Below is a message sent to OSTP, NIST, NSF and forwarded to you.

Thanks!

Tim

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tim Williamson <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 7:28 PM
Subject: Exports, Imports, STEM and SI Metric



Mr. Kumar Garg,
Policy Analyst
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Executive Office of the President

Thanks for taking my call.  It is always good to talk with you.  It's also
good to have a friend of SI in the Executive Offices, particularly one who
clearly understands the connection between improved trade and commerce,
science and technology innovation, and the economic and jobs future of our
nation.

SI in STEM and in trade and commerce would greatly improve business growth,
science and technology innovation and business profitability particularly
when commercial interests are allowed to respond to market demands, and when
our children are more thoroughly taught SI in the classroom.  Fully
implementing SI in STEM programs funded by the NSF through NIST and others
in the Department of Commerce, or by NASA, or DoD, or Department of Energy,
by the foundational step of encouraging and removing all hurdles and
obstacles to making SI the essential unit of measurement and weights for all
programs funded by those organizations will go along way toward giving our
nation the best possible chance at a greatly improved future in terms of
trade, commerce, science, and technology.

Since NIST has implemented the dual-labeling or metric only optional
labeling requirement found in NIST HB 130 at section 11.33, where all but
two states have agreed to the changes, many believe it is time for US
exporters to use metric only labeling for their international shipments.
 This action would open up additional trade opportunities around the world,
particularly where there have been ongoing disputes regarding US weights and
measures as opposed to SI metric used by the rest of the planet and
professionals alike.

International businesses which import their products to the US now have the
authority to also use 'metric only' labeling of their products since states
and NIST, and other agencies in the Department of Commerce and in the
federal government, recognize as lawful, the optional dual labeling
requirement.   My state of Alabama is one of the two states yet to pass
legislation on optional dual labeling.  I am working on this now and will be
meeting for a working lunch on April 1, 2011 with State Senator Allen and
State Rep. Merrill to discuss the necessary changes which need to be made to
the Alabama Code to allow this to happen.  Alabama has a substantial export
base, and these changes will make Alabama more competitive by giving
businesses the option to use metric only labeling on all their products for
consumption domestically and internationally.  These are proposed business
friendly changes to the code that will have no fiscal impact on the state
budget.

The country is adapting to the SI world in which we live.  What must we do
to encourage these steps. There are those however in various organizations
at the federal level and state level who would rather we remain in the dark
ages.  Some are even trying to get the WTO to allow the US to use colonial
units of weights and measure when they deal with the rest of our world.
 This is unacceptable.  Such a move would be a serious mistake and a major
move backward for the nation and our children.

It is a serious mistake to revert to an antiquated (colonial or imperial
based) system of measurement in our trade relations with other nations.  It
is counter-productive and not a profitable option for business or for our
nation.

Is it possible for the President to get involved in this and possibly issue
a series of executive orders?  What can we do?

I'll work with you free of charge to get this going in the right direction.
 Whatever it takes.  We can not allow the country to go backward.

*
*
*Thanks! *
*
*
*Tim Williamson*
*
15926 Hwy 216
Brookwood, Alabama 35444-3703
USA
1-205-765-6090
*

Reply via email to