[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.