INCHING TOWARD THE METRIC SYSTEM, 1959-79 47I 



"voluntary" at several points. At a 90-minute markup sesssion on 

 October 16, the full committee decided to strengthen the role of Con- 

 gress by allowing disapproval of the Board plan if Congress passed a 

 concurrent resolution (not subject to Presidential veto.) The latter 

 decision incurred the opposition of Representative Stanford E. Parris 

 (Republican of Virginia), who issued "Additional Views" spelling 

 out his preference for a joint resolution which would allow a 

 Presidential veto. 



In the full committee markup, the strongest support for the bill 

 was expressed by Teague, Mosher, Davis, Symington, Fuqua, Hechler, 

 Pickle, Bell, Esch, and McCormack. Rather than mandating a 10-year 

 "program" of conversion to the metric system, the 1973 bill provided 

 that it was the " policy" of the United States to convert on a voluntary 

 basis over 10 years. Davis frankly explained he felt this would make 

 it easier to get the bill through the Congress. The bill was reported by 

 unanimous voice vote. 



LABOR SWAYS THE RULES COMMITTEE 



On October 25, 1973, the Science Committee made an unsuccessful 

 attempt to get Rules Committee clearance for the metric conversion 

 bill. Most observers agreed that the opposition of the AFL-CIO swung 

 several members of the Rules Committee against the bill, and a rule was 

 refused. 



In a 4-page, detailed letter to the Director of the AFL-CIO Legisla- 

 tive Department, Andrew J. Biemiller, Davis meticulously explained 

 the many ways in which the Science Committee had changed the 

 metric bill to accommodate labor's objections and recommendations. 

 Davis underlined the fact that in response to labor's suggestions, the 

 principle of voluntarism had been liberally sprinkled throughout the 

 bill. He pointed out that the AFL-CIO suggestion that representation 

 be expanded to specify "labor" and "consumers" had been adopted. But 

 on key points, such as the labor suggestion that the conversion period 

 be 15 years instead of 10, and that reimbursement be made by the 

 Federal Government to workers for newly acquired metric tools, Davis 

 stood firm. On the tools issue, Davis decried the concept of "a Govern- 

 ment inspector in every tool kit." He added that it would be 

 inequitable not to reimburse aerospace and auto workers who had 

 already acquired metric tools on their own. He pointed out that 

 reimbursement "would violate the basic principle that 'costs shall 

 lie where they fall' which would be applied in all other fields of metric 

 conversion." Finally, Davis indicated "the very real fact that the 

 administration opposes such a provision." 



