INCHING TOWARD THE METRIC SYSTEM, 1959-79 479 



Representative Jim Lloyd then offered an amendment to knock 

 out the phrase "with a view to making metric units the predominant, 

 although not exclusive, language of measurement." Lloyd laid it on 

 the line in explaining his objective: 



Well, what I am trying to do with this, in all fairness, is to make a direct appeal, 

 a strong appeal to labor. 



Symington was immediately sympathetic: 



Ma) be it is not necessary to incur what appears to be, perhaps, the open oppo- 

 sition of some sections or sectors of the economy, that is, simply for the sake of one 

 word. * * * It would be nice to get the labor community behind the bill at the 

 beginning. 



McCormack asked for Symington to elaborate, and Symington 

 responded that he felt the remaining language — "to plan and coordi- 

 nate voluntary substitution of metric measurement units for customary 

 measurement units" — was "sufficiently strong to push us off the diving 

 board into metric." 



EMERY FIGHTS FOR 10-YEAR GOAL 



A spirited debate then ensued when Representative David F. 

 Emery (Republican of Maine) argued for maintaining the 10-year 

 timeframe. Emery explained his amendment for a 10-year goal : 



One of the reasons I decided to offer the amendment is to voice the rather strong 

 frustration that I feel as a professional engineer when I listen to some of those very 

 poor arguments and poor excuses that I heard in this particular room, and also among 

 other people who have not appeared before the committee to explain why we can't 

 possibly convert to the metric system, and why it would be expensive, undesirable 

 and confusing. Our neighbors to the north, Canada, testified very eloquently. They 

 have had an easy transition. It was accepted well by the people. I feel, unless we put 

 some teeth, so to speak into this bill, that the idea of metric conversion will languish. 

 I don't think that we are facing the fact that the only reason that we are not putting 

 ourselves on a timetable, or not facing the issue squarely, is because of pressure from 

 certain groups that are politically powerful, or groups in industry as well who fear 

 the transition. * * * We are not facing up to the issue, I think that we can convert 

 to the metric system, do the job properly, and I think it would be far less painful if 

 we would set a timetable and move in that direction and not try to pretend that we 

 are doing something that we are not doing. 



A majority of the committee felt the opposite way, however. 

 Fuqua explained that as a supporter of metric conversion for a number 

 of years, and as cosponsor of a bill including the 10-year timeframe, 

 "after listening to many days of testimony of witnesses this year, I 

 have reconsidered that point of view. * * * 1 say this because, number 

 one, the administration's bill requested there not be a timeframe. * * * 

 To some people, this really raises a red flag. I hope that we could 



