Statement-Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc. At the same time MVMA strongly recommends that all parties and interests involved in facing the problems of metric use recognize the importance of the consensus principle for creation of voluntary standards, and the inherent advantages of industrial use of chosen engineering standards free from any coordinated plan or legislative direction. (H.R. Hearings-1973.) We do not agree that the target date for arriving at predominantly metric usage throughout the nation should be ten years from enactment of legislation. (H.R. Hearings-1973.) Looking at the length of time the Board is given to prepare the national plan, it is our opinion that the 12-month period allowed by H.R. 170 is too short. (H.R. Hearings-1973.) Letter To Cong. Teague from American Concrete Pipe Association 5/14/73. Much could be said in regard to changing to the metric system in order to conform to the engineering method of measurement used throughout the world but from the standpoint of the concrete pipe industry, the international standards for a regionally isolated product would not have any advantage. (H.R. Hearings-1973.) As businessmen, however, we believe the overall expense of converting to the metric system would be staggering and in addition, there would be a tremendous amount of confusion and complications. (H.R. Hearings-1973.) Letter & Enclosure-To Hon. John W. Davis from J. F. Young, Vice President. There is further concern that a forced, rather than an economically timed, conversion would add to our balance-of-payment burdens and job dislocations, unless protective measures now unpopular internationally were taken for some period of time. (H.R. Hearings-1973.) (Letter.) Further metrication entails increased activity in international standards work, with the government playing the role proposed in S. 1798, as modified by committee print No. 1, the "International Voluntary Standards Cooperation Act of 1971." (H.R. Hearings1973.) (Enclosure.) It is possible that antitrust problems might arise from attempts to establish conversion plans in any specific sector of industry or trade. Suitable legislative procedures should be developed to alleviate this possible problem. (H.R. Hearings-1973.) (Enclosure.) There should be great concern that during the time any measurement-sensitive industry is converting, and thereby incurring changeover and/or duplication costs, its markets will be wide open to imports from foreign manufacturers already producing a metric product. Such an occurrence will cause drastic changes in the domestic economy with particular dislocation or depression of related American labor and industry. Congress may wish to consider whether temporary tariffs might help to equalize costs between domestic and foreign manufacturers in any industry during the time of its conversion. (H.R. Hearings-1973.) (Enclosure.) Letter To Cong. Davis from Charles H. Pillard, President, IBEW. I oppose any legislation which requires the U.S. Federal Government to encourage and facilitate conversion to the metric system of weights and measurement, because the Department of Commerce U.S. Metric Study, the basis of many bills being considered by your subcommittee, has left too many important unanswered questions regarding its impact on our society and our economy. Also, there is very little evidence of need, very few direct benefits and many major potential problems. However, the choice is not whether to plan or not to plan, but to develop a plan based on an objective analysis as called for by the AFL-CIO. (H.R. Hearings1973.) Enclosure to President Pillard's letter "Criticism of Metric Study" by Thomas A. Hannigan, IBEW. For example, one of the primary goals of conversion is to strengthen our position in world trade, but conversion to the metric system would put the U.S. economy at a distinct trade disadvantage because the cost of conversion would have to be added to all U.S. produced goods while foreign countries could take advantage of broadened markets, increased production and lower production costs because of the economies of scale. The end result would be a massive influx of foreign goods into the U.S. markets and a loss of hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs. (H.R. Hearings-1973.) Statement-By George C. Lovell. (7) The military posture of this country would be adversely affected during any coordinated transition position and the cost to support the DOD effort comes to $18 Billion (1970 $). The following is quoted from the Department of Defense U.S. Metric Study Interim Report (NBS SP 345-9): "If conversion to the metric system is directed, the DOD transition will have a significant impact on mission capability unless sufficient additional resources are made available . . . total additional funds for transit to DOD use of the metric system are . . . $18 billion (1970 $) . . . and cannot be absorbed within DOD budget without deterioration of the military posture . . . there will be no major advantages . . . and major disadvantages will occur. . . conversion of the Country to the metric system could adversely impact on ability of the United States to support its military forces during the proposed transition period. . . no inflation factor was applied ... cost estimate does not increase the cost of 'off-the-shelf' type metric items. . . costs of mistakes by operating personnel due to 'metric mix-ups' was not estimated. . . ." (H.R. Hearings-1973.) 54-200 O 75 13 Excerpts from the Hearing before the Committee on (Metric Conversion) November 2, 1973 Letter to Cong. H. R. Gross from Elmer B. Staats, Comptroller General of the United States. (Enclosure to letter.) (U.S. Metric.) We also noted that the Study did not discuss the possibility that costs of converting the U.S. manufacturing industry to the metric system would tend to increase costs and prices of its products and thus place these products at even more of a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis the products of foreign firms that are already metric. Our computation showed that if the time value of money had been set at 10 percent, the analysis would have shown that: 1. At the $10 billion level the 10-year planned changeover alternative would be less costly than the 50-year no-plan changeover -as shown by the Study; and 2. At the $25 and $40 billion levels, the 10-year planned changeover would be more costly than the 50-year no-plan changeovercontrary to what was shown by the Study. In a March 1972 report, the House Subcommittee on Minority Small Business Enterprise of the Select Committee on Small Business stated that the Study did not fulfill the intent of the Congress with respect to small business. Statement-Of Thomas A. Hannigan, Assistant to the International Secretary, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. It is grossly misleading to list the United States with a few underdeveloped nations as the only nations in the world not committed to conversion to the metric system, since the U.S. industrial giant represents about 1/3 of the total world's production. It is extremely important that the policies and laws of the Federal Government be consistent. If Congress commits this nation to a policy of facilitating and encouraging_metric conversion, it must have some means to assure that the Federal Reserve Board will not be in conflict with this goal. Also, it must assure that facilitating and encouraging metric conversion does not conflict with the goal of the Employment Act of 1946-to assure "maximum employment, production and purchasing power." ... W. D. Rinehart, Ass't. General Manager, American Newspaper Publishers Association Research Institute. (Hannigan Enclosure.) "The reasons against a nationally programmed conversion to metric units of measure in the United States, and the abandonment of the well established customary units, are simple and of readily recognized merit. They are (1) a price-tag of one hundred billion dollars, (2) a period of at least 50 years of national controversy and confusion, and (3) incredible weaknesses in the arguments of the -advocates of metrication in support of the benefits they claim. A fourth consideration is the not remote possibility that a conversion program, if launched, would be abandoned before completion because of massive public indignation." By Elmer R. Weaver, Former Chief of Gas-Chemistry Section, National Bureau of Standards. (Hannigan Enclosure.) Almost by accident about Aug. 15, 1973, I was informed by an attache of the British Embassy that "carpenters and joiners in Britain" are still adhering to the old foot-inch scale and will do so for 20 years. Unless the major manufacturing industries that supply the builders are going to send incompatible parts to their principal customers, which is incredible, they must abandon their plans to "convert" to the reduced scale until the builders follow instead of lead the metrication parade. They appear now to be unwilling to do this. Questions of the Committee and Answers of Mr. Albert Epstein, Director of Research, Machinists and Aerospace Workers International Union. Answer-In fact, "metrication" has not gone as well in Britain as is claimed by some of the proponents of the metric system. The British Metrication Board in its 1972 report complained that "there was also a loss of momentum and a loss of confidence in the attainability of the 1975 metric objective." It continues with the following statement: "The Confederation of British Industry stated in June 1972 that 'there was a noticeable slackening in the move towards metrication in many sectors of industry.'" Statement-Of Frederick L. Williford, Director of Government Affairs, National Federation of Independent Business. Unassisted, forced conversion to the metric system could prove the difference between success and failure for many small firms that do not have the capital or the expertise to make the transition. Small Business opposes a completely voluntary conversion plan that would let the costs fall where they may. Unassisted, voluntary conversion would place the reins of decision firmly in the hands of big business, a situation that could pose a very real threat to many small firms that are vulnerable to this type of competition. Letter To Hon. Warren G. Magnuson from Robert C. Sellers, President, Robert C. Sellers & Associates, Inc. Mr. Hannigan quoted me in several areas in which the theme stressed was that transition for this country would be complex, costly, and traumatic. I cannot disagree with the validity of this emphasis inasmuch as I have seen enough elsewhere to bear this out. In talks before management groups across the country I have suggested that the planning required is tantamount to that of no other single planning effort we have ever undertaken bar only that of the production planning program in World War II. Now the fact that something is complex, costly and will cause trauma is no reason to stop moving forward. Excerpts from the Executive's Guide to Planning By: Robert C. Sellers The transition of U.S. industry to the metric system will undoubtedly go down in history as the largest single planning effort of the decade. (Executive's Guide, Sellers.) The biggest hurdle to be crossed is to stop treating the subject of a change in something as basic as our system of measurement lightly. (Executive's Guide, Sellers.) However, in most cases this is not the case, for with adoption of metric-Sl we also face a wholesale revision and updating of our engineering practices and technical standards. (Executive's Guide, Sellers.) The important thing to understand about metric-SI is that it means a rewrite of most international standards. (Executive's Guide, Sellers.) Dimensional specifications in different metric countries are incompatible as frequently as those in countries using the inch unit of measurement. Thus, a change to metric does not by itself make standards compatible. (Executive's Guide, Sellers.) Obviously, the process for establishing engineering standards takes a long time. A national standard generally requires two or more years to process. The process for an international recommendation takes about six years, two to three times longer than that for a national standard. (Executive's Guide, Sellers.) The development of a national plan will be difficult and a massive task for all concerned, and every firm in the nation will have to play its part, if sheer havoc is not to result. (Executive's Guide, Sellers.) Costs will occur in most industries affecting the following areas: Machinery-the conversion of machine tools to work to dual dimensions; in some instances, some machines must be replaced in toto if the market demands are accelerated by principal customers. In most cases replacement can be implemented in line with ordinary re-equipment cycles. Training the costs involving retraining of engineering design, and drafting personnel working to the new system; costs of retraining manufacturing personnel, and limited retraining of all other personnel from the board of directors to the secretary. Marketing the cost of new literature on products, costs required to support dual inventories during transition, etc. Administrative-the costs involving new operating procedures, the planning of the transition, the development of new standards by the firm, etc. (Executive's Guide, Sellers.) The transition to the international metric system is undoubtedly the greatest change and commitment American industry has ever had to face. (Executive's Guide, Sellers.) The ramifications of a change are tremendous and may represent |