. Reid with Mr. Macdonald.
Mr. Stephens with Mr. Lujan.
Mr. Sisk with Mr. James V. Stanton.
Mr. Nix with Mr. Young of Georgia.
Mr. Stokes with Mr. Jones of North
Carolina.
Mr. Helstoski with Mr. Roncallo of New
York.
Mr. Carey of New York with Mr. Sandman.
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
Roncallo, N.Y.
Rooney, N.Y.
Rose
Sandman
Sisk
Stanton,
James V.
Stephens
Stokes
Stubblefield
Thornton
Treen
Young, Ga.
VETERANS' AND SURVIVORS'
COMPENSATION INCREASES
Mr. DORN. Mr. Speaker, I move to
suspend the rules and pass the bill (HR.
14117) to amend title 38, United States
Code, to increase the rates of disability
compensation for disabled veterans, and
the rates of dependency and indemnity
compensation for their survivors, and for
other purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 14117
Be it enacted by the Sengte and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That (a)
section 314 of title 38, United States Code, is
amended?
(1) by striking out "$28" in subsection (a)
and inserting in lieu thereof "$31";
(2) by striking out "$51" in subsection (b)
and inserting in lieu thereof "$57";
(3) by striking out "$77" in subsection (c)
and inserting in lieu thereof "$88";
(4) by striking out "$108" in subsection
(d) and inserting in lieu thereof
;
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500230002-4
113616
Approved For RV8Reanggia(RE qklitg935.131.1144W00500230002-4 May 7, 1974
(5) by striking out "$149" in subeection
).,e) and inserting in lieu thereof "$171";
(6) by striking out "$179" hi subeectiori
,(f) and inserting in lieu thereof "$211";
(7) by atibeking out "$212" in subsection
(g) and irserting in lieu thereof "$250";
(8) by etriking out "$245" in subsection
(h) and inserting In lieu thereof a$289";
(9) by atriking out "$275" in subtection
(1) and inserting in lieu thereof "$325"
(10) by striking out "e495" In uteeetion
(j) and inserting in lieu thereof "$554";
(11) by striking out -$47" and "e616" and
"$862" in subsection (is) and inserting In lieu
thereof 1.52" and "6727" and "$1,017" re-
spectively,
(12) by striking out "$616" in sub ertion
(1) and inserting in lieu thereof '$727';
(13) by striking out "$678" in subsestion
(m) and inserting in lieu thereof "e800";
(14) by striking out "$770" in suMeation
(n) and inserting in lieu thereof "$909";
(15) by striking out "(3802" in subsections
(0) and ip) and inserting in lieu thereof
'$1,017";
(16) by striking Out "$370" in subsection
(r) and ir serting in lieu thereof "$437"; and
(17) by striking out "$554" in subsection
(a) and inserting in lieu thereof "$654".
(la) The Administrator of Veterans' Af-
fairs may adjust administratively, consistent
with the Decreases authorized by this sec-
tion, the rates Of disability compensation
payalajeto persons within the purview of sec-
tion 10 of Public Late 85-857 who are not in
receipt of compensation payable purseent to
chapter Ii of title 38, United States Code.
SEC. 2. Section 315(1) of title 38, "United
States Code, is amended?
(1) by striking out "$31" in subparagraph
(A) and ihaerting in lieu thereof "$35";
(2) by striking out "e53" in subparagraph
(B) artd insertireg in lieu thereof "$61";
(3) by striking out "$67" in subparagraph
(C) and inserting in lieu thereof "$71";
(4) by striking out "$83" and "3315" in
subpararaph (D} and inserting ir. lieu
thereof "e95" and "$17", respectively:
(5) by striking out "021" in subparagraph
(E) and inserting in lieu thereof "$24"
(6) by striking out "$36" in subparagraph
(F) and inserting in lieu thereof "$41":
(7) by striking out "11152" and "$1.5" in
subparagraph (CI) and inserting ill lien
thereof *$61" and "$17", respectively;
(8) by striking out "$25" in subpsragettph
(H) and inserting in lieu thereof "$29"; and
(9) by striking out "$48a in subparagraph
(I) and Inserting in lieu thereof "$55''.
SEC. 3. Section 411 of title 38, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
"(a) Dependency and indemnity ecnspen-
sation shall be paid to a widow, based on the
pay grade of her deceased husbald, at
month17 rates set forth in the following
table:
"Pay grade
Monthly rate
E-1
$215
E-2
221
E-3
228
B-4
241
E-5
248
E-6
254
E-7
266
E-8
281
E-9
'294
W-1
271
W-2
282
W-3
291
W-4
307
0-1
271
0-2
281
301
0-4
318
0-3
350
0-11 ----------
-----
0-7 -
427
0-8
467
0-9
502
(D-10
2549
"I If the veteran served as sergeant major
of the Army, senior enlisted advisor of the
Navy, chief master sergeant of the Air Parise,
sergeant major or the Marine Corps, or mast-
er chief petty of leer of the Coast Guard, at
tha applicable time designated by section
402 of this title, the widow's rate shall be
e316.
'2 It the veteran serve)) as Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, Chief of Staff of the
Airily,. Chief of Naval operations, Chief of
Staff of the Air Force, or Commandant of the
Marine Corps, at the applicable time desig-
nated by section 402 of tele title, the widow's
rate shall be $589.
"(b) If there is a widow -with one or more
children below the age of eighteen of a de-
ceased veteran, the dependency and indem-
nity compensation paid monthly to the
vadow shall be increa.seti by $26 for each such
child.
"(c) The monthly rate of dependency and
Indemnity corapensatioa payable to a widow
shall be increased by e514 if she is (1) a pa-
tient in a nuramg home or (2) helpless or
hind, or so nearly helpless or blind as to need
or require the regular rid and attendance of
another person.".
SEC. 4. Section 413 of title 38, United States
Code, is amended to reed as follows:
"Whenever there is nr widow of a deceased
veteran entitlee to dependency and indem-
nity compensation, dependency and indem-
nity compensation shall be paid in equal
shares to the children of the deceased vet-
eran at the following monthly rates:
"(1) One child, $108.
"(2) Two children, t [56.
"(3) Three children, $201.
"(4) More than three children, $201, plus
$40 for each child in excess of three.".
Sec. 5. (a) Subsectian (a) of section 414
et title 313, United States Code, is amended
by striking out "$35" and inserting in lieu
thereof "e64".
(h) Subsectian (b) of section 414 of such
title is amended by stalking out "e92" and
inserting In lien thereof "$108".
(c) Subsection (c) of section 414 of such
I itle is amended by striaing out "$47" and in-
serting in lieu thereof '155".
SEC. 6. Section 337 of title 38, United States
Code, is amended by striking "January 31,
-,955" and inserting in lieu thereof "Decem-
aer 31, 1846".
Sec. 7. The ilrst section and sections a, 3,
4, and 5 of this Act shall take effect on the
arst day of the second cialendar month which
tegins after the date of enactment.
The SPEAKER. Is a second de-
manded?
Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker,
t demand a second.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, a
second will be constdered as ordered.
There was no objeCtion.
The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Dora).
GENERA L LEAVE
Mr. DOftN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani-
mous consent that al Members may have
5 legislative days in which to revise and
extend their remarks on this legislation,
and to include extraneous material
The SPEAKER. is there objection to
the request or the gentleman from
South Carolina?
There wan no objection.
(Mr. DON asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr, DORN. Mr. ,Speaker, I yield my-
self such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the basic purpose of this
bill is to provide appropriate increases
in the rates of con pensation payable to
service-disabled veterans, including the
rates of additional alit wances for de-
pendents payable to certain of such vet-
erans and, finally, to increase the
monthly rates of dependency and indem-
nity compensation to the widows and
children of veterans who have died from
service-connected disaL !Mies. This bill
was developed after 2 days of open hear-
ings on the cemperteation programs con-
ducted by our very dile ent and capable
subcommittee on compensation and pen-
sion headed by our Most distinguished
and longtime former ( hairman of the
full committee, the itentleman from
Texas (Mr. Ta.AGISE). 1 ssieh to commend
him and hie fellow Merebeee, the gentle-
man from Texas (Mr. ROBERTS ) , the
gentleman from Missisz ippi (Mr. MONT-
GOMERY) , the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. BRINKLEY ), the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. RATAN]. I,:RSCHMIDT) , and
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. WYLIE ).
Mr. Speaker, I am sun e th it the record
will clearly demonstrate that our com-
mittee has consistently through the years
given particular attention to the needs
and adequacy of the programs for our
service-connected veterans and their
survivors. In this connection I think I
should point out that while we have en-
deavored through the years to equate the
monthly rates with increases in the cost
of living, we have not e arlooked the fatst
that experience has shown that tile
greater need lies with tile more seriously
disabled veterans who a many cases are
completely unable to supplement their
disability compensation payments with
outside income. Actor( ingly, in this bill
as in previous me-este-es we have pro-
posed somewhat greete r increases on be-
half of the severely service-connected
disabled veterans.
I should like to note particularly that
for many years there I as been a modest
statutory award payaale for the loss of
a limb, eye, et cetera, in addition to the
basic rate of compensation payable ac-
cording to the percentage of the disa-
bility. This has become known among
veterans' groups as he so-called "k"
award.
For the first time ie over 20 years we
have reconsidered this award and granted
a 10-percent increase from $47 to $52,
and as I indicated the, is payable in ad-
dition to the new inereased basic rate
of compensation in the particular case.
As chairman of th, Veterans' Affairs
Committee I am proud to be a part of
the unanimous committee approval of
this very worthwhile legislation. I now
feel that it is appropriate to yield such
time as he may desire to the chairman
of the subcommittee, the gentleman from
Texas, who will explain in more detail
the specific provision- of H.R. 14117.
(Mr. lEAGUE asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Speaker, the rates
of compensation for service-disabled vet-
erans were last increased on August 1,
1972. Since that time we are all eery
much aware of the large increase in the
cost of living which has catised our com-
mittee to give a very high priority to de-
termine the adequaee of this benefit for
our disabled veterans. In March the VA
recommended an increase of 1:2 percent
Approved For Release 2001/08/29 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500230002-4