[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 138 (Monday, September 30, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S11944]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                THE SAVINGS IN CONSTRUCTION ACT OF 1996

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, during my time in the Senate, I have worked 
to see that United States joins the rest of the world by converting to 
the metric system of measurement. Believe it or not, the United States 
is the only industrialized nation in the world that has failed to 
change to the metric system of measurement.
  I believe the Federal Government, as a major consumer of goods and 
services, should lead the way and convert to the metric system. In 
1973, I authored the Metric Conversion Act that later became law in 
1975. That act set forth the policy of the United States to convert to 
the metric system. Section 3 of the Act requires each Federal Agency to 
use the metric system of measurement in its procurement, grants and 
other business-related activities.
  Slowly but surely, the Federal Government has started to make that 
move. Federal construction officials in particular have made great 
progress in this area and have met with limited resistance from the 
construction community around the United States. All concerned deserve 
our praise for their efforts.
  Unfortunately, legislation introduced in both the House and the 
Senate during this Congress would have provided permanent, complete 
exemptions for two industries from requests for the metric-sized 
building products required by Federal law for Federal construction 
projects.
  Needless to say, I strongly opposed that legislation. Federal laws 
and Presidential Executive orders signed by Presidents of both parties 
over for 20 years clearly state that the United States should move to 
the metric system and that the Federal Government should lead the way--
by example.
  Over the last several weeks, I have joined with Senators Hollings, 
Glenn, and Burns to craft an acceptable amendment to the original 
legislation. I am not completely pleased with the result of our efforts 
and it is certainly not what I would have written. The result is, 
however, a compromise. I believe compromise to be integral to the 
working of the U.S. Senate and did, therefore, not oppose this 
substitute.

                          ____________________