Jim: "Originally intended" by George H.W. Bush's administration, as shown on the initial political action page of SI Navigator:
... use the metric system of measurement in its procurements, grants, and other business-related activities, except to the extent that such use is impractical or is likely to cause significant inefficiencies or loss of markets to United States firms such as when foreign competitors are producing competing products in nonmetric units. Metric Conversion Policy for Federal Agencies Signed on July 25, 1991, by George H. W. Bush, President Of course, I realize that "originally intended" is not a really accurate characterization of a 1991 statement of policy. I can't imagine that too many foreign competitors are producing competing products in nonmetric units (except maybe some Chinese companies). It would be nice if the policy defined such terms as "impractical" and "significant inefficiencies." Obvious, the civil service has a large number of Luddites in its purchasing ranks, who are stretching those terms to the limit. Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Behalf Of Jim Elwell >Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 10:24 >To: U.S. Metric Association >Subject: [USMA:29990] Re: Three Silly Reasons for Not Adopting the >Metric System > > >I've made the point several times on this forum that the US Federal >Government is the single largest consumer of goods and services in the >country, and if they simply refused to buy non-metric products, that would >provide a dramatic metrication push, without having to place any >regulation >onto private businesses. > >As Phil points out, adding state and local governments would do even more >to metricate the country, again without any regulation of private business. > >Bill, I'm not sure what you mean by "originally intended" -- are you >referring to the 1975 metrication legislation? > >Jim > > >At 26 05 04, 11:02 AM, Phil Chernack wrote: >>The same argument could be made against the removal of the metric mandate >>from TEA-21. If the mandate had stood, states could have forced >county and >>local governments to change to metric and thus, remove the major complaint >>of contractors. >> >>Phil >> >>-----Original Message----- >>Bill Potts wrote: >> >>It was originally intended that the Government do all its own procurement >>using SI units. If government departments and agencies had >followed through >>on that, rather than using the loophole that was provided, the >country might >>be mostly SI by now. >> >>Bill Potts, CMS >>Roseville, CA >>http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] >
