[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 44 (Wednesday, April 20, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 20, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
   ``METRICS: MISMEASURING CON- SUMER DEMAND'' A VERY BALANCED REVIEW

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues know, Mr. 
President, I have been a long-time proponent of metric conversion by 
the United States. As I have said before, I strongly believe that the 
American economy would greatly benefit if the United States were to 
join the rest of the world.
  Presently, the United States is the only industrialized nation in the 
world that does not use the metric system of measurement. Imagine, Mr. 
President, what impact this has on our trade with other countries. In 
fact, the U.S. Department of Commerce has estimated that U.S. exports 
could increase by as much as 20 percent if the United States were to 
convert to the metric system.
  Unfortunately, Americans have, for some time, seemed apprehensive 
about making the change from our inch/pound system to the metric 
system. This tension between the obvious economic benefits and consumer 
apprehension is one of the biggest hurdles metric proponents face.
  An article in the February 1994 issue of Consumer's Research magazine 
does a fine job of exploring this tension. The article is very 
interesting and well-balanced. I recommend it to all of my colleagues, 
regardless of your views on metric conversion.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article, ``Metrics: 
Mismeasuring Consumer Demand'' be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From Consumers' Research, February 1994]

                 Metrics: Mismeasuring Consumer Demand

                          (By Michael Chapman)

       Is the Department of Justice, the top governmental agency 
     responsible for law enforcement, violating the law? 
     Apparently, yes. The law in question concerns the use of the 
     metric system of weight and measure as enacted by the Metric 
     Conversion Act of 1975 and amended in the Omnibus Trade and 
     Competitiveness Act of 1988. This amendment on metric usage 
     (Public Law 100-418, Section 5164) ``declares that the policy 
     of the nation is to designate the metric system as the 
     preferred system of measurement for trade and commerce, and 
     requires such federal agency to use metric units in all or as 
     many of its procurements, grants, and other business-related 
     transactions as is economically feasible by the end of fiscal 
     year 1992.'' According to a report by the Congressional 
     Research Service at the end of fiscal year 1992, the Justice 
     Department ``does not appear to be complying with the [metric 
     usage] law.''
       The Justice Department is not alone.
       The latest information available indicates that no less 
     than 22 of 37 federal agencies have either completely or 
     partially failed to comply with the metric conversion law. 
     These ``outlaw'' agencies include: Department of Education, 
     Department of Transportation, Federal Trade Commission, U.S. 
     Postal Service, General Services Administration, and the 
     Government Printing Office. Despite these apparent violators 
     of federal law, don't expect the U.S. government to indict 
     itself. Attempts at metric conversion in the private sector 
     never really got off the ground. It is still uncertain 
     whether this attempt at conversion in the public sector will 
     survive, let alone succeed.


                         metric history lesson

       The attempt to replace the English (or customary) system of 
     weight and measure, which is based on inch/pound/quart 
     measurements, with the metric system, which is decimal-based 
     and uses meters, grams, and liters for measurement, has a 
     long history.
       The metric system was born during the French Revolution. In 
     the United States, both Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy 
     Adams advocated, unsuccessfully, metric conversion. By an Act 
     of Congress in 1866, metric usage was legalized in the United 
     States on a voluntary basis. In 1875, along with 17 other 
     nations, the United States signed the Treaty of the Meter. 
     This agreement established the International Bureau of 
     Weights and Measures in Sevres. France, to provide metric 
     standards of measurement for worldwide use. These standards 
     for length and mass were adopted in the United States in 
     1893. In 1960 the metric standards were revised. This 
     modernized version of the metric system is known as Le 
     Systeme International d'Unites (International System of 
     Units) or SI. Metrics have been legal on a voluntary basis 
     for more than 100 years; but except in those fields that are 
     metric-dependent--science and trade--widespread metric 
     conversion in the United States has not occurred.
       To promote metric conversion in the United States, Congress 
     passed the Metric Conversion Act of 1975. This Act called for 
     a voluntary conversion by individual groups and industries. 
     However, this attempt failed. Americans, by and large, 
     rejected the system. ``The switch to metric was perceived as 
     hostile to consumers,'' said Government Executive in 1990. 
     ``The public objected loudly to road signs showing distances 
     in kilometers, to temperatures in Celsius, and to gasoline 
     sold in liters.''
       In assessing this unsuccessful attempt at metric 
     conversion, G.T. Underwood, former director of the Office of 
     Metric Programs at the Department of Commerce, says: 
     ``Arguments about lost export markets got mixed up with the 
     need for metric road signs. The general public resented what 
     seemed an unnecessary social nuisance. Most U.S. firms, 
     seeking not to aggravate U.S. customers, didn't change their 
     products, the ostriches prevailed, and the movement 
     essentially stalled.'' On a related note, a General 
     Accounting Office (GAO) report in 1978 found: the total cost 
     of metric conversion was indeterminable but substantial, 
     somewhere in the billions-of-dollars range; conversion would 
     result in higher consumer prices and reduced U.S. 
     productivity; U.S. and world trade would not be hampered by a 
     dual system of English and metric measurement; and there was 
     no evidence that a solely metric system would benefit the 
     U.S. economy.
       As a result of the reaction in the 1970s, overt enthusiasm 
     for metric conversion in the public and private sector 
     waned--until 1988.
       As mentioned, in the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act 
     of 1988, the metric system is designated the ``preferred 
     system of measurement'' in the United States and requires all 
     federal agencies to ``go'' metric. In 1991, President George 
     Bush issued Executive Order 12770, which clarified the role 
     of the Commerce Department to direct and coordinate all 
     federal agencies in converting to the metric system. With 
     these directives, proponents of metrication plan to stimulate 
     conversion in the United States from the top down--from 
     government, to industries, to small businesses, and 
     eventually to consumers.
       ``The amended Metric Conversion Act of 1975 and the 1991 
     Executive Order provide both the rationale and the mandate 
     for a transition to the use of metric units,'' says Dr. Gary 
     P. Carver, chief of the Metric Program at the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Metric 
     conversion in the federal government could finally tip ``the 
     scale toward general acceptance of the metric system,'' notes 
     Government Executive.
       But how exactly will this latest attempt at metric 
     conversion work? And how will it affect consumers?


                        the case for metrication

       Stimulate conversion.--The new attempt at metric conversion 
     strongly encourages American industries that sell products to 
     the government to produce these products in metric units. 
     Conversion is voluntary for private industry. But if an 
     industry sells to a government that is required by law to 
     purchase metric-sized products, then what will that industry 
     do? Answer: Either stop selling to that government or convert 
     its products to metric measurement. Carver says the main 
     objective of metric conversion in the federal agencies is to 
     ``stimulate'' people, not force them to convert to metrics. 
     The budgetary power of the 37 federal agencies involved is a 
     powerful stimulus.
       The General Services Administration (GSA), for instance, 
     spends more than $2 billion a year on procurement. The entire 
     federal bureaucracy spends more than $300 billion a year on 
     goods and supplies. Under the law, all federal agencies must 
     use the metric system in their procurement, grants, and other 
     business-related activities. More than $300 billion in 
     procurements will unquestionably affect the nation. Hence, 
     industries have converted or are in the process of converting 
     to the metric system.
       Automobiles built by General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler are 
     constructed using metric measurements, as are computer 
     designs made by Xerox and IBM. Lockheed and Boeing aircraft 
     have converted to remain eligible for Pentagon contracts. 
     Soft drinks, liquor, tires, film, cameras, skis, and many 
     weapons systems are either produced, sold, or labeled in 
     metric measurement. The now-stalled Strategic Defense 
     Initiative was build according to metric standards. And, by 
     February 14, 1994, all consumer product labeling and 
     packaging must be in both English and metric measurements. By 
     ``stimulating'' businesses to convert either fully or 
     partially to metric usage, metric proponents hope that 
     Americans will eventually accept metrication as more and more 
     consumer products and services are ``metricised.''
       ``We made a mistake after 1975 by trying to force metrics 
     down people's throats,'' says Underwood. ``This time, 
     business is leading the way, and social and cultural change 
     will follow.'' The metric system is apparently making its 
     long march through the governmental institutions.
       Trade and jobs.--Metric proponents say that conversion to 
     the metric system is necessary and inevitable. Most of the 
     world uses metric measurement and international trade 
     involves metric-sized products. If American industry wants to 
     stay competitive in the global marketplace, the reasoning 
     goes, then U.S. industry better get on the metric bandwagon. 
     By going metric the U.S. government ``would open the door for 
     new markets and thereby help to create the new jobs this 
     nation so drastically needs,'' says Senator Claiborne Pell 
     (D-R.I.). ``[I]t is time for our government to assume a 
     leadership position on the metric issue, instead of passively 
     waiting for market forces to reverse our archaic system of 
     measurement.'' The Commerce Department estimates that U.S. 
     exports could be increased by up to 20% by offering metric-
     size goods to international markets.
       In a speech before the National Metric Conference in 1992, 
     President Bush endorsed metrication of U.S. products. 
     President Clinton also supports metrication: ``All developed 
     nations except the United States use the metric system, and 
     it is clear that our country will benefit by encouraging 
     voluntary metric use by industry. These efforts can enhance 
     America's competitive edge and help create new jobs and 
     opportunities for our people.'' The European Community, which 
     has a buying public of 320 million people, threatened to bar 
     the importation of non-metric products after December 1992, 
     but this deadline has been extended to December 1999.
       Metrication of U.S. industry, say its proponents, will lead 
     to better trade with Canada, Mexico, Europe, and the nations 
     of the Pacific Rim. ``Adopting metric is only one key to 
     seizing these opportunities, but an important one that, when 
     combined with other `attitude adjustment,' will greatly 
     affect the economic health of this country and our future 
     standard of living,'' said Underwood.
       Other benefits.--In addition to its effect on U.S. exports, 
     metric conversion will benefit the average consumer, says 
     NIST. Metrication should promote standardized and simpler 
     product packaging, which will reduce the number of package 
     sizes, simplify price comparisons, and lower packaging and 
     shipping costs. These savings will reach the consumer, says 
     NIST. In switching to metric, the U.S. liquor industry 
     reduced the number of its container sizes from 53 to seven, 
     which resulted in a substantial savings in production costs. 
     In its metric conversion, IBM reduced 38,000 part numbers in 
     fasteners to 4,000.


                      The case against metrication

       Regardless of the benefits of metric conversion to U.S. 
     trade, opponents of metrication say there is no need for the 
     United States to switch systems to accommodate the rest of 
     the world.
       ``The people of this country should not be coerced to 
     convert to the 200-year-old, artificially contrived metric 
     system. Metrics are a language of technocracy and 
     multinational trade. Let science and industry use the metric 
     system as they need it,'' says Seaver Leslie, head of the 
     Americans for Customary Weight and Measure, a not-for-profit 
     group dedicated to retaining the English system of weight and 
     measure.
       Costs.--A survey by the National Federation of Independent 
     Business (NFIB) in 1979 found that 69 percent of 55,401 of 
     its members surveyed opposed metric conversion because of 
     costs. ``Metric conversion benefits large, manufacturing 
     industries and most of these are already undergoing 
     conversion, but the metric system should not be forced down 
     the throats of all businesses in America. The cost to small 
     firms, in time lost and wasted materials, could never be 
     recouped,'' the NFIB said at the time. Fourteen years later, 
     the NFIB, with 610,000 members, has not changed its position. 
     ``Most small businesses are opposed to metric conversion 
     because of costs,'' says Terry Hill, a spokesman for the 
     group. On a related note, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
     estimates that it will cost the agency $2 to $3 million to 
     convert to metrics. As mentioned, the GAO reported that the 
     total cost of metric conversion of the United States was 
     indeterminable--but would be in the many billions of dollars.
       Confusion.--There is a single, world standard for the inch. 
     But unknown to most people there are various metric systems 
     in use today. The SI system proposed for the United States 
     ``is materially different from the metric system of other 
     nations, [and] there is much evidence that these nations 
     intend to protect their interests and thus are reluctant to 
     adopt SI in its entirety. Even if the United States converts 
     to SI * * * still no single worldwide system of measurement 
     would exist,'' according to the GAO.
       Metric conversion from the top down, if successful, would 
     eventually affect nearly all aspects of daily life. Workers 
     would have to be retrained, tools replaced, machinery 
     modified, map distances changed, etc. Food and clothing sizes 
     would change. Everything. Our centuries-old way of doing 
     things (and thinking about them) would change.
       Highway signs.--The 1978 Federal Aid Highway Act prohibited 
     the use of federal funds for metric-only signs. This part of 
     the law was overturned when the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act passed in 1991. As a result of 
     the 1988 metric usage law, all highway and highway-related 
     construction funded by the federal government will be done in 
     metric measurement. The deadline for this conversion is 
     September 30, 1996. Although Americans objected to metric 
     road signs when they were proposed in the 1970s, the 
     Department of Transportation (DOT) is currently reviewing 
     comments about metric conversion of highway signs. (As of 
     this printing, it had not made a decision about sign 
     conversion). In previous responses to this issue, 47% of 
     states told the Federal Highway Administration they opposed 
     metric conversion and only 18% supported it. Recent reports 
     on the response to metric conversion of highway signs suggest 
     that only a few states oppose the conversion. However, Amy 
     Steiner of the American Association of State Highway and 
     Transportation Officials says that states don't want to spend 
     money on highway-sign conversion. ``They [states] fear 
     citizen backlash. Citizens don't want metric thrown up at 
     them,'' she says.
       At least one congressman isn't prepared to wait for the 
     Transportation Department to make a decision. After 
     introducing a bill (H.R. 3343) to prohibit the expenditure of 
     federal funds on metric system highway signing, 
     Representative Pat Williams (D-Mont.) said: ``Changing over 
     some areas in our daily lives to metric may make sense in 
     some areas. However, modifying our highway signs does nothing 
     to promote international trade. It does nothing to keep 
     businesses in America. It will cause confusion. Some 
     estimates peg the national cost to converting the nation's 
     highway signs at more than $200 million.'' To date, no action 
     on this bill has occurred.
       Consumer fraud.--Metrication would confuse consumers and 
     probably encourage consumer fraud. ``Consumers would not know 
     whether they are getting their money's worth for things sold 
     by length, volume, or weight. They may not be able to 
     recognize price increases,'' said the GAO. For instance, a 
     gallon of gasoline that costs $1.21 would cost 32 cents per 
     liter (one gallon equals 3.8 liters). ``Gas guzzler taxes and 
     registration fees based on vehicle weight are other areas for 
     abuse,'' says the National Motorists Association of Dane, 
     Wisconsin. The tables based on the metric system are 
     different and costlier than existing tables, which are based 
     on the English system. ``When the wine and liquor industry 
     changed the half-gallon to a 1.75-liter bottle, a 7\1/2\% 
     decrease in volume occurred with no proportionate decrease in 
     price,'' says Leslie.


                       who really wants metrics?

       As mentioned, voluntary usage of the metric system was 
     legalized in 1866. But Americans don't seem to want the 
     system. A 1991 Gallup Poll showed that 64% of the U.S. 
     population opposed metric conversion. Apparently some 
     government suppliers are having trouble converting to metric 
     precisely because Americans still don't want metric products. 
     ``Companies tell us that they're not going to change until 
     their customers demand it,'' says Carver. ``It's tough to get 
     the Department of Commerce to switch to A4 [metric-sized] 
     paper,'' he says. Other agencies cite similar problems.
       To ``metrify'' to a large extent, the Postal Service, 
     according to the GAO, said that ``it would have to convince 
     its vendors and customers to do so.'' However, many of these 
     clients do not conduct business on an international scale. As 
     a consequence, ``when the Postal Service buys equipment that 
     was designed in metric dimensions, it still has to convert 
     some parts back to inches to ensure a ready and economical 
     parts supply,'' said the GAO. The GSA said ``[I]t can 
     encourage its suppliers to convert to the metric system but 
     cannot dictate to them.''
       If the Commerce Department, the agency responsible for 
     directing metric conversion among the 37 Federal agencies, is 
     finding it difficult to switch to metric-sized paper, then 
     the future of total metric conversion in the government seems 
     dubious. (Nonetheless, Carver remains optimistic and cites 
     the success of the highway transition plan for 1996.)
       As we go the press, the GAO had not released its update on 
     metric conversion. However, indications suggest that 
     metrication of federal agencies has not proceeded at the pace 
     and to the extent its planners had envisioned back in 1988. 
     As William Freeborne, the metric coordinator for the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development, says: ``We're 
     not in great shape.'' Even Carver says he is not comfortable 
     with the latest report.
       An interesting point is that taxpayers, who have repeatedly 
     expressed their rejection of metrics, have been paying for 
     forced government conversion, even though use of the metric 
     system on a voluntary basis was legalized in 1866-128 years 
     ago.

                          ____________________