PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 27, 1996
Savings in Construction Act of 1996 - Amends the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 to define specified terms, including: (1) full and open competition; (2) total installed price; (3) hard-metric; (4) cost or pricing data or price analysis; and (5) Federal facility. Requires the implementation of such Act in the acquisition of construction services and materials for Federal facilities. Directs that if the requirements of this Act conflict with specified Federal procurement provisions, then such provisions shall take precedence. Sets forth exceptions with respect to the implementation of such Act concerning concrete masonry units and recessed lighting fixtures. Requires the agency head to determine in writing according to specified criteria that specifications can only be satisfied by hard-metric versions. Requires the head of each agency that awards construction contracts within the United States and its territories to designate a senior agency official as a construction metrication ombudsman to, among other things, be: (1) responsible for reviewing and responding to complaints from prospective bidders, subcontractors, suppliers, or their designated representatives concerning use of the metric system of measurement in contracts for the construction of Federal buildings; (2) independent of the contracting officer for construction contracts; and (3) responsible for ensuring that the agency is not implementing the metric system of measurement in a manner that is either impractical, likely to cause significant inefficiencies or loss of markets to U.S. firms, or inconsistent with specified guidelines while ensuring that the goals of the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 are observed.
People & committees
Rep. Cox, Christopher [R-CA-47] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
Considered as unfinished business.
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5, rule I, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules.
Mr. Walker moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the House Committee on Science.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4233 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4233 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4233 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4233 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.