[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.
____________________