INCHING row \R1> ml METRIC SYSTEM, 1959-79 495 



few weeks before Teague left Congress. Teague spelled out in the letter 

 the clear intent of the Congress: 



Contrary to the analysis in the GAO report and some of the news stories which 

 have accompanied its release * * * (Congress) set forth a clear policy for Metric 

 conversion in the United States. That policy is to facilitate the conversion to Metric 

 use in our country in order to reduce the total cost and inconvenience to our people. * * * 

 I would emphasize that the fact that the process is voluntary does not mean that the 

 role of the Board should be a passive one. The Board, in its public education activities 

 should try to reach every American both directly and indirectly through school 

 boards and teachers, the media and trade and labor organizations, and other appro- 

 priate means. In its coordination activities the Board should actively seek out the 

 members of every sector in our society which may be affected by conversion to Metric 

 with the aim of identifying those who wish to participate in the Board's coordina- 

 tion work. Such an active approach to its mission, always keeping in mind that 

 participation is to be voluntary, is what the Congress, and I am sure the President, 

 expects from the Board. 



Teague concluded his strong letter of support to Chairman Polk with 

 these words: 



I hope you will bear in mind that in my view and in the view of my colleagues 

 in the Congress the changeover to the Metric System which is now underway will 

 affect every American. The program intended by the Congress and mandated in the 

 law is aimed at making the changeover take place in the most economical and effec- 

 tive way. 



SUPPORT TOR METRIC SYSTEM IN 1979 



On a number of occasions in 1979, Fuqua reiterated his support for 

 voluntary conversion to the metric system. His position was clearly 

 spelled out in a February 7, 1979 letter to Dr. Polk, which included the 

 following comments : 



Since becoming chairman of the Committee on Science and Technology earlier 

 this year, I have had a chance to review the recent developments surrounding the 

 U.S. Metric Board. * * * 



Let me observe first that I entirely share the views expressed by the former 

 chairman of our committee, Mr. Teague, in his letter to you on November 27. You 

 may recall that in 1975, while serving on the Science, Research and Technology 

 Subcommittee, I was a supporter of the bill, which led to the Metric Act. I attended 

 all the hearings held at that time and I gave careful weight to the different opinions 

 expressed by several witnesses. The final form of the legislation had my strong sup- 

 port at the time and it continues to have my strong support. 



The basic principle of our metric policy is that the Government, through the 

 Board, shall seek to make the ongoing conversion to metric take place in the least 

 disruptive and most effective way. Our policy includes the important principle that 

 the conversion is voluntary. At the same time the U.S. Metric Board must actively 

 search out those areas where voluntary conversion is now, or may in the future take 

 place, with the purpose of speeding the process along in the most effective manner. 



In his letter, Fuqua advised Dr. Polk that he hoped the GAO 

 report would not discourage or delay the work of the Board. He 



