454 HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 



to convert to the metric system over a specific period of time. Hechler 

 wanted to move somewhat slower, and he added: 



I think we have to take this out of the long-haired field and get it into the stream 

 of public thinking. * * * What disturbs me about this is that it seems to me in order 

 for any progress to be made toward adoption of the metric system, there is going 

 to have to be widespread public discussion, widespread public interest, not simply 

 the interest, if you will pardon the phrase, of the "long hairs." 



Outright opposition was expressed by Chenoweth, who asked: 



Don't you think we should retain something in this country that makes us 

 distinctive or sets us apart? We shouldn't adopt everything else that the world has. 

 We ought to keep some identity. 



On July 21, 1961, the full committee met to mark up the legisla- 

 tion, and Miller reported out his own bill which the committee 

 unanimously adopted. In his report advocating passage of the study, 

 Miller argued : 



Technically speaking, the metric system is more simple to use than the system 

 of English units for the reason that it is decimal and therefore requires little or no 

 translation. * * * Today there is renewed interest in the proposition for a change to 

 the metric system, despite the fact that for nearly three decades there has been a period 

 of relative inactivity in this field. This renewed interest in conversion to the metric 

 system is due, at least in part, to international competition in trade and to an ever 

 closer contact with countries using the metric system. 



However, the bill ran into trouble on the House floor. The leader- 

 ship did not want to go before the Committee on Rules, because of 

 the strong opposition of Rules Committee Chairman Howard W. Smith 

 (Democrat of Virginia), and felt that to bring the bill up under sus- 

 pension of the rules (requiring a two-thirds majority) was perhaps 

 too formal a move for a simple study. So the bill was placed on the 

 consent calendar. On nine different occasions between August 7, 1961, 

 and April 2, 1962, the metric study bill was "passed over without 

 prejudice," and still the leadership tried to slip it through on the 

 "consent calendar" — where one objection would kill it. Two final 

 attempts were made in 1962 — on April 16, when three Members ob- 

 jected: H. R. Gross (Republican of Iowa), Durward Hall (Republican 

 of Missouri), and Gerald R. Ford (Republican of Michigan); and 

 May 7, when Gross again objected, killing the bill for the session. 



H. R. GROSS OPPOSES METRIC 1962 



Gross explained that he felt that authorizing $500,000 would be 

 a waste of money. He added: 



It is wholly unnecessary to study the metric system. It is in use in a number of 

 foreign countries. If it is desired to put the metric system into effect in this country 

 let us legislate to put it into effect. Let us not waste a half a million dollars of tax- 

 payers' money studying something to which there is no mystery whatever. 



After he became chairman in September 1961, Miller bided his 

 time and tried to encourage more educational work on the part of 



