GOVERNMENT 

.C1;

Storage

rHE METRIC STUDY BILL

3

. sei

89-211 HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

EIGHTY-NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

S. 774

JANUARY 18, 1966

[No. 1]

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Science and Astronautics

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

58-144 WASHINGTON: 1966

AfA, 1966 18
COMMILLEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS

GEORGE P. MILLER, California, Chairman

OLIN E. TEAGUE, Texas

JOSEPH E. KARTH, Minnesota

KEN HECHLER, West Virginia

EMILIO Q. DADDARIO, Connecticut

J. EDWARD ROUSH, Indiana

BOB CASEY, Texas

JOHN W. DAVIS, Georgia

WILLIAM F. RYAN, New York

THOMAS N. DOWNING, Virginia

JOE D. WAGGONNER, JR., Louisiana

DON FUQUA, Florida

CARL ALBERT, Oklahoma

ROY A. TAYLOR. North Carolina

GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., California

WALTER H. MOELLER, Ohio

WILLIAM R. ANDERSON. Tennessee

B ROCK ADAMS, Washington

LESTER L. WOLFF, New York

WESTON E. VIVIAN, Michigan

GALE SCHISLER, Illinois

CHARLES F. DUCANDER, Executive Director and Chief Counsel

JOHN A. CARSTARPHEN, Jr., Chief Clerk and Counsel

PHILIP B. YEAGER, Counsel

FRANK R. HAMMILL, Jr., Counsel

W. H. BOONE, Chief Technical Consultant

RICHARD P. HINES, Staff Consultant

PETER A. GERARDI, Technical Consultant

JAMES E. Wnsort, Technical Consultant

HAROLD A. GOULD, Technical Consultant

PHILIP P. DICKINSON, Technical Consultant

JOSEPH M. FELTON, Assistant Counsel

ELIZABETH S. KEENAN, Scientific Research Assistant

FRANK J. GIROUX, Clerk

DENIS C. QUIGLEY, Publications Clerk

JOSEPH W. MARTIN, JR., Massachusetts

JAMES G. FULTON, Pennsylvania

CHARLES A. MOSHER, Ohio

RICHARD L. ROUDEBUSH, Indiana

ALPHONZO BELL, California

THOMAS M. PELLY, Washington

DONALD RUMSFELD, Illinois

EDWARD J. GURNEY, Florida

JOHN W. WYDLER, New York

BARBER B. CONABLE, JR., New York
CONTENTS

Page

Consideration of S. 774, the metric study bill 2

Statement of Dr. J. Herbert Hollomon, Assistant Secretary for

Science and Technology, Department of Commerce, accompanied

by Gordon Christenson, Assistant General Counsel 3

THE METRIC STUDY BILL

TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 1966

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m. in room 2318,

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George P. Miller (chairman of

the committee) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order.

Let the record show that there is a quorum present.

Before we get into the hearing, I want to welcome all of you back

and to serve notice upon you that it looks as though this is going to

be a very busy year. I have no idea what the budget is going to look

like but I want to say with respect to the NASA authorization bill,

that I am going to see Mr. Webb today and I am going to urge him

to have the backup books up here just as rapidly as they can so we

can get busy on them.

I want to see if we cannot get the NASA authorization bill out of

the way in a timely manner in order that we can move in on some of

our other activities.

This year we shall try to do a large part of the work in the full

committee which has heretofore been done by the subcommittees.

This does not mean we are downgrading the subcommittees in any way,

but there are many areas which you are now more familiar with,

which have previously been considered by subcommittees and which

will not require the same amount of research as in the past. So, I

think by disposing of those items in the full committee, the subcommittees can devote more time and more intensive effort to those

items which appear in the request which are new or those recurring

items which need special attention.

We shall try to conclude our consideration of the NASA budget

as soon as possible, to clear the way for other activities.

Several members of the committee and staff traveled during the

interim, and the reports they have made have been highly satisfactory.

I want to thank them for taking the time to do this. I hope you

have all had a good rest so that you can come back full of vigor and

with a desire to work hard.

I wish to announce the meeting of the committee's Panel on Science

and Technology which will take place on the 25th, 26th, and 27th of

January. You have had notices of this. I remind you that the guest

panelist this year will be Lord Snow, an outstanding English scientist

and writer. It is a compliment to this committee and a compliment

to the work we are doing that he should come over from England to

attend this panel meeting, and we are very happy to have him here.

1
2 THE METRIC STUDY BILL

Dean Price of Harvard will be the moderator, and I am assured that

we can look forward to a very interesting and instructive meeting.

You may be interested to know, the report of our last panel has

become a "best seller" at the Government Printing Office. They are

being used in universities and the Italian Government asked official

permission to have it translated into Italian. So, I think within the

scientific community this has resounded to our credit. I am certain,

under Dean Price, with Lord Snow as one of the guest panelists, we

will have another very informative session.

I am also pleased to announce that the Vice President will be here

to open the panel meeting on Tuesday morning.

CONSIDERATION OF S. 774, THE METRIC STUDY

BILL

The CHAIRMAN. Now, getting on with our business, the first item

on the agenda this morning is the consideration of S. 774, the metric

study bill. In the first session the committee favorably reported a

similar bill, H.R. 10329, but the Rules Committee deferred action on

our request for a rule. Meantime, the Senate Commerce Committee

completed hearings on the Senate bill and reported it with amendments. The Senate passed the bill, which has been messaged to the

House and referred to this committee.

Originally both these bills were the same, but the Senate bill, S.

774, as finally reported and passed by the Senate, contains several

minor differences. You have before you a concise statement of these

differences.

The primary variation between the two bills is the amount of authorization of funds to be appropriated for the conduct of the study.

In the House the bill would authorize a sum not to exceed $2.5 million.

The Senate authorizes such sums as are necessary, but restricts the

appropriation to not more than $500,000 for the first year.

There are some minor differences in language. The Senate has

adopted a pro forma amendment to provide for the title to more nearly

describe the purposes of the bill. It also contains broader language

and authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to consult with representatives of U.S. industry, science, engineering, and labor, and their

associations, in carrying out the purposes of the act.

There does appear to be an ambiguity in the authorization language,

and at the proper time I propose to offer an amendment to make more

definite the intention of the original legislation. The amendment was

drafted by our counsel and has been discussed with the Senate Commerce Committee and found acceptable to make clear the amount of

the authorization.

I have asked Dr. J. Herbert Hollomon, Assistant Secretary of

Commerce, to come here this morning to present the Department's

views on S. 774 in view of the fact that the Senate Commerce Committee amended the bill in committee after the hearings were closed.

Dr. Hollomon, we would like to hear your views now.
THE METRIC STUDY BILL 3

STATEMENT OF DR. J. HERBERT HOLLOMON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF

COMMERCE, ACCOMPANIED BY GORDON CHRISTENSON, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL

Dr. HOLLOMON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have with me Mr. Gordon Christenson, Assistant General Counsel

of the Department of Commerce.

It is a pleasure to be back before this committee after the holiday,

and I am pleased to submit a brief statement which I would like to

read, Mr. Chairman.

You have requested the views of the Department of Commerce

concerning S. 774, a bill passed by the Senate September 20, 1965,

that would authorize the Secretary of Commerce to make a study to

determine the advantages and disadvantages of increased use of the

metric system in the United States. As you know, the Department

has consistently supported legislation authorizing such a study. Our

views concerning the pressing need for comprehensive and reliable information on this subject to provide a basis for well-founded courses

of action for the country were presented to your committee in considerable detail during the hearing held August 2, 1965. In most

respects, S. 774 is identical to H.R. 10329, a bill for the same purpose

that was reported favorably by your committee following that hearing.

Accordingly, my comments at present will deal only with those sections

in which the language of S. 774 differs substantially from that of

H.R. 10329.

Section 2(5) of S. 774 would require the Secretary of Commerce

to—

permit appropriate participation by representatives of United States industry,

science, engineering, and labor, and their associations, in the planning and conduct of the program authorized by the first section of this Act, and in the evaluation of the information secured under such program.

This language is somewhat more specific in its provision for the

participation of non-Government interests in all phases of the proposed study than the comparable section of H.R. 10329. We have

no objection to the more specific language since it would not alter our

plan for the conduct of the study and may, in fact, serve to impress

upon industry and other special interest groups the great importance

of their wholehearted cooperation in this national undertaking.

As indicated in my testimony on August 2, 1965, we believe that

the active participation of industry, labor, and other interests is not

only desirable, but is essential to the success of the proposed study.

We would expect to solicit the advice and assistance of informed

representative groups in all phases of the study including the planning,

data collection and analysis, and evaluation of study results.

It would be understood, of course, that the overall responsibility

for the conduct of the study and for the ultimate recommendations

to the Congress would reside with the Secretary of Commerce.

Section 3 of both bills clearly provides that the Secretary shall submit

a complete report of findings "together with such recommendations

as he considers to be appropriate and in the best interests of the

United States." It is our interpretation that these recommendations

would be formulated by the Secretary, giving due consideration to

varying points of view that may be revealed by the study.
4 THE METRIC STUDY BILL

The only other significant difference between S. 774 and H.R. 10329

is with regard to the funding of the study. Section 4 of S. 774 authorizes such appropriations as may be necessary to carry out the

act, with no more than $500,000 for the first year. H.R. 10329, on

the other hand, would authorize appropriations not to exceed $2,500,-

000 for the complete study.

As noted in my earlier testimony, and explained by the Director

of the National Bureau of Standards during his appearance before

your committee on August 5, 1965, it is not possible at present for us

to make a fully reliable estimate of the total cost of the proposed

study. Because of the exceptional scope and complexity of the

subject, and the lack of comparable prior experience to serve as a

guide, several months of study of the sort contemplated under the

planning phase will be needed before a reliable estimate of the total

cost can be developed. Thus, while there is good reason to believe

that $2,500,000 should be adequate, we really will not know this to

be the case until the planning phase of the study is completed.

It is possible, however, to predict the cost of this planning phase

with reasonable accuracy. We estimate that it can be completed

in 1 year at a cost of about $500,000. S. 774 would provide adequately

for the planning phase, and would leave the level of funding for the

remainder of the study open for consideration and justification on

the basis of these initial findings. In view of the many uncertainties

involved in the proposed study, we believe that this arrangement

offers important advantages.

We feel, however, that section 4 of S. 774 concerning authorization

for appropriations should clearly reflect this flexible position.

I would like to say parenthetically, Mr. Chairman, that we believe

that the appropriation for the planning phase should be able to

be carried forward for the full 3 years of the study. So, if the first

year's appropriation is not used during that year, it can be used for

the study in the next 2 years.

In summary, we believe that enactment of S. 774 with some minor

language clarification would provide an adequate and appropriate

authorization for the conduct of this vitally important study. We

urge this committee to act promptly and favorably on this measure.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, you have heard the statement by

Secretary Hollomon. Are there any questions?

Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, I understood the witness to indicate

this was a 3-year program, but I do not think the bill reads that way

now; does it?

Dr. HOLLOMON. There is an ambiguity with respect to that. All

the testimony has indicated a 3-year program. I think it would

be appropriate to clarify the language of the authorization section

of the bill.

Mr. PELLY. In other words, you are recommending a program to

be authorized for not exceeding 3 years?

Dr. HOLLOMON. Yes, sir; that is correct. I think the Congress

should put some time limit as to how long it should take to carry

forward this study so you can expect a report at a reasonable and

appropriate time. Therefore, I would put a limit of a 3-year study.

The only question is whether the language of the bill should authorize appropriations for the succeeding 2 years.
THE METRIC STUDY BILL 5

The CHAIRMAN. Section 3 of the bill reads:

The Secretary shall submit to the Congress such interim reports as he deems

desirable, and within three years after the date of the enactment of this Act, a

full and complete report of the findings under the program authorized by this

Act, together with such recommendations as he considers to be appropriate

and in the best interests of the United States.

So, you have a limitation in there.

Mr. PELLY. In other words, that language puts a limitation on the

study, by the Department, of 3 years.

Dr. HOLLOMON. That is correct. The next section of the Senate

bill, however, is somewhat ambiguous with respect to the appropriation. That is the point I was trying to make.

Mr. ALBERT. Is it not a question of the appropriated funds carrying

through for 3 years rather than the study carrying through for 3 years?

Dr. HOLLOMON. That is correct. That is the suggestion that I

made, that the appropriated funds be able to be carried through for

the 3-year period.

The CHAIRMAN. May I say to Mr. Pelly further, section 5 reads,

"This act shall expire 30 days after submission of the final report

pursuant to section 3."

Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, the only other question I have is as

to the matter of open end authorization. I think we might run into

some difficulty in the House. I certainly would prefer to have an

overall limit on the authorized amount of the program.

The CHAIRMAN. The amendment I spoke of will be to strike out

all of section 4 and insert in lieu thereof new language:

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry

out the purposes of this Act, provided that not to exceed $500,000 shall be appropriated for the first year of the program authorized by this Act.

The total as we reported earlier will be in the report, but this

legislative history will determine that.

Mr. Wydler.

Mr. WYDLER. I just wanted to ask, is this $500,000 we are talking

about in the President's budget?

Dr. HOLLOMON. Not that I know of.

Mr. RUMSFELD. It is not clear to me what the amendment you are

going to offer says. Does it leave it an open-end authorization so it

will be $500,000 for the first year, but that money will be available

throughout the life of the authorization and then the remainder of the

fund is completely left open? The $500,000 which they should not

exceed during the first year will be there until used?

The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.

Mr. RUMSFELD. The total amount will not be put in?

The CHAIRMAN. It Will not be put in the bill.

Mr. RUMSFELD. They will not have to come back to this committee.

They will go to the Appropriations Committee.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be an open authorization.

Mr. RUMSFELD. Apparently when the bill was first considered there

was no objection to the $2.5 million. Apparently that was another

way it could be worked.

The CHAIRMAN. Our bill and original Senate bill had the limitation.

The Senate committee amended their bill and the Senate passed the
6 THE METRIC STUDY BILL

bill as amended. The fact remains that the best estimate today is that

this will cost about $2.5 million over a period of 3 years.

Mr. MOSHER. Mr. Chairman, I understood Dr. Hollomon to say it

is impossible to know at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.

Mr. MOSHER. The implication was that he thinks it might cost

more than $2.5 million.

Dr. HOLLOMON. Let me try to make our position clear. We would

be perfectly willing to accept the language of the original House bill

with the limitation of $2.5 million. We would also be willing to accept

the sense of the Senate bill which limits it to $500,000 the first year.

Our position is that the estimate of $2.5 million at the present time

is a reasonable upper limit estimate. However, there are uncertainties. These uncertainties are reasonably great because of the size and

magnitude of the study that is involved.

Really, what we are saying is that it is up to the committee. We

are willing to accept essentially either language.

Mr. MOSHER. Dr. Hollomon, if you found $2.5 million was not

enough, you would be willing to come back to this committee?

Dr. HOLLOMON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. They would have to because the legislative report

would tie them down to $2.5 million.

Dr. HOLLOMON. That is right. Our position is that we would

accept and be satisfied with either approach to the object. The

Senate wanted to make it pretty clear how much would be spent the

first year. The second and third years are not too clear. On the

other hand, the House in the original bill wanted to limit the size of

the program. Either approach to the problem is perfectly acceptable.

Mr. MOSHER. Mr. Chairman, are you saying in effect the report

will be written so as to tie down this figure?

The CHAIRMAN. It will be a guide to the Appropriations Committee,

as any report is a guide, and it will be a guide to the administering

agency.

Mr. MOSHER. But it would be in such form that the Department

would have an obligation to come back to this committee for a further

authorization if they asked for an appropriation beyond that figure.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, if they asked for an appropriation beyond

that, they would have to come back.

Mr. RUMSFELD. Mr. Chairman, I personally would prefer to see

the $2.5 million in the bill in view of the fact that the Department

has no objection whatsoever to that. It seems to me it would avoid

problems on the floor when the bill goes to the floor with many people

suggesting here we start out the year with legislation which leaves an

open end authorization. I would hope that the chairman would agree

to what the Department has agreed to, putting back in a top limit

figure.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to say to my friend from Illinois that I

would be very happy to do that, because I feel exactly the same way he

does, but as a matter of practical approach to the problem, the Senate

took this out and we have to be in accord to get a public law.

We are trying to clarify and adopt the Senate bill so we can get a

study underway. I am willing to adopt this procedure as a practical

matter in order to get the bill passed.

Dr. HOLLOMON. Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can be of some help in

this matter. I think it appropriate to go on record that if there is any
THE METRIC STUDY BILL 7

significant increase over the $2.5 million estimated, I think it would be

appropriate for the Department to come back to this committee on the

basis of the legislative history. I think it would be appropriate in any

event if any significant deviation from that estimate were contemplated.

So, I would be willing and I think it important to go on record that

that would be the case.

Mr. MOSHER. In addition to what Dr. Hollomon said, I believe you

indicated a moment ago that you felt perhaps you had an obligation

to do that.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. That ties it down. This is all a part of the

legislative history.

Mr. HECHLER. Since you appeared before the committee last

August, have any nations either adopted or abandoned the metric

system?

Dr. HOLLOMON. Not to my knowledge. There has been no new

step until very recently, last week, in London and in Paris. The

British are formulating much more closely their plans as to how they

will gradually make the conversion from the conventional system to

the metric system.

Mr. HECHLER. The date and timing?

Dr. HOLLOMON. The date and timing is over the next 10-year

period.

The CHAIRMAN. I may say that during the interim since we were

last here, there has been an indication the Australian Government has

changed its currency and has gone to a decimal currency, which is a

step in this direction.

Mr. WYDLER. Doctor, is there anything in this bill which requires

this study to get underway in this next fiscal year?

Dr. HOLLOMON. I would presume, if I understand your question,

that immediately upon the passage of the bill it would then be the.

responsibility of the administration to seek appropriations and immediately to begin to undertake the study.

Mr. WYDLER. But would it be possible to defer action on the bill?

If you did not get an appropriation from the Appropriations Committee, could it be put ovei. to a later year?

Dr. HOLLOMON. If we did not get the appropriation, we would have

no alternative but to do so. It is our recommendation and our position that this study get underway as promptly as it possibly can,

Mr. WYDLER. Is there some specific reason that 1966 would be a

more appropriate year than 1967?

Dr. HOLLOMON. My own view of the matter is that this is a subject

of such importance that, to lay the facts and analysis on the table for

the consideration of the Congress, the study is overdue. I know this

committee has been struggling with this problem for some years. It

is my view that the study is overdue and that we need the facts as

promptly as we can lay them before the public.

Mr. WYDLER. I am just raising the question because we are all

well aware here as Members of the Congress, and I am sure you are

equally well aware, that we are facing a very tight budgetary situation

in our Federal Government this year caused by our involvement in the

war in Vietnam. I think all of us will be trying to seek ways of

deferring to the extent possible and practical all expenditures that can

be put off without any great harm to our economy and our Nation.
8 THE METRIC STUDY BILL

I believe we shall have to set priorities in the various programs to

accomplish this.

I have been trying to direct my own thinking to the necessity of

starting this program in the year 1966 rather than next year or possibly

a year after that.

Dr. HoLLomoN. I would simply like to reemphasize that in my

view the fact that with the various nations of the world and much of

our economy concerned with the measurement system which we use

in the design of products and in the manufacturing process, with the

increasing growth of the European market and with the increasing

number of countries that either are contemplating or have converted

to the metric system, I think it extremely important that this study,

which is really quite modest from the standpoint of its cost, should

get underway as promptly as possible.

I recognize, as you pointed out, that in all cases we have to consider

the potential cost and benefits against all the other requests for funds.

My own personal feeling is that it would be costly to this country not

to have before it the facts of the matter and how we should proceed.

Mr. WYDLER. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. MT. Vivian.

Mr. VIVIAN. Mr. Chairman, I should like to comment on the cost

of the study. I would like to point out that the cost is less than 1

cent per American taxpayer over the years. Every time a pharmacist

changes from ounces to grams to make out a prescription, he probably

spends far more than that in terms of salary time. So, I am sure

the loss per year to the economy from not going ahead with the

change is much greater than the cost, not only this year but in coming

years, of the study. To continue the loss I think would be an

economic mistake, not an advantage.

I suggest to those who consider this an unwarranted expenditure,

it is also an unwarranted waste not to go ahead.

Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption of the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is adopted.

Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Chairman, I move the bill be reported as

amended.

The CHAIRMAN. All those in favor, signify by saying "aye";

contrary minded. The "ayes" have it, and the bill is unanimously

reported out.

That carries with it the direction that the chairman shall take all

necessary legislative acts and procedures to bring the bill to the floor.

A

196AR€ 11

-,„7,4)Triv II

0

111 1111 11 111 111111

A 1 1 6 0 0 7 6 5 3 2 0 le

II