    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2006, Book I)]
    [February 2, 2006]
    [Pages 173-182]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks in Maplewood, Minnesota
    February 2, 2006

        Thank you all. Please be seated. Thanks for coming. Appreciate the
    warm welcome. Got to take my Post-it note off my speech here. [Laughter]
    My fault. My fault. [Laughter] I should have cleaned off the podium.
    [Laughter] I saw that I could get--I see the Governor out there--he says, ``You want to have some lunch?''
    I said, ``Sure, what are you serving?'' He said, ``Lutefisk.''
    [Laughter] I said, ``No, I think I'll eat on Air Force One.'' [Laughter]
        It's great to see you, Governor. Thanks
    for being here. Laura and I are delighted to be
    here at 3M. We're glad to be with the Governor and the first
    lady, Lieutenant Governor.
        I was greeted by your chairman and CEO, George W. [Laughter] I'll just call you ``W.'' [Laughter] Thanks for
    having me. I appreciate it. I want to thank Jay Ihlenfeld, the senior vice president, for the tour we just went on.
    I want to thank all the employees here for giving me a chance to come by
    and visit with you.
        I really want to send a message to the United States of America that
    in order for us to keep the standard of living that we're accustomed to,
    that in order for us to be the leader in the world that we want to be,
    that we must remain a flexible, technologically based economy.
        You know, it's amazing when you come to 3M to talk to George
    W. about the number of products you make
    and--products that people just take for granted, but products, many of
    which started in a laboratory as the result of a really smart, capable
    person making the technological advances necessary to get these products
    to market.
        Innovation is a vital part of the future of the United States of
    America, and the fundamental question is, how do we keep our society
    innovative? That's what I'm here to talk about.
        You know, one way for our fellow citizens to understand the
    importance of innovation and technology is just think about what has
    taken place over 25 years. Now, for a 59-year-old guy, that doesn't seem
    like much these days. If you're 26, it seems like a lot. Twenty-five
    years ago, most Americans used the typewriter. Isn't that interesting?
    Twenty-five years ago, they had such a thing as pay phones. [Laughter]
    Now we're using cell phones. Carbon paper was used. For those youngsters
    here, carbon paper was kind of a messy way to duplicate things. Now
    we're using laser

    [[Page 174]]

    printers. They had bank tellers that were distributing most money in
    those days. Twenty-five years ago, you had to go to the bank and say to
    the teller, ``Good day, may I have some money?'' Now you can go to the
    ATM machine.
        Technology is changing the way we think. I don't know if you
    remember those awful trips when you had to drive with your family; you
    played the license plate game. [Laughter] Now we got the DVDs--
    [laughter]--right there in the car. Technology happens quickly if you
    remain an innovative society. And it's those technological improvements
    that help create high-paying jobs and enhances the standard of living of
    the American people.
        Do you realize that economists say that as much as half of our
    Nation's economic growth in the last half-century is directly due to
    technological progress fueled by research and development, the kind of
    research and development you do right here? Think about that. One-half
    of the progress of our economy is due to research and development. Well,
    if that's the case, if that's the truth, we got to make sure we continue
    to encourage research and development.
        Technology has enabled us to be the preeminent economy in the world.
    I think it's good that we're the preeminent economy in the world. I
    think it's good for the American people that we're in a leadership
    position. And the reason why I think it's good is because when you lead,
    your people benefit. By being a leader in the economy of the world, it
    means somebody is more likely to find work. And somebody is able to--
    likely to realize dreams and opportunity.
        I say we're the preeminent economy in the world because the facts
    bear me out. We're growing faster than other industrial--major
    industrialized nations. We've added 4.6 million new jobs in 2\1/2\
    years. That's more than Japan and the European Union combined. And the
    fundamental question is, one, do we want to remain the leader, and two,
    how do you do it?
        There's some uncertainty in America today, and I can understand why.
    There's uncertainty when it comes to our economy. People are beginning
    to see competitors emerge, India and China. I'm a fellow who likes
    competition. I think it's good to have competition. I think it makes us
    do things better. But some people in our country look at competition and
    say, ``Well, we can't possibly compete with China or India or other
    countries, and therefore, why don't we just think about walling
    ourselves off?'' That's called protectionism. It's a trend that we need
    to worry about. See, there's uncertainty when people see jobs go
    overseas. I can understand that. Somebody's working hard all their life,
    and all of the sudden, the job gets moved overseas because of
    competition. That creates uncertainty in the workplace. And one of the
    reactions to that uncertainty could be, ``Well, I'm tired of competing.
    Maybe what we need to do is instead of competing, just kind of leave
    ourselves apart from the world.''
        The United States of America has been through this before. This
    isn't a new thought. If you look at our history, our economic history,
    you'll find that we've been through periods of protectionism before. If
    you'll look at our foreign policy history, you'll find there's been
    periods of isolationism before. I think that--and so the first thing I
    want to share with you is, it's important for us not to lose our
    confidence in changing times. It's important for us not to fear
    competition but welcome it.
        There's a global economy. The Internet has really changed a lot,
    when you think about it. It is--I happen to think it's good news that
    countries are becoming more wealthy; that through the global
    competition, that people's lives are improving. I believe that because
    most Americans--all Americans believe in the dignity of every human
    being. But I take a practical look at it, and so should you at 3M. You
    ought to say, ``We welcome this developing world, this new economy,
    because as wealth

    [[Page 175]]

    spreads, there are new customers for our products.'' In other words,
    instead of saying, ``We fear the competition; the global economy
    frightens us,'' the United States of America ought to say, ``We want
    more people to be able to buy our products.''
        And so what I'm telling you is I think the role of government is to
    shape the future, not fear the future. And I think the role of a
    President is to say to the American people, ``Be bold; be confident. And
    if we do the right things, we'll remain the leader in the world.''
        And here are the things I think we ought to do. First, I know we got
    to keep our economy growing. You can't be a world leader in the economy
    if your economy is flat. You can't be a world leader--world economic
    leader if your economy is flat. I mean, you got to have progrowth
    policies in place.
        One of the interesting debates in Washington, DC, is, how do you
    encourage growth? Well, I'll give you my position. I think when people
    have more money in their pocket to save, earn, or spend, the economy
    grows. I think when a small-business person has more money to invest,
    the economy grows.
        We passed tax relief. As I said in my State of the Union the other
    night, the tax relief that we passed left $880 billion in the hands of
    individuals and families and small businesses and entrepreneurs. And I
    believe that is why our economy is the most preeminent in the world.
        And this--[applause]--and that tax relief is set to expire. And when
    it does, you're going to get a tax increase. There's--not only do I
    think it's wrong to take money out of your pocket at this point in our
    economic history, I also believe that uncertainty in the Tax Code makes
    it difficult for people to make wise decisions about investment. And I
    meant what I said to the Congress: In order to make sure this expansion
    is not temporary, they need to make sure that tax relief is permanent.
        You'll hear them say, ``Well, we need to raise taxes to balance the
    budget.'' That's not the way Washington works. They'll raise taxes to
    increase spending. That's the way it works. And so I think the best way
    to balance the budget is to have progrowth policies in place so these
    tax revenues remain strong, and be wise about how we spend your money.
    That's hard in Washington. Everybody has got a great idea about how to
    spend your money. But when you're running 3M Company or you're running
    your family budget, you learn how to set priorities. And that's what
    Congress must do.
        I'm going to tell you something: If Congress does set its
    priorities--and we've got a few suggestions for them how to set the
    priorities--we can cut this deficit in half by 2009. The real issue on
    spending, though--and this is important, by the way; the current deficit
    is important, don't get me wrong. But if you're a younger person sitting
    out there, you need to worry about the long-term deficit caused by baby
    boomers like me fixing to retire. I don't know if you know this or not,
    but I turn 62, retirement age, in 2008. That's a convenient year for me
    to be in retirement. [Laughter]
        And there's a lot of us getting ready to retire. And when we retire,
    this baby boom generation retires, we're going to put a big strain on
    Social Security and Medicare. Interestingly enough, my generation has
    been promised better benefits than the previous generation. And yet per
    worker, there's fewer people paying into the system to support me. We
    got a problem.
        You know, it's really hard for me to realize we have a problem and
    travel around the country and look at younger workers paying payroll
    taxes into a system that I know is going bankrupt. It's not right for
    Members of Congress, by the way, to travel around the country and talk--
    and look at workers paying into a system that's going bankrupt and not
    tell the truth. We can fix this problem. This is a problem--we

    [[Page 176]]

    don't have to cut benefits of younger workers. We need to slow the rate
    of benefits down.
        Do you realize the benefits grow faster than the rate of inflation?
    Congress over here--and people say, ``Vote for me; I'm going to make
    sure the benefits grow faster than the rate of inflation.'' Listen,
    Social Security was meant to supplement income, retirement income,
    initially. And so what I'm telling you is, there's a solution to be had.
    Unfortunately, the atmosphere in Washington appears that there will be
    no solution because there's too much politics. And my call to members of
    both parties--and I mean this--is we need to set aside this needless
    politics in Washington, this zero-sum attitude, and fix mandatory
    spending so a younger generation of Americans can confidently contribute
    into a system that's going to--[applause].
        If we live in a global economy--which we do--with competition,
    it's--the countries that are able to fix their entitlement programs will
    be the countries that remain competitive. Congress needs to remember
    that. When we fix this--and I'm confident we can, and I believe we
    will--when we reform the program, it will keep the United States of
    America competitive. Because if we don't, the majority of tax revenues
    will go to--there will have to be massive tax increases to pay for the
    promises, or significant cuts throughout our Government.
        To keep us competitive, we've got to make sure we keep markets open.
    I told you--I'm telling you something you already know--61 percent of
    your revenue is as a result of sales from the United States elsewhere,
    which says to me--listen, my theory is this: If you're good at
    something, let's make sure we can sell it all around the world. And so I
    believe in open markets. As a matter of fact, I know that in order to
    keep us competitive in the 21st century, that the United States of
    America should be doing everything we can to open markets and level the
    playing field.
        We've signed a lot of free trade agreements, and at the same time
    we've done so, we've said to countries, ``Listen, treat us the way we
    treat you.'' That's all we ask; level the playing field. There is no
    doubt in my mind, American farmers and entrepreneurs and business people
    and 3M employees can compete with anybody, anytime, anywhere, so long as
    the rules are fair.
        In my speech, I talked about a health care system that takes care of
    the elderly and takes care of the poor. We'll do that. But it needs to
    be a health care system, as well, in which there's transparency in
    pricing, information technology in the health care field to help reduce
    costs, a doctor-patient relationship that is the center of the
    decisionmaking, a plan that encourages preventative medicine. People
    need to be incented to make right choices with their bodies, in what
    they eat and how they exercise.
        Another aspect of making sure that medicine is affordable and
    available is--listen, there's too many lawsuits. I said a startling
    statistic the other night: Do you realize there are 1,500 counties in
    America without an ob-gyn? Now, think about that. And the reason why is,
    a lot of good docs are getting run out of practice because of needless
    lawsuits. It's one thing to make sure that there's justice; it's another
    thing to have a system that encourages junk lawsuits that are running up
    your cost of medicine and running good docs out of practice. Congress
    needs to pass medical liability reform now.
        And speaking about legal reform, you talk to people that take risk,
    one of the things they tell you about is these lawsuits hamper strong
    investment. If we want to be competitive, we've got to have balance in
    our legal system. Congress has the chance to send a signal again--we did
    a pretty good job on class-action lawsuits, but now they got a chance to
    do something on asbestos. And there's a bill going to be moving out of
    the Senate. It's time to

    [[Page 177]]

    send a clear message to investors and markets and employees that we've
    got to have a legal system, in regards to asbestos, that's fair to those
    who have actually been harmed and reasonable for those who need to pay.
        I talked about energy the other day, and Tim mentioned it. I guess I
    shocked some people, being from Texas, to say we're addicted to oil, but
    we are, and it's a problem. It's a problem; it's a national security
    problem and an economic security problem. Touring here and seeing the
    great benefits of nanotechnology, I'm beginning to get a better sense of
    how nanotechnology plays into fuel cells, for example, and the capacity
    for us to have hydrogen automobiles. I know that technology will end up
    leading away from dependence on oil. I know it's going to happen. I'll
    tell you why I'm optimistic about it, is because the scientists there in
    Washington, those in the Energy Department, believe we're darn close to
    a couple of very important breakthroughs.
        Before I get to them, I did talk about the need to use safe nuclear
    energy to power our plants. I mean, if you're worried about the
    environment, which I am, it seems like to make sense that we use nuclear
    power. It's renewable, and it's clean.
        We're pretty close to some interesting breakthroughs on solar energy
    as well. I truly believe that with continued research and development,
    focusing on interesting technologies, that we'll have coal-fired plants
    that will be emitting zero emissions. And it's coming. And what I'm
    telling you is, is that technology is important for your jobs, but it's
    also important for the quality of life.
        Automobiles--if we want to get rid of dependence on oil, we got to
    do something with automobiles. I mean, that's the place where we use a
    lot of oil. We got to change how we drive. We got to change how cars are
    powered. This administration has done some things on CAFE standards, but
    that recognizes that we're still dependent upon oil to manufacture our
    fuel. What I'm interested in doing is providing alternative choices for
    the consumers like ethanol or plug-in hybrid vehicles. We're close to
    some breakthroughs on battery technologies, that I'm sure some of you
    know about, to make these hybrid automobiles even better and more cost-
    effective for the American consumer.
        I'm excited about ethanol. Now, we've been making ethanol out of
    corn, mainly. But now we got a chance, with breakthroughs in research
    and development, new technologies, to make ethanol out of switchgrass or
    wood products or weeds. And we're close. And I said the other night in
    the State of the Union, within 6 years, this kind of fuel ought to be
    competitive with gasoline.
        Now, people say, ``That's fine; how about the automobiles?'' Well, I
    had an interesting experience. I went down to Brazil, and I saw
    President Lula down there. I don't
    know if you know this, but the vast majority of fuel to fuel the cars in
    Brazil is made from sugar. And guess who makes the cars that run on
    sugar? General Motors. So the technology is available for flex-fuel
    automobiles. As a matter of fact, I am told there's over 4 million flex-
    fuel automobiles operating in the United States today. And so the hope
    is and the belief is, is that with a breakthrough with these cellulosic
    technologies--big word for a history major--[laughter]--I don't want to
    try to spell it--[laughter]--the car industry has got the capacity to
    manufacture automobiles that can burn that stuff.
        Now, people say, ``Well, if you can get the technology and you got
    the cars, how come it takes until 2025 to reduce--significantly reduce
    dependence on the Middle Eastern oil?'' Well, the answer is, we got a
    lot of automobiles, and it takes awhile for the fleet to turn over.
    Things just don't happen instantly when it comes to an automobile fleet.
        And so--but what I'm telling you is, and what I'm telling the
    American people is, research is going to lead to an important

    [[Page 178]]

    breakthrough here, when it comes to our energy. I'm confident that we'll
    be able to say to the American people when this research is complete,
    that the United States is on our way to no dependence on oil from the
    Middle East.
        I want to talk about another important issue, and I've come to 3M to
    highlight this issue. And the truth of the matter is, in order to stay
    competitive, we have got to lead the world in research and development,
    and got to lead the world in having people, scientists and engineers,
    that are capable of helping this America stay on the cutting edge of
    technology. And 3M is a perfect place to come.
        There's an economic reason why we need to do this. The economic
    reason why we got to stay on the leading edge of technology is to make
    sure that people's standard of living here in America goes up--that's
    what it is. And there's a direct correlation by being the most
    innovative country in the world and how our citizens live.
        Secondly, the second practical application to make sure we've got
    young scientists and engineers coming up is that if we don't have people
    that have got the skill set to fill the jobs of the 21st century,
    because we're in a global world and a competitive world, they're going
    to go somewhere else. And so I want to talk about an initiative to make
    sure America remains competitive.
        The first element is, is that for the Federal Government to continue
    its role--oh, by the way, when we went on the tour, so I asked, ``How
    are you doing?'' ``Fine.'' ``What do you do?'' ``This.'' ``Where did you
    get your education?'' We met engineers and chemists and physicists. I
    didn't meet any history majors. [Laughter] I met people who are
    incredibly capable, smart thinkers that are able to take their
    brainpower and come up with ways to make practical products that change
    Americans' lives. And so--and the Federal Government has a role in this,
    and our taxpayers have got to understand, a good use of your taxpayers'
    money is to promote research and development--research into the physical
    sciences.
        Again, I'd repeat to you that if we can remain the most competitive
    nation in the world, it will benefit the worker here in America. People
    have got to understand, when we talk about spending your taxpayers'
    money on research and development, there is a correlating benefit,
    particularly to your children. See, it takes awhile for some of the
    investments to--that are being made with Government dollars to come to
    market. I don't know if people realize this, but the Internet began as
    the Defense Department project to improve military communications. In
    other words, we were trying to figure out how to better communicate.
    There was research money spent, and as a result of this sound
    investment, the Internet came to be.
        The Internet has changed us. It's changed the whole world. It's an
    amazing example of what a commitment to research dollars can mean. The
    iPod--I'm a bike guy, and I like to plug in music on my iPod when I'm
    riding along to, hopefully, help me forget how old I am. [Laughter] But
    it was built--when it was launched, it was built on years of Government-
    funded research and microdrive storage or electrochemistry or single
    compression--signal compression. See, the nanotechnology research that
    the Government is helping sponsor is going to change the way people
    live.
        And so what I said to the Congress was, ``Let's be wise with
    taxpayers' money. Let's stay on the leading edge of technology and
    change, and let's reaffirm our commitment to scientific innovation.'' I
    think we ought to double the Federal commitment to the most basic
    critical research programs in physical sciences over the next decade.
        This year alone, we're proposing $6 billion go to the National
    Science Foundation to fund research in physics and chemistry and
    material science and nanotechnology. We're proposing $4 billion goes to
    the Energy Department's Office of Science to

    [[Page 179]]

    build the world's most powerful civilian supercomputer. We're proposing
    $535 million to the Commerce Department's National Institute of
    Standards and Technology to research electronics information
    technologies and advanced computers.
        I wouldn't be proposing this if I didn't believe that there will be
    tangible benefits for the American people. We may not see them tomorrow,
    but you're children will see them. We're staying on the leading edge of
    technology for a reason. If America doesn't lead, if we try to kind of
    forget that we're in a competitive world, generations of Americans won't
    be able to realize the standard of living that we've been able to
    realize.
        Secondly, I also realize that, by far, the vast majority of research
    and development is done at the private level by companies--3M, you're
    spending a lot of money on research and development. So the Government
    can help, but the truth of the matter is, two-thirds of all research and
    development spending in America comes from the private sector. And so
    the fundamental question is, what can the Government do, if anything, to
    encourage that money to continue to be invested? If it makes sense to
    develop new technologies and the private sector provides most of the
    money for that, is there anything we can do to encourage this kind of
    investment?
        And the answer is, yes, there is. There's something called the
    research and development tax credit. Interestingly enough--obviously, if
    you think about tax credit, it says if you spend money on research and
    development, the Tax Code--it treats you generously, more generously
    than if you didn't. It says, go ahead and do it; there's an advantage
    for you to make this decision. The problem is, it expired. The research
    and development tax credit expires in 2005. And so the Congress is
    saying, ``Well, why don't we just temporarily extend it?'' You cannot
    run a business and plan to make long-term investments if the incentive
    program is only temporary.
        Congress needs to understand that nations like China and India and
    Japan and Korea and Canada all offer tax incentives that are permanent.
    In other words, we live in a competitive world. We want to be the leader
    in this world. And therefore, in my judgment, in order--one important
    part of staying the leader, when it comes to innovation and research and
    technology, is for the Congress to make the tax credit on research and
    development permanent.
        Third part of the competitiveness agenda is to make sure our kids
    learn math and science. It's one thing to research, have incentives for
    money, but if you don't have somebody in that lab, like those chemists I
    met, we're not going to be that good. And so I got some ideas for the
    Congress to consider. The first is to emphasize math and science early,
    and to make sure that the courses are rigorous enough that our children
    can compete globally.
        We made a pretty good start on, by the way, high standards with the
    No Child Left Behind Act. I was talking to--it about the Governor. He
    said, ``People get a little nervous when Government says, `Measure.' ''
    And he didn't say that; he's reflecting the opinion of others. As the
    Governor of Texas, I remember that attitude too. But here's my attitude:
    If you spend money, doesn't it make sense to determine whether or not
    the results are halfway decent? As a taxpayer, it seems like that's
    something you'd want to know. It's certainly--it's part of, I'm sure,
    how 3M succeeds and continues to compete. You set high standards, and
    then you measure.
        Well, I think schools ought to do the same thing. I don't think we
    ought to tell you how to design your test. I don't think we ought to
    dictate curriculum, but I do know, in return for Federal money, it makes
    sense to say, ``Can the child read, write, add, and subtract when he or
    she is supposed to?'' And so we're measuring in return for Federal
    money. That's the whole thing behind No Child Left Behind.

    [[Page 180]]

        When I was the Governor of Texas, schools that didn't measure
    thought they were doing pretty well until--that's a natural assumption
    for a parent, right? ``I'm happy. They're paying attention to me.'' And
    things are going fine, and then the child gets out there and has to take
    remedial reading courses in college. And so you've got to measure. I
    remember the debate in Texas. They said, ``It's racist to measure.'' I
    said, ``Uh-uh, it's racist not to measure.'' Think about a system that
    just shuffles kids through.
        So we're making good progress at the early grades, particularly in
    reading and math. Matter of fact, America is competitive in math in the
    early grades. How do we know? Because we test. We test. And by the way,
    we make the test results known locally, and we compare tests State to
    State, so people can figure out--old Pawlenty can figure out how he's doing against other States.
    [Laughter] It's a nice tool if you're a reformist, by the way. See, if
    you believe in reform, it gives you leverage on a system that tends to
    be status quo-oriented.
        The other thing that we did in No Child Left Behind, which makes a
    lot of sense, is there's supplemental service money. That means extra
    money so that when we find a child lagging behind in reading, that
    family got extra money for extra tutoring. In other words, we said,
    let's diagnose the problem and solve it early, before it's too late.
        Accountability does a further thing that is important. It kind of
    helps resolve curriculum disputes. You might remember the old debates--
    at least I certainly remember them--over which kind--how do you teach
    reading. And there was this kind of theory and that kind of theory.
    Well, when you measure, it kind of makes it pretty clear which works and
    what doesn't work. We need to have the same emphasis in math that we
    have in reading, and the reason why is, is that because when you test
    early, we do fine in math, and yet when our kids start heading into
    junior high and high school, it's clear they can't compete in the world.
    And now is the time to do something about it.
        Well, so what do you do? What do you do? Well, the first thing,
    you've got to make sure your teachers have the skills necessary to be
    able to teach math and science. And I think the most practical way to do
    that is to teach teachers how to teach Advanced Placement. If you
    believe in high standards and if you want your kids to compete, a proven
    system is the AP programs. And they work. And therefore, we're going to
    ask Congress to appropriate money so that we can have a full-scale
    effort to train 70,000 teachers in how to teach AP.
        Another way to make sure that we have high standards in math and
    science is to take the same approach we took in reading, and that is
    intervention early, but apply that to math in the sixth, seventh, and
    eighth grade. In other words, have supplemental service money, extra
    money, tutorial money, money that could be used at the public school or
    private school or tutoring service to say, when we find a child that's
    lagging behind in math in the junior high schools, let's intervene.
    Let's not let them slip. Let's make sure that same high standard we've
    achieved in the fourth grade applies throughout the junior high level.
    So you got intervention in junior high, teachers able to send that--
    spend that--get that curriculum right in high school.
        The third thing we need to do is what you do here at 3M. And I want
    to applaud those scientists who are here who have gone in the classroom
    and said, ``This is a good deal. You're not going to believe how
    exciting it is to be a physicist or a mathematician or a chemist. Let me
    tell you the practical applications of what it means to be a scientist
    and tell you what a--how cool a job it is, how exciting it is.'' See,
    these kids need somebody to walk in to their classrooms and say,
    ``Follow me; follow my example.'' And so we've got a plan to help 30,000
    adjunct professors--that would be you--to be able to go into

    [[Page 181]]

    the schools all across America and set a good example to excite kids
    about the potential.
        One of the other things we're going to do that makes sense is to
    have a--what we call a national math panel. Again, we made great
    progress in reading, and one of the reasons why is that we've--there's a
    science to reading. I mean, it's not guesswork anymore. We've got a lot
    of really smart people, particularly out of NIH, that helped develop
    curriculum go-bys. We're not telling you what to use, but we are saying,
    ``If you're interested in teaching every child to read, here are some
    things that are necessary to make it work.'' We want to do the same
    thing with the math curriculum so that every school district, if they so
    choose, has got a resource base in which to figure out what works.
        Sometimes you have a good teacher sitting there, but they really
    don't understand what works when it teaches a child--how to teach a
    child math. And we believe we can figure it out. I believe we have
    figured it out, and now we'll make that available to school districts
    all around the country through the Governors and the States.
        And so the initiative I just described is, America will remain
    competitive by being wise about how we encourage research and
    development but, most importantly, by making sure our kids have the
    skill sets for the jobs of the 21st century.
        Now, in the meantime, there's another issue that I want to discuss
    right quick--two other quick issues, then you'll be liberated.
    [Laughter] One of them is, there are more high-tech jobs in America
    today than people available to fill them. And if that's--so what do we
    do about that? And I said--the reason it's important, and the American
    citizen has got to understand it's important, is if we don't do
    something about how to fill those high-tech jobs here, they'll go
    somewhere else where somebody can do the job. In other words, there are
    some who say, ``We can't worry about competition. It doesn't matter;
    it's here. Don't worry about it; do something about it. It's a real
    aspect of the world in which we live.''
        And so one way to deal with this problem, and probably the most
    effective way, is to recognize that there's a lot of bright engineers
    and chemists and physicists from other lands that are either educated
    here or received an education elsewhere but want to work here. And they
    come here under a program called H1B visas. And the problem is, is that
    Congress has limited the number of H1B visas that can come and apply for
    a job--a H1B visa holder can apply for a job at 3M. And I think it's a
    mistake not to encourage more really bright folks who can fill the jobs
    that are having trouble being filled here in America--to limit their
    number. And so I call upon Congress to be realistic and reasonable and
    raise that cap.
        We'll educate our kids. That's the goal. Of course, we want every
    job that's ever generated in America filled by Americans, but that's not
    the reality today. In order for 3M to remain competitive, in order for
    this job base to remain strong, in order for us to be a leader in
    innovation, we got to be wise about letting kids come here who've got
    the skill sets needed to fill the jobs that help us remain the leader in
    the world.
        And so what I'm telling you is, is that I'm an optimistic guy about
    America's future because I believe in our system, and I believe in the
    people. The government's role is to make sure that we're a flexible
    economy. Its role is to make sure that we apply our resources properly
    to make sure we're an innovative economy. And certainly, a very vital
    role at all levels of government is to make sure our children have the
    skill sets necessary to fill the jobs that will inevitably come in this
    changing world.
        My belief is that we should not fear the future; we should shape it.
    America has a vital role to play as a leader. And the policies I just
    outlined will help us remain

    [[Page 182]]

    the leader that I think most Americans want us to be.
        I appreciate 3M's leadership. I appreciate you employing so many
    people. I appreciate you making this a good place for people to come to
    work. I could tell it just in the pride of the voices of the researchers
    I met. Thanks for making this an environment where innovation succeeds
    and people are able to realize their full human capacity.
        God bless you all, and may God continue to bless our country.

    Note: The President spoke at 11:50 a.m. at 3M Corporate Headquarters. In
    his remarks, he referred to Gov. Timothy J. Pawlenty of Minnesota, and
    his wife, Mary; Lt. Gov. Carol Molnau of Minnesota; George W. Buckley,
    chairman, president, and chief executive officer, 3M; and President Luiz
    Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil. The Office of the Press Secretary also
    released a Spanish language transcript of these remarks.