properly evaluate advantages to the United States, disadvantages, costs and ability to recapture costs, and does not relate to the vital necessity to have meaningful voluntary consensus standards developed through the American National Standards Institute and ultimately presented to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) for their consideration. (Senate Hearings—1972).

Total present exports of the United States include many items where metric is not a factor at all: liquids-chemicals, oils, etc.; scrap metals and materials; grains, and bulk factors including coal, ore, etc. (Senate Hearings-1972.)

Our opinion remains unchanged that a general conversion by the United States to the metric system of measurement would not necessarily be in the best industrial and economic interests of our country. (Senate Hearings-1972.)

Statement-Carl A. Beck, Chairman, Metrication Subcommittee of National Small Business Association.

The conversion period for most small business will last appreciably more than 10 years: and in our own business, the Charles Beck Machine Corp. in Pennsylvania, we can see that we will be under a dual system for at least 20, and more likely 30, years because of the vast number of machines that we have in the field that are receiving service and repair parts and so on, because we do have machines that have been out as much as 50 years and are still operating satisfactorily. It is good business to supply repair parts to these customers. Of necessity, therefore, we will have some decades of working with both metric and customary units concurrently. (Senate Hearings-1972.)

Statement-Thomas A. Hannigan, Assistant to the International Secretary, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

We are strongly opposed to a 10-year planned conversion period. This opposition is based on our inability to identify any major advantages arising from conversion to the metric system and the glaring lack of information regarding its impact on a trillion dollar economy. (Senate Hearings-1972.)

We have four major criticisms of the report-first, the U.S. Department of Commerce report on the U.S. metric study is much too narrow; second, it is blatantly biased in favor of conversion to the metric system; third, there are insufficient real evidence to support the recommendation for a 10-year period; and fourth, the recommendation to let the costs of conversion lie where they fall will impose an extreme hardship on those individuals and organizations least able to afford them. (Senate Hearings-1972.)

Letter from Samuel H. Watson, retired industrial executive, a leader in national and international standardization, and a member of the National Metric Advisory Panel.

The great opportunity now available to the United States lies in the encouragement of the continued coexistence of customary and metric units.

"What, then, would be the 'price tag' on a 'metric car'?" . . . and we can estimate that it would cost the American public on the order of $1.5 billion. (This figure is obtained by applying the $15/car estimate, over a 12-year period, assuming average price of at least $3,000.) (Senate Hearings-1972.)

Letter from Stanford Smith, President and General Manager, American Newspaper Publishers Association to Daniel K. Inouye.

They say the figure is closer to $100 billion and that although it is small in relation to our trillion dollar economy, the cost of $10 billion per year for ten years will not go unnoticed by the consumer, who over the long term will pick up the tab. (Senate Hearings-1972.)

As a result, there has been a great deal of controversy among leaders of industry and business, not over the final report itself, but mainly over what is not in the report. (Senate Hearings-1972.)

Letter from R. J. Mindlin, The National Cash Register Co. to Mr. V. E. Henriques, Director, Data Processing Group, BEMA. There would be little economic advantage to our industry by converting to the metric system, and the benefits of conversion would not offset the costs. (Senate Hearings-1972.)

Letter from R. L. Bisplinghoff of National Science Foundation to Warren G. Magnuson.

The American scientific community will not be significantly affected by the conversion of the United States to the metric system (or the failure to do so), but the American public and American business will be greatly affected through such a conversion. Any metric conversion legislation must be clearly and specifically directed to the problems which these groups will undoubtedly encounter. (Committee Report-S. 2483.)

Letter from Philip N. Whittaker, Department of the Air Force to Warren Magnuson.

It is noted, however, that directed conversion would have a significant impact on budget and operational considerations within the Department of Defense. This is particularly noteworthy during the current period of fiscal constraints when the limited funds available must be applied to the most urgent needs of national security. (Senate Hearings-1972.)

Article from Washington Post, 10-3-71, by George Gallup.

The latest survey shows that fewer than half of U.S. adults (44 per cent) say they know what the metric system is. Among those who are aware of the system, however, opinion is divided evenly between those who favor and those who oppose adoption by the U.S., 42 to 42 per cent. Another 16 per cent express no opinion. (Senate Hearings-1972.)

Excerpts from the Hearings before the Subcommittee on Science, Research & Development, First Session on Conversion to the Metric System of Weights & Measures Mar. 19, 20, 21, 22, 1973 May 9, 10, 1973

Testimony-Of S. Scott Ferebee, Jr., President, American Institute of Architects.

Question: Cong. Martin-"You cannot have it both ways, so if we

stick with the simpler conversions, won't you still have to end up with dual sizes of materials for the repair and maintenance industry?" (H.R. Hearings-1973.)

Answer: S. Ferebee-"I am afraid we will, for quite a long time. This is one of the problems we listed as forthcomingadditions and repairs to existing buildings." (H.R. Hearings-1973.)

Testimony-Of Kenneth T. Peterson, Legislative Representative, AFL-CIO.

Unfortunately, this legislation does not meet the objectives of the AFL-CIO. These bills fail to give essential protection and relief to American workers who will be adversely affected by conversion to a metric system. (H.R. Hearings-1973.)

And it should be noted that reimbursement to workers for the cost of new or duplicate metric tools is only one of a number of relief measures necessary to offset all the costs to workers resulting from conversion to the metric system. (H.R. Hearings-1973.) Testimony-Of John P. Roche, President, American Iron & Steel Institute.

Pg. 194 "The Steel Industry is presently burdened with heavy expenditure for the control of pollution, safety and health. We can well afford to absorb the heavy additional costs for metric conversion." (H.R. Hearings-1973.)

"By the way, the statement has been made that Canada is metric. They are not metric. They have set a policy that they are going to go, but they are on the same system we are on.' (Mr. Wrayaccompanied Mr. Roche.) (H.R. Hearings-1973.)

"I think this (restraint of trade) is important, Mr. Chairman, in light of our experience on the emission standards. This may not be a direct jurisdiction of this committee. It may well be as that legislation comes up we might want to work cooperatively with the Judiciary Committee to examine whether legislation is needed here, at least to clarify the problem." (Cong. Esch.) (H.R. Hearings1973.)

Supplement to Statement on Metric Conversion by the American Iron and Steel Institute Before the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics on March 20, 1973.

To assist in a fuller understanding of the many items for which

there will be cost increases in Steel Industry as metric conversion is planned and implemented, the following examples are considered to be representative.

1. Training people to use metric measuring devices, and the proper methods of converting metric to customary and vice versa. (H.R. Hearings-1973.)

2. Printing of literature, reference tables of conversion factors, new invoicing papers, ordering papers, internal type records, bills of lading paper, issuing and maintaining new catalogs, other sales promotion items, pricing manuals, etc. (H.R. Hearings-1973.)

3. Increased activity in industry standards work. (H.R. Hearings1973.)

4. Dual record keeping for inventory purposes, billing, purchasing, converting historical data which may be recalled for analysisdimensions, tensile properties, financial records, etc. (H.R. Hearings-1973.)

5. Changing meters, dials, scales, measuring instruments of all sorts, mill stops, maintaining double sets of; shear blades, rolls, dies, stamps, embossing rolls, spares for mill equipment, tools, nuts and bolts, various small fittings, etc. (H.R. Hearings-1973.)

6. Maintaining separate computer programs for data processing and/or computer controlled equipment, such as; mill screwdowns, equipment such as found in machine shops and roll shops, etc. (H.R. Hearings-1973.)

7. Setting-up and maintaining physical segregation of shippable products, including the cost of money tied up in additional inventories. (H.R. Hearings-1973.)

8. Relabeling all markers, signs, etc., relative to; height and width limitations for underpasses and railroad car clearances, speed limitations on plant roads, space clearances in warehouses, weight limits on cranes and sundry equipment, load limits and tare weights on rail equipment and trucks and other volume capacities. (H.R. Hearings-1973.)

9. Rewriting metallurgical specifications (steel recipes) in metric units. (H.R. Hearings-1973.)

10. Alterations to office equipment such as typewriters, addressograph machines, etc., to add symbols used in the metric system. (H.R. Hearings-1973.)

11. Rewriting contracts and/lease agreements in metric measurement units and standards for products and services sold to customers and for purchased materials, services, utilities, etc. (H.R. Hearings-1973.)

12. Changing drawings, specifications, maps, charts, etc. of present physical assets, such as; buildings, equipment, mines, land areas. (H.R. Hearings-1973.)

The cost estimate to the domestic steel industry of converting to the metric system using 1971 wages and prices is a total of $2.161 billion. (H.R. Hearings-1973.)

Testimony-Of William E. Zeiter, Chairman, Committee on Metric System in Commercial Transactions, Section on Corporations, Banking & Business Law, American Bar Association.

The legislation that came over from the Senate talks about $100 a day for the Board members. That is about $25,000 a year. You are talking about a 10-year program. On that basis, you are either going to get some retired industrialists or someone independently wealthy to work as a Board member full time, or you will get no one to work full time as a Board member, not even the Chairman of the Metrication Board. (H.R. Hearings-1973.)

Then with respect the paid staff, the bill from the Senate talks in terms of a GS-18. I am by no means aware of all the ins and outs of the operations of the Federal Government, but I gather a GS-18 is about No. 7 in the pecking order from the President on down. If you are going to influence policy, someone in Washington will have to go around and talk to these Federal agencies and make them sit up and take notice. If the headman of the Board is a parttimer, and not in town to do this, and if the full-time paid man is seventh in the pecking order, he might be able to see, hopefully, the Assistant Secretary in the Department of Agriculture, but who is he going to get to see in the Defense Department when he ranks seven levels below the President? (H.R. Hearings-1973.)

I would suggest that the rank of Chairman of the Metrication Board be fixed at not less than level III of the Executive Schedule and that the rank of Executive Director of the Board be fixed at not less than level IV of the Executive Schedule-subject, of course to Senate confirmation. (H.R. Hearings-1973.)

Testimony-Frank Masterson, President, Industrial Fasteners Institute.

Historically there are about 10 systems based on the meter which were designed not to be interchangeable. (H.R. Hearings-1973.) The greatest productive engineering in the world was created under inch documentation which was made available worldwide. (H.R. Hearings-1973.)

Testimony-Roy Trowbridge, President, American National Standards Institute.

I think it's been expressed here before, people have resisted change. They don't like to change their old ways. However, in the education and familiarization, I would hope that we would not use propaganda. I would hope that we would use good education methods. To say, "We are going to give you something so much better, it's going to cure all your ills," is misleading. We should foster change for the right reasons. (H.R. Hearings-1973.)

This is one of the problems of the decimal system. When you divide 10 by 2 you then have 5. Then you have to go to a fraction, which is 2.5, and you divide that again and you go to another fraction of 1.25. Dividing by two is a very human trait. Computers operate on a go, no go system, using the base two. (H.R. Hearings -1973.)