[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 171 (Wednesday, November 1, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16470-S16473]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
              APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of 
conference 

[[Page S 16471]]

on H.R. 1868 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     1868) making appropriations for foreign operations, export 
     financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, having met, after 
     full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do 
     recommend to their respective Houses this report, signed by 
     all of the conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of October 26, 1995.)
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in 
morning business for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would like to talk about yet another 
example of Federal bureaucratic actions made without regard for the 
will of the people, the will of the Congress, the good of the country 
and basic common sense. We need to restore a degree of sensibility and 
sanity to the manner in which this country gradually converts to the 
metric system.
  The 1988 trade bill contained language which established the metric 
system as the preferred system of measurement for the United States. 
Why was the language on the trade bill? The rationale was that it would 
improve the ability of American companies to export goods to metric-
based countries if American firms could be moved to produce those goods 
in metric versions.
  The principal tool for urging American companies to switch to the 
metric system has been to use government procurement policy. The trade 
bill included language ``to require that each Federal agency, by a date 
certain and to the extent economically feasible by the end of the 
fiscal year 1992, use the metric system of measurement in its 
procurement, grants, and other business-related acdtivities * * *.''
  The problem I am addressing today arises from the unfortunate fact 
that the Federal agencies responsible for implementing the metric 
policy either forgot to read or are completely ignoring the remainder 
of the above sentence: ``* * * except to the extent that such use is 
impractical or is likely to cause significant inefficiencies or loss of 
markets to U.S. firms, such as when foreign competitors are producing 
competing products in nonmetric units;''
  Congress never intended for the switch to metrication to be forced at 
any cost or without regard to its impact on people and industry. Issues 
such as impracticality and the loss of markets to U.S. firms were 
paramount in the minds of everyone aware of this language. Without 
these important considerations, the metric language would not have 
remained in the bill to become law.
  Yet, we see today that Federal construction procurement policy for 
the various departments and agencies is completely ignoring this 
language and pushing ahead with metrication policies without any 
formalized plans for avoiding the pitfalls. In fact, they are going far 
beyond the level of metrication called for in the trade bills, and that 
is causing staggering problems for some industries. These problems are 
compounded by Federal procurement policies that hinder industry rather 
than promote trade.
  Simply converting an industry to metric units of measurement is 
usually not a major problem. Converting the numbers from inches and 
pounds to millimeters and kilograms is a difference on paper which can 
be made by editing the marketing literature and computer design 
programs. The physical size of the product remains the same. This is 
known as a soft-metric conversion, and does little to interfere with 
efficient and well-established production practices or costs. The 
Government is allowing a soft conversion for most construction 
industries.
  The problem is that some industries have been targeted to do more 
than use metric units of measurement; they are being required to change 
the size of their products as well. This is called a hard-metric 
conversion, and it can throw existing production practices into an 
uproar. At this point, industry is forced to change production 
practices. Even a minute change in size required by the Federal 
Government can force a business to completely retool and deal with all 
the problems with managing a second, hard-metric inventory of goods. 
This is Federal bureaucracy run amok.
  And who picks up the tab for this intrusive Government policy? The 
taxpayer, that is who. Converting to hard-metric will add to the cost 
of Federal contracting jobs. And the industry will be forced to pass 
along the conversion costs to the Government and on down to the 
taxpayer. Under hard-metrication, the taxpayers are forced to pay a 
hefty ``metric premium,'' whether they want to or not.
   Mr. President, it is time to pass legislation that will take away 
the ability of the Government in Washington DC, to send whole 
established industries into a tailspin, to put small businesses out of 
the running for Federal contracts, and force the taxpayers to foot the 
bill for a warped view of metric purity.
  There does not need to be a wholesale attack on the metric system. It 
is true that many industries can convert to the metric system with 
little or no trouble or expense, and that is fine. However, there are 
those cases where there are substantial, compelling industry-specific 
economic, trade or production factors that call for a soft-metric 
conversion. Industries that would bear unreasonable burdens in 
switching to hard-metric should instead be allowed to convert to soft-
metric.
  The Federal Government should refrain from developing or using 
designs, or requiring bids for hard-metric products when a soft-metric 
conversion is technologically feasible and certain other criteria 
relating to specific small business, trade and economic criteria are 
present:
  The product is not available from at least 50 percent of the 
production sites, or hard-metric product does not constitute at least 
50 percent of the total domestic production, and;
  A hard-metric conversion would require small manufacturers of a 
product to spend more than $25,000 to purchase new equipment, and;
  The economics and customs of the industry are such that any 
offsetting trade benefits would be negligible, or that hard-metric 
conversion would either substantially reduce competition for federally 
assisted contracts or would increase the per-unit cost to the 
taxpayers, or that hard-metric conversion would place small domestic 
producers at a competitive disadvantage to foreign competitors.
   Mr. President, metrication may well have merit on paper and may have 
some positive impact on American business generally. Gut it is 
difficult to say how much, if any, impact it is having on business. 
Business is usually good at making decisions based on sound-business 
sense. Which is more than I can say for the Federal Government in this 
case.
  We need to move legislation quickly, since I am aware that several 
Federal agencies are actively pursuing the development of hard-metric 
designs to be used on federally assisted construction. Federal agencies 
should strongly consider putting their design and bidding efforts on 
hold if they involve hard-metric product.
  I ask unanimous consent to have a letter printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                          National


                                 Concrete Masonry Association,

                                    Herndon, VA, October 26, 1995.
     Hon. Conrad Burns,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Burns: I am very pleased to learn that you 
     have taken note of the plight the concrete masonry (C/M) 
     industry is facing with regard to the hard-metric con- 
     version the federal government is forcing on our producers. I 
     would like to take this opportunity to explain why hard-
     metric conversion is terrible public policy, why it is so bad 
     for the C/M industry, for the federal procurement agents and 
     for the taxpayers, and why a soft-metric alternative is 
     absolutely imperative.

[[Page S 16472]]

       Concrete masonry is the industry term for concrete brick 
     and block. It is a very common, basic building component and 
     is essentially a commodity. It is made by pouring concrete 
     into molds of various shapes and sizes, and then drying the 
     product for the requisite amount of time. Over the course of 
     decades, the industry has developed uniform shapes and sizes 
     that are common throughout the construction industry. All C/M 
     manufacturers have purchased and maintain complete sets of 
     molds to make the product, and they maintain inventories of 
     various shapes and sizes.
       Virtually all the producers in the country make product 
     based on the English foot-pounds system. That is because 
     virtually the entire American market uses English-based 
     block. The standard concrete block everyone knows is 8" x 8" 
     x 16".
       Even though the long history of the C/M industry is based 
     on the English system, it would be fairly simple to convert 
     to the metric system of measurement--if that were all that 
     Federal procurement officers required. The C/M industry has 
     made it very clear that it can convert to the metric system 
     immediately if that will satisfy the government's requirement 
     for metrication. All our producers have to do is express the 
     standard concrete block in metric dimensions, 194mm x 194mm x 
     397mm. That only requires a change in our sales materials and 
     some basic changes in our computer design programs. Changing 
     the unit of measurement without changing the physical size is 
     referred to as a soft-metric conversion.
       However, the C/M industry is being told by federal 
     contracting agents that converting to metric is not enough, 
     that they want the industry to actually change the size of 
     its product to achieve metrication and round numbers. 
     Changing the physical size of the product in addition to 
     changing the unit of measurement is called a hard-metric 
     conversion.
       There is nothing whatsoever in any legislation requiring a 
     hard-metric conversion of any product. The words do not 
     appear in any bill or any statement of policy by Congress. 
     There is no legislative history showing any desire by any 
     elected official to force any industry to change the size of 
     its products or to radically change their production 
     practices. If anything, the legislative history of the 1988 
     Trade Bill and the metric language attached thereto clearly 
     indicates that this kind of intrusion into industry activity 
     was exactly what the Congress was trying to avoid.
       According to publications issued by the Construction 
     Metrication Council, a group of federal construction policy 
     officials in various departments and agencies who are 
     coordinating metrication in U.S. construction, some 
     industries are being required to engage in hard-metric 
     conversion even in cases where it will be extremely costly, 
     inefficient, and impractical to do so. The large majority of 
     products will be allowed to use a soft-metric conversion, 
     which should be the policy for all products. But some 
     unfortunate businesses like the C/M industry have been 
     targeted for hard-metric conversion and are being thrown into 
     turmoil as a result.
       The hard-metric block that the Council has defined is 190mm 
     x 190mm x 390mm. This is roughly one-eighth of an inch 
     smaller than the soft-metric version that the industry could 
     produce today at minimal or no additional cost. However, that 
     one-eighth of an inch difference for hard-metric would 
     require C/M manufacturers to purchase an entirely new set of 
     hard-metric molds in order to produce hard-metric product.
       Concrete block molds generally range in cost from $10,000 
     to $30,000 per mold, and it takes many types of shapes and 
     sizes to complete a typical large, complex federal 
     construction project. Individual C/M producers have told me 
     it could cost between $250,000 and $300,000 per producer to 
     buy a complete compliment of hard-metric molds. NCMA has 
     estimated that if the entire domestic C/M industry shifted to 
     hard-metric production, it would cost between $250 million 
     and $500 million.
       That makes the government's eighth of an inch for hard-
     metric the most expensive eighth of an inch in American 
     history.
       Let's keep in mind that a hard-metric block is not 
     stronger, not safer, not more durable, not more resistant to 
     fire nor more energy efficient nor more anything useful. 
     Perhaps that is the reason why there is no demand whatsoever 
     in the American private sector for hard-metric concrete 
     block. Nobody wants it because there is no reason to want it. 
     The only difference is that it is more expensive, hard to 
     find and difficult to produce.
       Requiring a business like the C/M industry to convert to 
     hard-metric shows an amazing lack of knowledge about or 
     concern for the industry itself. Let's keep in mind that the 
     rationale behind the metric language in the Trade Bill was to 
     promote the trade stance of American companies. It so turns 
     out that concrete masonry is only rarely traded in 
     international commerce and is nearly never transported 
     overseas. In addition, this is an industry whose product is 
     so much like a commodity that the average profit margin per 
     unit is 2 cents. The economics of the industry are such that 
     it isn't feasible to ship block to Europe or Japan or 
     anywhere beyond the border regions of Canada and Mexico. Most 
     block is used within 50 miles of the point of production. Any 
     trade benefit that might offset initial costs for other 
     industries is utterly negligible for the block industry.
       But the consequences of this policy get even worse. The 
     vast majority of C/M producers in America are small, often 
     family-held businesses. In NCMA, 62 percent of all of our 
     member companies have one block-making machine. These 
     companies will immediately be pushed out of the market for 
     federal government contracts, the first victims of an 
     economically negligent metrication policy. There is no means 
     by which many smaller businesses can hope to recoup the huge 
     capital outlay required to start up an entirely new line of 
     products merely to satisfy the hard-metric preferences of 
     federal bureaucrats. There is virtually no private sector 
     demand for hard-metric product, so any income to offset the 
     capitalization cost would have to come from the occasional 
     federally-assisted project. Federally-assisted construction 
     is less than 5 percent of the entire domestic construction 
     market. Such projects are vitally important to the bottom 
     line of a successful bidder, but they are too infrequent in 
     most cases to justify the investment and, indeed, the risk, 
     of buying a new line of production molds and hoping enough 
     business comes along to eventually recover the initial 
     investment.
       Is this how the 1988 Trade Bill was supposed to improve the 
     ability of American firms to engage in foreign trade? Hard-
     metric conversion would work a trade burden on the domestic 
     C/M industry, not a trade benefit. It would seem that this 
     was exactly the unintended consequence that Congress sought 
     to avoid in the 1988 Trade Bill.
       Aside from the tremendous burdens it would place on the C/M 
     industry, there would be increased construction costs to 
     produce what amounts to a specialty product. I mentioned 
     previously that there would be no way for a small block 
     manufacturer to recoup its costs. Actually, there would be a 
     way--by passing those additional costs on to the consumer, 
     which in this case is the taxpayer. I understand that federal 
     contracting agents are willing under the metrication policy 
     to accept higher bids in order to obtain hard-metric 
     product--a ``metric premium'' in the range of 1 to 5 
     percent. They have to because hard-metric product is often 
     in very short supply or non-existent.
       It gets worse. There are rumors that this metric premium 
     may quietly but quickly get out of hand. During a June 
     hearing before the House Science Subcommittee on Technology, 
     chaired by the Honorable Connie Morella, Mrs. Morella told 
     one of the witnesses that she had heard that a new advanced 
     technology laboratory being constructed at NIST near 
     Gaithersburg, Maryland is being built to hard metric 
     specifications, and that GAO estimates the additional cost 
     will be 20 or 25 percent. The witnesses did not deny that 
     this was the case.
       Just how serious is the issue of reduced competition for 
     bids? NCMA recently sent a metrication questionnaire to the 
     798 C/M producers it knows to exist throughout the country. 
     398 responded, an astonishing response rate of 49 percent, 
     which gives some idea of how important this issue is to the 
     individual companies. Of those companies responding, I said 
     it currently makes hard-metric block, 397 said they do not. 
     Only two companies said they have hard-metric molds onsite to 
     make the product. It is likely there are others who can make 
     the product, but it is very clear that there is precious 
     little availability of the product the government is asking 
     for in the country today, and little capacity to make it.
       Recently, I was contacted by a contracting agent for the 
     Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta. He had a big hard-
     metrication problem of his own. It seems he had made calls to 
     32 block manufacturers to determine availability of concrete 
     masonry. All 32 said they could provide all the block the CDC 
     would need, and at competitive prices. But when the CDC agent 
     asked whether the companies could supply hard-metric block, 
     immediately all but 6 of the companies dropped out. Of the 
     remaining six, 3 said they could provide soft-metric block. 
     The last 3 companies indicated they might do whatever it 
     takes to win the bid, but the agent believed that none of 
     those companies presently have hard metric capability.
       Clearly, the taxpayers will pay more per unit, enjoy less 
     competition and have far fewer sources of product than can be 
     had using a soft-metric conversion. Indeed, federal 
     procurement policy staff have told me their design staff are 
     currently designing projects in hard-metric block even though 
     they have no idea where they will obtain the hard-metric 
     material. It is entirely possible that there will be no 
     responsive bidders in hard-metric, requiring the government 
     to redraw plans and bid in soft-metric, all at increased 
     costs to the taxpayers.
       NCMA has gone to great lengths to persuade the federal 
     contracting authorities on the basis of these considerations 
     to relent on the hard-metric concrete block requirements.
       We have thoroughly briefed the Construction Metrication 
     Council on the problems we would face. We have provided 
     position papers and fact sheets. We have met in small groups 
     with the federal employees charged with developing agency 
     procurement policy. We have invited CMC staff to speak 
     directly with C/M producers. We have told federal 
     construction representatives that there is only a relative 
     handful of C/M producers in America that can produce hard-
     metric material. We have pleaded with CMC officials to 
     reconsider the caveat language in the 1988 Trade Bill clearly 
     showing that metrication is not meant to cause substantial 
     inefficiencies and loss of markets to U.S. firms, but 

[[Page S 16473]]

     our entreaties have fallen upon deaf ears. The end result is 
     that we have had cordial, business-like meetings but the 
     drive for hard-metric concrete block continues unabated. The 
     federal procurement policy officials keep telling block 
     manufacturers to make hard-metric block or they won't be 
     adequately responding to federal solicitations.
       We have been told point-blank that if companies have to go 
     by the wayside in order to convert to hard-metric, so be it, 
     that is the price of progress.
       It is clear to me that the only solution at this point is a 
     legislative solution.
       On behalf of united C/M producers throughout the country, I 
     would urge that you and your colleagues pass legislation to 
     restore the original intent of Congress and prevent the 
     terrible, ironic consequences that the hard-metric conversion 
     of concrete masonry would create.
       With best wishes.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Randall G. Pence,
                                 Director of Government Relations.

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________