[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George H. W. Bush (1992-1993, Book II)]
[September 25, 1992]
[Pages 1641-1646]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



[[Page 1641]]


Remarks at the National Technology Initiative Conference in Chicago, 
Illinois
September 25, 1992

    Thank you all very much. Thank you. It's a pleasure and honor to be 
back on this campus. Thank you, Barbara Franklin, our able Secretary of 
Commerce. Let me say how pleased I am to also have with me two of the 
other top officials in our Government: the Secretary of Energy, Jim 
Watkins, who has served his country in several roles with great 
distinction, and of course, one that's I'm sure well-known to many of 
the scientists here, Dr. Allan Bromley, who is the Science Adviser to 
the President, has just worked in so many ways to further the aims of 
science in this country.
    I want to thank Dr. Laumann for his hospitality, the provost, and 
say that I am glad to be back on the campus. I'm at risk here because 
I'll leave out others who have served their country, but I just had the 
pleasure of shaking hands once again with the former Attorney General, 
your own Ed Levi, who has served not only in Government at the highest 
levels but also has done such a remarkable job in academia. George 
Shultz I single out as a former professor here and a former great 
Secretary of State. And of course, his Deputy there, a business leader 
now coming to this faculty, Ken Dam, who I believe will be at the law 
school, but another outstanding American. So you can see that Chicago is 
still getting a good combination of public service and then outstanding 
academic credentials. And I feel honored to be here. I want to thank the 
Governor, who is doing a great job for this State, for being at my side, 
and also salute Susan Solomon, who was named Scientist of the Year by 
R&D Magazine.
    So here we go. I would remind you that Illinois' most famous son and 
the first Illinois Republican, Abraham Lincoln, once said that the 
struggle of today is not altogether for today; it's for a vast future 
also. And that's why I've come to this great university for this 
lecture, to the city in the heart of the most confident nation on Earth, 
to talk to you today. In less than 6 weeks--there's going to be a little 
politics in this, too--[laughter]--no, but in less than 6 weeks you face 
a fundamental choice about the future of our great country, about the 
kind of America we'll seek to build, about the direction that we're 
going to take.
    A few weeks ago out in Detroit, I laid out the direction in which I 
hope to go. I called it the plan for American renewal. My strategy is 
integrated, tying economic policy and foreign policy and domestic policy 
all together because they, in fact, are related.
    I put it simply: Our defining challenge in the nineties is to win 
the economic competition, to win the peace. So my agenda outlines the 
steps that we can take today to make America more competitive both now 
and in the future. And one key step is to invest in technology.
    Today I want to talk to you about my program for investing in 
civilian research and development. I want to talk about how we can speed 
the process through which American businesses and entrepreneurs can turn 
the fruits of that R&D into successful products and American jobs.
    I included investment in civilian R&D in my Agenda for American 
Renewal for a very specific reason. In the information age, when capital 
and ideas can move around the world literally in seconds, investments in 
R&D and in the technologies of tomorrow can improve our productivity. 
That is the key, the fundamental key to increasing economic growth. And 
growth means an improved standard of living for the American people.
    In the old days, economists would tell you that capital and labor 
were the two ingredients that you needed to make the economy produce. 
Today, it's universally accepted that a third ingredient is needed, 
knowledge. We need the best ideas in the world, and America has always 
had them. For decades, American scientists have produced the most 
scientific literature, the most new patents, the most Nobel prizes. We 
are investing in basic research to keep that lead.

[[Page 1642]]

    But to win today's economic competition we must have processes that 
can speed the route from the laboratory to the marketplace. We need 
investments in applied R&D. We need capital to turn the abstract idea 
into concrete results. We need a work force with the brainpower and the 
skills to take these technologies and turn them into the best quality 
products anywhere on Earth.
    If we succeed in creating these building blocks, we will succeed in 
creating jobs. Just look at Jim Edgar's State, your State, Illinois; 
588,000 jobs in this State are tied to high technology. That's over 11 
percent of Illinois' work force. My agenda states that we must sharpen 
the competitive edge of the American business. But it rests on the core 
belief, a simple core belief, that the source of our success has always 
been the immense power of entrepreneurial capitalism. And that is a key 
difference from the vision of--the differences between me and Governor 
Clinton in this election.
    You see, my opponent has also been talking about investing in 
civilian R&D during this election. But my opponent's rhetoric stops, 
falls short in four key respects. And I'd just like to ask you to 
compare.
    First, he puts his faith in the ability of the Government to pick 
the right investments, industrial policy we call it, to control the 
resources, to determine which particular product and process will be 
favored by the bureaucrats in Washington. I want to empower the 
businessman or the businesswoman. I want them to develop a range of 
products, picked not by industrial planning, not by the planner but by 
the power of the marketplace.
    Second, while Governor Clinton may be claiming he's going to make 
the right play, Congress is intercepting the ball and running it in just 
exactly the opposite direction. In each of the past 4 years, my R&D 
budget has been cut by Bill Clinton's allies in the other party on the 
Hill, the pork-happy partisans I call them in my more congenial times, 
up there in Congress. [Laughter]
    In fact, right now--look, this year, the Democratic leaders in the 
Congress, with whom the Clinton campaign is consulting each and every 
day, have slashed my proposed increase for the National Science 
Foundation, headed by your own Walter Massey. They've zeroed out my 
proposed initiative in magnetically levitated high-speed rail. They've 
reduced our investment in computers and advanced materials and 
manufacturing R&D. While the Governor talks high-tech, his allies in 
Congress walk away from it.
    Governor Clinton's own plan, for all the talk about research, would 
gut the foundation of American science and technology enterprise by 
cutting university reimbursements for R&D by $3 billion, almost one-
third. Under his plan the ability of great universities like the 
University of Chicago to conduct world-class research, in my view, that 
would be compromised.
    Third, the promises of the candidate don't match the record of 
Governor Clinton. The most recent report card on technology indicators, 
and that was published by the Corporation for Enterprise Development, 
rated Arkansas near the bottom among States in virtually every category. 
For technology resources, Arkansas got an ``F.''
    Now, he's not even lining up the fundamentals for a high-tech world. 
At the end of the 1980's, Arkansas ranked 48th in the percentage of 
adults with high school diplomas. Three-quarters of Arkansas' high 
school graduates needed remedial education when they get to college. So 
it's odd for him to talk about high-tech when the residents of his State 
have to worry about getting out of high school.
    Finally and most importantly, he proposes to finance his many 
promises with a massive tax increase that will smother the very growth 
on which our success depends. I had a Freudian slip the other day--and 
it was; nobody believes it when I say this--Clinton was ``Governor 
Taxes.'' But he has proposed the largest, really, the largest tax 
increase in American history, $150 billion. And that's just for openers. 
To pay for his other promises, he'll have to tax small 
businesses, the main source of jobs in 
our economy and the heroes of high 
technology. So let's be clear: These high-tax policies will kill high-
tech's businesses. Even the Governor is beginning to see
that these tax policies are catching

[[Page 1643]]

up.
    Yesterday he talked about the health care plan. It was the third 
different plan in 3 months, his third different plan. First he said the 
plan would not require any new taxes. Then, in his second version, he 
admitted there would be a buy-in tax for employers. Now he's walking 
away from that, too. Yesterday, in the third version, he moved toward my 
plan, even using some of the same terms.
    The rhetoric certainly sounds better. It uses words like 
``competition'' and ``preserving quality.'' But when you strip away the 
double-speak, it is the same old thing. In his plan in any version, 
employers have to provide the insurance that his national health board 
says is right, or they pay what Governor Clinton calls a mandatory 
premium. What he calls a mandatory premium you and I call a tax. It is 
plain and simple. Worse yet, we all become part of a national health 
care spending limit set by a Government-appointed board. We all know 
what that means: long lines and price controls that will only kill 
competition, will only lead to rationed health care.
    So the Governor really is in more places than Elvis on this one. One 
thing--and I say this having been there--one thing about the Oval 
Office, you have to take positions. Whether it's on war and peace or 
whether it's on bills you veto or whatever it is, you can't conceal 
them, and you don't get to change you mind every time the heat gets 
turned up.
    The direction that I propose at its heart is future-oriented and 
outward-looking. I do not believe that Americans should fear 
competition, because I believe when it comes to new ideas, America can 
compete. And America can win. So I've worked to open markets, to get our 
work force ready to compete, and both as a Government and as a society, 
to invest in the future. In short, I believe we should compete, not pull 
back, not retreat. I believe we can do it without a massive expansion of 
the Federal Government that reaches into the pocket of every American 
taxpayer.
    Let me talk about the elements of this competition. First, open 
markets. My opponent said America is in decline. He used the analogy 
somewhere below Germany but just above Sri Lanka. Well, that is not the 
way others look at this country, certainly not the way I look at this 
country. But the fact is that we are winning new markets for American 
goods and services right now, even though the world economy has been 
very difficult.
    Just look at our export performance over these past 4 years. We've 
increased exports by 40 percent. We have gained worldwide market share 
in manufacturing output. Our exports to Japan have grown 12 times faster 
than our imports. The average American simply does not understand that. 
And high-tech exports have led the way. Since 1987, our trade surplus in 
advanced technology products has grown by more than 80 percent. So I 
have a message for the pessimists: We can compete, and we can win.
    For us to continue to win new markets for America, we need a more 
open world trading regime. So we've worked to complete this famous North 
American free trade agreement, referred to as NAFTA, which will create 
almost 200,000 jobs right here in the United States. We've worked for a 
successful conclusion of the Uruguay round. Now that one's been hung up, 
as you know, in the Maastricht agreements, the vote, particularly the 
vote in France, the very recent vote in France on the Maastricht 
agreements. We're going to keep pushing for that, however. We've 
completed individual agreements with Japan, Korea, Mexico, and countries 
around the world to open markets for technology and protect American 
intellectual property so that the incentive to generate new ideas and 
create new products remains.
    Now, again, my opponent has waffled on NAFTA. He would risk our 
ability to expand trade by supporting antitrade legislation on Capitol 
Hill. The tax on foreign investment, believe me, the tax on foreign 
investment in the United States will not only lock out high-wage, high-
skill jobs here, it will invite retaliation that will undercut the 
growth in exports which is absolutely key to the growth in our economy.
    Let's talk about education and preparing our children to meet the 
challenges of the 21st century. Governor Clinton has said that we've 
reduced investment in educa-

[[Page 1644]]

tion. And candidly, again, he is wrong. Education this year got the 
biggest increase in my budget. It is up 41 percent over 1989. We've 
placed a particular emphasis on math and science education, boosting it 
by more than two-thirds since 1989 so that this year's budget's going to 
be able to use Federal assets to help train over 770,000 teachers in 
these math and science skills that are absolutely essential for teaching 
our kids.
    Let's talk about investing in the future. We've been working to 
promote the technologies that will make us more competitive in the 
future, but it's time to set the record straight on this. The Governor 
said we've reduced investment in civilian R&D. That is simply not true. 
Here is the record: My budget this year would increase civilian R&D by 
44 percent over 1989 levels. Civilian basic research is up 36 percent, 
and applied civilian R&D is up 49 percent. So when the Governor talks 
about investing in civilian R&D, the fact is we are already doing it. If 
I weren't doing it, Allan Bromley, sitting over my shoulder, would kill 
me, absolutely kill me, because he's brought to the fore the need to 
keep us on the cutting edge when it comes to science and technology.
    Now, let me explain what we're doing. Two years ago we pulled every 
Federal Agency together to launch a new program to develop the 
supercomputers of tomorrow, computers 1,000 times more powerful than 
today's. Our vision is to see industry develop a supercomputer the size 
of a desktop PC and to do it within 4 years. We also proposed a 
nationwide communications network, an information backbone that will 
transmit 1,000 times more information than we can today in one second. 
This year, we proposed over $800 million, that's a 23-percent increase, 
for this high-performance computing and communications initiative.
    Last year we launched another cross-cutting technology plan, an 
investment of over $1.8 billion in the materials of tomorrow. Now, these 
new kinds of materials will help us make products that are stronger, 
lighter, and faster, everything from cars to airplanes to military 
equipment. And we've launched a $4 billion program in biotechnology 
research and proposed to knock down the regulatory barriers that might 
prevent technologies in this area from helping us to cure disease, grow 
more crops, or clean up the environment.
    We're using technology to tackle a really unfortunate legacy of the 
war, the cold war, the environmental problems left from making weapons 
that defended freedom around the globe. Winning the peace means managing 
dangerous materials more effectively. Today we're using the scientific 
expertise of our marvelous Federal labs, whose scientists first devised 
these bombs, to find new technologies for stopping weapons proliferation 
and for protecting our children from environmental threats.
    I take great pride, great joy as a grandparent that the young people 
in this country go to bed at night without the same fear of nuclear war 
that their older brothers or their fathers and mothers did. That is a 
major advancement, and yet we still have problems in the nuclear age. We 
cannot turn our back on them. And Jim Watkins, our able Secretary, is 
contending with these problems daily.
    But look, I'm here today because a successful strategy for winning 
the economic competition requires more than just the investment in R&D, 
whether it's basic or applied. In a fast-paced world of shorter product 
cycles and faster communications, the key to victory is moving ideas and 
technologies from the laboratory bench to the commercial marketplace 
faster than ever before.
    That's what this National Technology Initiative, or NTI, is all 
about. This is the 11th NTI meeting that we've had, each in a different 
part of the country, each designed to help speed the transfer of 
technology from our Federal labs and universities to the private and 
commercial sector. We're working to make it easier to deal with the 
Federal Government as a partner. If you attend the workshops and visit 
the technology fair, you'll get a window on today's opportunities and an 
early start on tomorrow's successes.
    One year ago, I directed the Secretaries of Commerce, now Barbara 
Franklin, Secretary of Energy Jim Watkins to increase the number of 
cooperative research and development agreements signed between our 
Federal facilities and the private partners.

[[Page 1645]]

These CRADA's, as they are called, help speed the transfer of the most 
promising technologies from the Government to the private sector so they 
can be developed into commercial products and services.
    In the one year since that directive was issued, we've doubled the 
numbers of these agreements. There are now more than 1,400 operating and 
in place, computers, ceramics, environmental cleanup. We are achieving 
an unprecedented level of success in taking the best ideas from our labs 
and turning them into American products. In these days, it's 
fundamental: American jobs.
    Today we are signing several new breakthrough agreements. One 
involves two Federal labs and three private industry partners working to 
determine the right mix for burning pelletized trash along with coal to 
generate electricity. The results will be cleaner air, less trash in our 
landfills, and more jobs in Illinois. Second, we'll bring the Oak Ridge 
National Lab together with IBM to extend America's leadership in high-
performance computing. The third one involves a partnership between 
General Motors and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
NIST, to develop new software to solve problems in automated 
manufacturing equipment.
    These agreements provide rules of the road, protection of patents 
and intellectual property and other understandings so that technology 
transfer is not just a concept, but a job-producing reality.
    Our program reflects a fundamental belief about the path to 
successful technology development. Our efforts to transfer technology 
from the labs to invest in the most promising technologies of tomorrow 
have recognized the fact that the private sector must be the one to 
commercialize these technologies.
    To help in that task, to spread information about best practices and 
new processes, my administration has also established seven regional 
manufacturing tech centers around the country. These centers will 
introduce new equipment and improve manufacturing processes for small 
and medium-sized firms. You know, since 1989, more than 6,000 companies 
have used the services provided by these centers. And we plan to start 
up four more of them next year.
    Now, again in the politics, my opponent proposes to create hundreds 
of centers. He doesn't say how long it will take to build them, but I 
can tell you this: We don't need a massive bureaucracy. We want to share 
best practices, not necessarily every practice that a Government planner 
wants to push.
    I think the fundamental point is this: Rather than waiting for the 
bureaucrats and planners to decide what's best, I believe that we should 
foster the kind of partnerships that will allow the private sector to 
help identify and commercialize the most promising technologies, those 
in which we are pursuing leadership today.
    In next year's budget, we will launch a new initiative to increase 
our investment in R&D into new technologies to advance the manufacturing 
process. You know, today's factories face a different set of challenges 
from those of a generation ago. In the face of fast-changing 
requirements, more flexibility is needed. We want to advance the 
development of systems in software, robotics, artificial intelligence, 
to make this flexibility possible for all kinds of companies. The 
Government will help with technological leaps so that American firms can 
leap ahead in the marketplace.
    One of the most quintessentially American figures of our time, a 
scientist, a research and development scientist, John Wayne, you 
remember him, once said that, ``Tomorrow is the most important thing in 
life.''
    When the shouting is finished and all this campaign winds down to 
its end, it will come down to a very personal and serious decision for 
every American: What kind of tomorrow do you want? Do you want a 
tomorrow in which we look forward and take on the competition or one 
where we turn inward to protectionism and pull back? Do you want a 
tomorrow in which we invest in the technologies that can make us more 
competitive or in which we allow the patrons of the past to spend our 
future away? Do you want a tomorrow in which work and innovation are 
rewarded or in which we turn back down the path of higher taxes and more 
regulation?

[[Page 1646]]

    When Americans step into that booth this year, they will face a 
fundamental choice about the kind of future that they want. I have come 
today out here to Chicago to offer my ideas for a future full of 
promise. I am optimistic about the future of this country. Let there be 
no mistake about it: Regardless of what we have been through, I am 
absolutely convinced that the young people that many of you in this room 
teach have an exceptionally bright future ahead, a future in which 
America works, America competes. And America wins.
    So I thank you for being a part of this future in your own way--put 
the politics aside for a moment. I've been told by Allan Bromley and 
others of the fantastic R&D capability, scientific know-how right here 
in this room today. And I ask you to visualize the same kind of future 
I've outlined to you.
    Many, many thanks for your attention. And may God bless our great 
country. Thank you very, very much.

                    Note: The President spoke at 2:26 p.m. in Mandel 
                        Hall at the University of Chicago. In his 
                        remarks, he referred to Kenneth W. Dam, Max Pam 
                        professor in American and foreign law, 
                        University of Chicago.