1990 – Packard Speeches

Box 5, Folder 38 – General Speeches


January 27, 1990, Science and Technology – Preserving American Leadership, The Business – Higher Education Forum, Tucson, AZ


1/27/90, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s speech.


After saying that he is honored to be invited to participate in this roundtable session, Packard says he has been involved in many of the key issues which will be discussed at one time or another during the 50 years of his professional career….


“There is one thing I have learned about this subject, it is a very complex issue and there are no simple solutions. I have followed the work of the Business-Higher Education Forum over the past several years, and I think your work has been very constructive, but I do not think you have found all of the right answers and I will suggest several things we might want to discuss this morning.


Packard says that he believes that the most important measure that could be used to determine if we are preserving American leadership in science is “whether or not we are able to use our science and technology to keep the quality of life and the standard of living in the United States at the forefront of all of the nations of the world. This means that converting scientific and engineering knowledge into the best products and services should be the main goal. I would like to see us reduce our relative expenditures on some of the big science programs; high energy physics and manned space programs, for example, and increase our research and education in the central scientific disciplines; physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, earth science, ocean science and engineering for example. The one big science program that should receive continuing high level funding is medicine and health care, but this field has some problems too, some of which you discussed yesterday.


“In these terms, science and technology leadership requires at least the following three things:


  1. An adequate number of scientists and engineers in the front ranks of their peers world-wide, measured not only by their knowledge, but also by their creativity, or innovative spirit.
  2. Adequate financial resources for university research and teaching, and for industry to build efficient facilities to compete on a world-wide basis.
  3. An environment in which scientists, engineers, teachers, university and business executives can devote their time and their energy to their professional work.


The high level funding by the federal government for research and education began at the end of World War II. The GI Bill gave educational opportunities to the men and women who served their country in uniform. Some studies have indicated that the GI Bill did more to enable young minority people, Blacks in particular, to improve their status in our society than anything that has been done since the 1960’s.I strongly recommend that this forum look into that situation because what we have been doing recently in the field of education for our young Black people is not working very well. This might call for financial support to be provided for an individual to attend any school or university for which the individual is qualified.


Packard looks at how the high level of federal funding for research and development at American universities began. “It was at the instigation of the scientists who established and operated the National Defense Research Committee and the Office of Scientific Research and Development during the War. He quotes Vannevar Bush as saying ‘We gathered the best team of hard-working devoted men ever brought together…for such a task. Congress gave us appropriations in lump sums and trusted us to decide on what projects to spend the money.’ Packard continues, saying “Grants were made to promising research teams at a number of our universities and these people were allowed to pursue their research with a minimum of oversight. We have gone far astray from that practice, which made possible a tremendous accomplishment during the war with only half a billion dollars.” Packard describes some dangers foreseen by Dr. Bush:


[Allowing] “industry-wide combinations, either of managers or labor leaders, to exact undue prices or wreck an industry at the expense of the public.”


[Permitting] “special interests [to raid] the treasury, unbalancing the budget, and destroying the national credit upon which the whole world depends.”


‘Shutting off the source of venture capital, and enmeshing in the red tape of bureaucracy the new small pioneering firm that should be encouraged to build the great industry of the future’


Packard says that Bush’s concerns fortunately did not develop rapidly and the United States enjoyed two decades of “unprecedented progress and leadership in science and technology. About the middle of the 1960’s this great progress and leadership began to deteriorate and it has been almost all downhill since. Everything Dr. Bush predicted as dangers are now with us, and I think they are much worse than he could have imagined. I realize it is not possible to turn back the clock, but there are a number of things that could be done to greatly improve the situation.”


To consider these Packard says he would like to return to the three things he said were necessary to preserve America’s leadership in science and technology. “We clearly need an adequate number of scientists and engineers in the front ranks of their peers, but this is not a simple problem. We need them at all levels, not just the PhD’s at the top. Japan is ahead of us in some important areas not because they have better people at the top of the pyramid; they don’t. They are doing better in the mundane engineering and design job. They are beating us on quality, not basic science. They are beating us in the application of the technology that we have developed. They are creative in a sense, but their great strength is in meticulous attention to detail in both the design and the manufacture of their high technology products. They have had an advantage in low cost labor and capital, but American people now buy Japanese products because they have better quality. The United States lost its leadership in random access memories not because of Japanese lower cost but because of Japanese higher quality.


“It seems to me that it is the responsibility of you educators to look at this problem on a much broader base. I think we must find ways to instill in our young people a better appreciation of what it takes to win, the importance of knowledge and hard work. I do not think there is any reason to have set quotas for minorities, for either students or faculty members, at the graduate level of the prestigious research universities. That is not where the opportunities are for the majority of the Black and Hispanic young people. You do them a great disservice by lowering the standards and establishing special programs, for in doing this you are sending them a strong message that they are inferior. This suggests that you business people should not give money to universities for scholarships for minority people unless the recipients are fully qualified to compete with their classmates. The problem is that there are not enough high school graduates who are fully qualified to go around. That means to me that the problem is primarily how to improve the education and the motivation of the young minority people before they reach the university level. I feel quite sure that we must do a better job for these people beginning with their early years. Their first eight years, I think, are the most critical. This means that it will take time to do what is needed. It will be the end of the decade of the 1990’s before these young people who are in grade school are at the university level. We must, therefore, direct a major effort to improve our educational system at the high school level and at the later years of grade school to made a significant improvement in the decade of the 1990’s. I think, however, to do what we all would like to do will require a major effort for our young people during their first eight years, and I do not think it is possible to get our young Black people up to the position they deserve unless we can get them started right in the beginning. We have to take a much longer view of this educational challenge. I know the pressures are great to set numerical quotas, to generate numbers to make the situation look good. I think it is time we look at the facts and call a spade a spade.


“Continuing education is extremely important in this field of high technology which is moving so fast that much of what one learns in school is out of date in just a few short years. Many companies have good continuing education programs with schools and universities but more should be done. This forum is an ideal place to address this problem.”


Packard moves on to his second requirement for science and technology leadership – adequate financial resources for university research and industrial facilities. “There are a few special issues in the area of financial support” he says, “that deserve more attention from this Forum. Our leading research universities must have the best facilities and equipment, but their overhead costs are getting out of hand. Some of this is caused by a proliferation of programs to help minorities, expanded activities to attract students, and of course to deal with the red tape involved in government support of various kinds. I can not think of a better project for this forum than for industry members to give the universities some help in controlling their overhead costs.


Packard turn to his third requirement for leadership: an environment in which scientists, engineers, educators and business people can do their professional work.


“I think that probably the most important way the federal government can help industry commercialize technology is to provide a favorable environment for business and industry to develop, manufacture and market high technology products and services.


“Over the years the federal government has gone far beyond such a simple role and there is no way we could turn the clock back even if we wanted to, but I think one of the most serious problems we have on the basic issue we are discussing today is that business and industry in the United States are operating in such an adverse environment that it will be virtually impossible for America to maintain its world-wide leadership in science and technology unless the environment is improved. Any significant improvement will require a drastic change in federal policy and action.


“Let me call your attention to several of the specific problems. The first is hostile takeovers financed by junk bonds. These have sapped the strength of a number of important companies in the United States. In some cases loading a company with a level of debt that will require the use of all future earnings just for debt service for years to come….The threat of hostile takeovers is also encouraging American firms to take actions such as using profits to buy-back their stock instead of strengthening their research, manufacturing, and marketing capability.


“The university members of this organization deserve a considerable blame for this unfortunate situation. Most of your business schools have spent far too much time teaching the principles of financial manipulation instead of sound industrial management during the past few years.


“A second problem is that of the savings and loan situation. It is generally agreed that to be competitive in the future, the U.S. industry needs a larger source of lower cost capital. The common suggestion to solve this problem is to increase the savings rate of the American people. Here in the savings and loan business we have a situation in which billions of dollars of the savings of the American people have gone down the drain for no useful  purpose whatever, and the American taxpayer will have to foot the bill. The only attractive proposal I have seen that might lower the cost of capital for business and industry is to eliminate the double taxation of dividends.


“The federal government provides billions of dollars to support research and some of it goes go into research that helps industry commercialize technology, but a very large part goes into defense, space and high energy physics. The advocates of these large programs claim they help the  economy in general and the high-tech industry in particular by the fall-out effect. There has indeed been some very important fall-out in certain areas. For example, the American aircraft industry is the undisputed leader in the world because it has benefited from research in all aspects of aerospace technology done by the Defense Department and NASA. The computer industry had some benefit from defense research in the early years but in the past two decades the defense research policy in computers has been so bad that computer technology and practice in D.O.D. is years behind the private sector, and the same thing is true in large scale integrated circuits. The Defense Department is justifiably concerned about this situation and that is why they are strong supporters of Semitech, and U.S. Memories. In most cases I think we will do better to concentrate our research on what we want to achieve and not just hope to get the benefit of fall-out from the big ticket programs. I think the government involvement in such programs as Semitech will be one-way streets with the traffic signs all in the wrong direction as far as industry is concerned. And with the micro-management that will be contributed by our Congress, there is no way they an be very efficient anyway.”


Packard sees some other problems related to government support of research and development both for universities and industry. “It has a political element that can not be eliminated but could be handled better. Popular programs like medicine, space and high energy physics receive large funding that is not always well related to the basic welfare of the country. I do not see a serious problem with federal support of medical research. Its primary goal is the welfare of the American people. Since this subject was discussed yesterday I do not think we should discuss it further today.


“The Apollo project was a great triumph that clearly demonstrated American leadership in space to the world. The trouble is that we have not been able to find an adequate encore, and I think it is time to admit that there may not be one. High energy physics gave us nuclear weapons and nuclear energy as well as important fundamental knowledge about mater and energy. I think space research and high energy physics research should, from here on, involve international cooperation and international funding. I want to emphasize that I think federal funds would serve to preserve American leadership better if they went to increased support for research and teaching in some of the disciplines of basic sciences and engineering instead of for these big ticket programs.”


“Packard sees another problem with federal support of science and technology and that “is the congressional pork barrel which distorts the application of federal funds for university research and teaching, and influences the location of large research projects such as the super-collider. State governments also try to influence the location of industry. These political influences are not all bad. It does not make much difference where the super-collider is located if the space and the geology are all right. I think the work that many states do to try to help develop international business for companies in their state is mostly a waste of time and money, but  it is not a large problem in any case. These political influences make it difficult to allocate resources in the optimum way.


To summarize, Packard says he does not think “American leadership in space or high energy physics or exclusive American leadership in any other area of science and technology is a necessary, or even a ;possible goal for the future. For about two decades following World War II the United States enjoyed a dominant position of leadership, but there is no way we can regain that position. It is quite possible for the quality of life for the people in America to continue to improve without continuing American leadership in all of these large, highly visible projects. However it would be a devastating blow to the spirit of our country for us to fall seriously behind the other leading nations in the world in every area of science and technology. We must not let that happen, and of course that is why we are all here today.


“There are some other things we could discuss this morning; the tremendous burden placed on American industry by excessive and unrealistic government regulations, how the defense department could do a better job in making its vast expenditures for research and development make a better contribution in dealing with these problems, the research and development tax credit, and capital gains taxes. I am sure there are other issues that might be of interest, but I will conclude my remarks at this point.”



1/25/90, Copy of program agenda

11/16/89, Copy of letter to Packard from Jana Harris, Forum Administrative Assistant, giving details on travel, accommodations etc.

1/17/90, Copy of HP travel order for company plane



Box 5, Folder 38A – General Speeches


April 24, 1990, Statement Before the House Committee on Armed Services  Investigations Subcommittee, Washington D. C.


4/24/90, Copy of typewritten text of statement


Packard starts by saying he appreciates the opportunity to provide his opinion on the proposal they have developed to create an Acquisition Corps within each of the military services. He says he has reviewed the proposal and in his opinion it “will not work very well, it will not improve the acquisition process, and if anything it will make the DOD acquisition process worse.


“There are some aspects of your proposal which, if properly applied, might help. In order to not be completely negative I will give you some suggestions about how something along the lines you are considering might be developed to improve the acquisition of equipment, materials and services by the DoD.


Packard says he understands the proposal is to apply an Acquisition Corps “across essentially all of the present acquisition workforces of each of the military services, and other acquisition activities of the DoD. The plan would be an effort to improve the professional status of all of the personnel, civilian and military. Additional educational opportunities would be offered to encourage professional development, and a more professional compensation policy would be put in place for the civilian force. Military personnel in acquisition work would be expected to make a career commitment and be advanced in rank by competition within the corps, not in competition with other general or flag officers. There would be more stringent requirements on civilians at senior level also.”


While Packard sees these as reasonable objectives, he says “The problem is that you are proposing still another layer of micromanagement by the Congress on the DoD acquisition activity when the most serious overall problem with DoD acquisition is already too much micromanagement of DoD by the Congress.


Packard recalls the Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management which he chaired in 1985 and 1986, and says, “…many of the Commission’s recommendations were included in important legislation approved by the Congress, and are now in place. Many of the ideas in the proposal we are discussing here today were included in the recommendations of the Commission.


“To give you some understanding about why I think this proposal we are discussing will not help I would like to recall for you several of the key recommendations of the Commission that have not been implemented.” And Packard draws quotes from the Commission’s Interim Report, dated February 28, 1986. [See speech dated May 5, 1986 for his contemporary review of the Interim Report, as well as a list of other speeches bearing on this Commission’s work.]


from Page 16 of the Interim Report:

‘Establishing short, unambiguous lines of authority would streamline the acquisition process and cut through bureaucratic red tape. By this means, the Department of Defense (DoD) should substantially reduce the number of acquisition personnel.’


Packard says their proposal would “establish more ambiguous lines of authority, more red tape, and I do not see how it would reduce the number of acquisition personnel or streamline the acquisition process.”

Also from page 16:

‘Congress should work with the Administration to recodify all federal statutes governing procurement into a single government-wide procurement statute. This recodification should aim not only at consolidation, but more importantly, at simplification and consistency.’


Packard’s comment on the current proposal as compared to the Commission’s recommendation was, “I do not think your proposal contributes anything useful to this recommendation which I think is very important.”


Another quote from page 16 of the Interim Report:

‘DoD must be able to attract, retain, and motivate well qualified acquisition personnel. Significant improvements, along the lines of those recommended in November 1985 by the National Academy of Public Administration, should be made in the senior-level appointment system.’


Packard adds to this quote from the Report saying, “This paragraph goes on to recommend flexible personnel management policies, a better compensation plan for senior acquisition personnel and contracting officers as well as scientists and engineers. It proposes better education and experience criteria for professionalization of career paths….”


“This paragraph,” he says, “relates squarely on what you are trying to do by establishing an Acquisition Corps. In your proposal you have included most of the things the Commission recommended.”


Packard comments that while he doesn’t think the plan they are proposing will work, they “are obviously trying to do the right thing,” and, given this positive objective, he says he would like to make a recommendation.


“I think you should establish a joint task force with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to develop the legislation to what is necessary to attract and retain the caliber of people needed to elevate the DoD acquisition program to a level of excellence. You should ask for advice from industry about any new legislation.


Packard says that if the defense acquisition process is to be improved “it will be absolutely necessary to establish [an] environment conducive to high quality professional work in Acquisition.” And to remind the members of the Subcommittee what he means by the “proper environment,” he says he wants to recall a statement he made in the foreword of the Blue Ribbon Commission’s Interim Report:


‘Excellence in defense management will not and can not emerge by legislation or directive. Excellence requires the opposite – responsibility and authority placed firmly in the hands of those at the working level, who have knowledge and enthusiasm for the tasks at hand. To accomplish this, ways must be found to restore a sense of shared purpose and mutual confidence among Congress, DoD, and Industry. Each must forsake its current ways of doing business in favor of a renewed quest for excellence.


‘Congress must resist its inveterate tendency to legislate management practices and organizational details for DoD. Excellence in defense management will not come from legislative efforts to control and arrange the minutest aspects of DoD’s operations. Congress can more usefully contribute by concentrating on larger, often neglected issues of overall defense posture and military performance.


‘DoD must displace systems and structures that measure quality by regulatory compliance and solve problems by executive fiat. Excellence in defense management can not be achieved by the numerous management layers, large staffs, and countless regulations in place today. It depends, as the Commission has observed, on reducing all of these by adhering closely to basic, common sense principles; giving a few capable people the authority and responsibility to do their job, maintaining short lines of communication, holding people accountable for results.


‘Defense contractors and DoD must each assume responsibility for improved self-governance to assure the integrity of the contacting process. Excellence in defense management will not be achieved through legions of government auditors, inspectors, and investigators.  It depends on the honest partnership of thousands of responsible contractors and DoD, each equally committed to proper control of its own operations.’


Packard says he thinks that statement “was the most important recommendation that was made by our Commission. This recommendation has not been implemented. I think your proposal of an Acquisition Corps opens the door for an opportunity to make a contribution of historic significance to the improvement of defense acquisition.”


Packard says he wishes to comment on several of the issues raised in their proposal which give him concern – “not with the intent to be critical, but to try to be helpful.”


“As I interpret your proposal you intend that the existing acquisition stature would not be changed, and that the new requirements would be imposed as a sort of matrix across them all. I think this would be a mistake. I think there should be only one acquisition organization to each service, and the kind of educational, experience, promotional and compensation changes you are proposing should be directly incorporated into each service activity, not added as one more layer on top of what is already there.


“There should be more uniformity among the service acquisition programs for the lower level activity which is purchasing a vast array of what might be called housekeeping equipment, materials and services. I do not see any need for military officers to be involved.” And he goes on to suggest the elimination of excess specifications for products in this area, and more reliance on the purchase of commercial products.


Packard refers to those areas in the report now before the Subcommittee which discuss the issue of military officers vs. civilians in certain positions, particularly those activities involving weapons and weapons systems. “It is very important,” he says, “to have military experience and judgment in the consideration of what weapons to develop and what weapons to acquire. It is desirable to have some good business, or industrial experience, as well. This issue was given extensive consideration by the Commission, and as you may recall, the basic decision on the type and level of military forces was assigned to a team of three offices, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions ASD(A). The legislation to do this has been enacted and the structure is in place. I do not know how well it is working, but I still feel strongly this is the proper arrangement for making these important decisions even though it may take more time to have the arrangement working effectively.”


He says he has raised this issue because their proposal has suggested that “the Acquisition Corps be given some authority in this area.. It is, in my opinion, not necessary to give the Acquisition Corps any specific authority in this area as long as the ASD(A) has overall authority to establish policy and to evaluate the performance of the Acquisition Corps of each service or agency”


Responding to a proposal that acquisition personnel be given authority ‘similar to the independence of an accountant or inspector general,’ Packard says quality cannot be inspected into a product or an organization. “Until and unless the Congress gets over the idea that more inspectors and more auditors will help the DoD acquire better material and better services at a lower cost, defense acquisition will continue to be a sorry mess – it will not get better.”


On the proposal that acquisition personnel should have college degrees, Packard feels that, while college degrees should not be a requirement, he does agree acquisition personnel “must have considerable knowledge about how to do their work. It would be much better to have a series of examinations, uniform across the services, and a minimum score on the examination should be required. The knowledge necessary to pass the examination could be acquired by college courses, home study or simply from experience.


“These jobs are not going to be very attractive to college graduates unless they are really made much more professional, and I think there will be a larger choice of good candidates if college degrees are not required.”


“You also recommend the establishment of a new Acquisition University. I think you should recommend consolidating the courses that are already being offered into an existing institution and not establish a new one.”


Packard closes by offering to respond to any questions.


3/9/90, Letter to Packard from U.S. House of Representatives, Nicholas Mavroules, Chairman, and Larry J. Hopkins, Ranking Minority Member. Letter encloses a draft copy of the proposal on an acquisition workforce for Packard’s review

3/12/90, Copy of a press release from the House of Representatives announcing the release of the draft proposal for review by all concerned

3/22/90, Letter to Packard from Nicholas Mavroules, Investigations subcommittee, inviting him to testify before the Subcommittee on the proposal being circulated

4/13/90, Copy of a letter to Packard from Donald J. Atwood, although not so identified, known to be Deputy Secretary of Defense in 1990. The letter is not signed but a handwritten note on the copy, is signed “Don” and says he has attached the report they discussed. This report presents the current acquisition organization in the DoD.

4/18/90, Copy of a letter to Packard from Nicholas Mavroules confirming their Subcommittee meeting on April 24m and he attaches a list of issues and questions he would like Packard to comment on.

4/20/90, Copy of a letter to Packard from Bernie McKay and Eben Tisdale, of HP’s Government Relations office in Washington D. C. commenting on the proposal

5/10/90, Note to Packard from Joyce C. Bova  of the Armed Services Committee staff enclosing a copy of his comments before the Subcommittee. She asks that Packard edit his remarks and return the copy to her. She also asks that he supply answers to questions attached. A transmittal sheet shows the edited remarks were returned on May 31, 1990

Box 5, Folder 39 – General Speeches


September 12, 1990, presentation of the American Electronics Association Medal of Achievement to John Young, San Jose, CA


9/12/90, Typewritten text of Packard’s remarks


If he were to make a short presentation Packard says he could say that this award to John Young “…would be well justified by reminding you of the record; of the overall growth and success of the company since John took over in 1977. In 1976,” he continues, “ the last year before John took charge, HP revenue was $1,123, 584. Net earnings were $90,841. We had 32,200 employees. We produced 3600 different products. Our computer business was about 49% of the total.


“By 1989, under John’s leadership, total revenue had grown ten times to $11.9 billion. We had 95,000 employees and more than 10,000 different products. We had become one of the major players in the computer industry, and in the United States we had moved up to No. 39 in the Fortune 500 listing. I could add more facts and figures to demonstrate that John’s achievement in his leadership of the Hewlett Packard Company has been impressive indeed.”


Packard adds that he “…could also give…ample justification of the award by reminding you of what John’s peers in the industry think of him. During the last few years he has received many awards for his achievement’s. Among the recent awards: he was selected as the ‘Best Executive of the Year’ by the Electronics Business Magazine in 1989. He was given the award for Distinguished Public Service by the National Science Foundation in 1990, and last year in the Electronics Business magazine survey of the best executives and the best companies, John received the highest percentage of responses; 63.8% for best executive.


“I do not want to rest here,” Packard says, “for John’s record of achievement is far more impressive than these facts and figures I have given you would indicate.


“Achievement is to a large extent the setting of worthy goals and then living up to them. John has done that over and over again in his work with our company, both before and after he took charge in 1977.”


Packard says that “During his career with our company John has made a number of individual achievements which involve setting goals for himself or his management team and then achieving them. I want to tell you about two of his very important achievements as the CEO of our company. He recognized that our company would be expanding over the years ahead, we would have more customers, more products, and that to be successful we would have to compete in the world-wide market place. He properly recognized this would require us to develop and put in place the best possible service for our customers, wherever they might be, and for every one o our products they might be using. He established this goal for his management and the accomplishment has been impressive. In nearly every survey during the last several years Hewlett Packard has been at the top of the list in the quality of our customer service. This required the enthusiastic support of plants in 24 U.S. cities and 15 foreign countries, and sales offices in 140 U.S. cities and some 300 sales offices in 92 other countries, a real tribute to John’s leadership.


“John also recognized that the quality of our products would be a major factor in our ability to compete in our world-wide markets. He set a goal for the company to make a ten to one improvement in the quality of our products and made this a high priority challenge for everyone. The company has not quite reached this goal of his on an overall basis, but many of the manufacturing facilities have reached or exceeded the goal John set for them.


“During his tenure as President and CEO of our company John has taken time to help with issues important to the local community, issues at the national level of importance to our industry and to our nation, and he is recognized as one of the leading statesmen of industry by the governments of industrialized countries all over the world. He was appointed by President Reagan in 1983 to be Chairman of the President’s Commission on Industrial Competitiveness, and John was selected to be its Chairman. Of course it could have been that no one else wanted the job, but I am sure he was elected by the members as a sincere recognition of his leadership ability. I consider John’s work in trying to make our country more competitive to be another real achievement.


“There is one more thing I want to say about John’s achievements during the past decade. It has been a decade of unbelievably rapid change. The ability of computers to collect. store, analyze and distribute data and information has increased by orders of magnitude in just a few years. And so has our ability to communicate on a world wide basis. Some people think this ability is far in excess of the information and data that is worth all this effort. As usual we find there is nothing new about this idea. In 1854 Henry David Thoreau made this statement in his book, Walden: ‘Our inventions are wont to be pretty toys, which distract our attention from serious things. They are but improved means to an unimproved end, …. We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph from Maine to Texas, but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing important to communicate.”


“There is a very serious and important aspect to this tremendous rate of progress in the electronics industry during the past decade that has made John Young’s achievements more difficult and therefore more impressive.


Without any doubt the technology that has increased the speed and efficiency of communication and travel on a world wide basis during the past decade is the driving force that brought an end to the cold war. This opens up a completely new ball game for the 21st Century. We do not know yet what this really means for the current  Mid-East crisis is only the first inning.


“And now one final word. It has been long recognized that behind every successful man is a strong, capable woman. Tonight I want to rephrase that statement and tell you that standing shoulder to shoulder with John Young is a very strong, very capable woman, his wife Rosemary.


“I could say many more things about John Young’s accomplishments. I hope you know by now that I think this award is richly deserved. John, it is with great respect and with great admiration that I present this award to you tonight.”


9/12/90, Copy of printed program of the Medal of Achievement Award ceremony at the 47th Annual Meeting of the American Electronics Association.

9/21/90, Letter to Packard from Dick Iverson, AEA President, thanking him for presenting the Award to John Young, and enclosing a copy of a picture [see Packard picture file] of Young and Packard at the podium.

9/16/90, Newspaper clipping from the San Jose Mercury News covering the Award ceremony with excerpts from Young’s speech at the time.