Issue link: https://iconnect007.uberflip.com/i/1513227
78 PCB007 MAGAZINE I DECEMBER 2023 others saw it through a jobs and economic security lens. Some didn't care for insecure and fragile supply chains, and some were just concerned about scarcity and price. at is the response we tend to get when we talk about the rest of the stack, whether it's boards or substrates. Each has their own motivation, but there are many reasons to tackle this problem. So far, the money from the CHIPS Act is going toward the large players in the industry. To be resilient, though, we need a diverse sup- ply chain and a variety of different sized com- panies and technical capabilities. How do we do that? Two things are universally beneficial about the plans that we're pushing. First, the Buy Amer- ica provision hits anybody who works here. If you can say to your customer, "ere's a tax credit for buying American," that lands well. To tell your customer they can get a 25% tax break, it lands equally well. With regards to the direct funding, there is no reason to think we would give preferential treatment to large companies over small. To apply, you need to meet certain criteria, and demonstrate a couple of key things: First, that this funding will be used for the purposes that Congress intended, and second, that it will be used domestically, among other conditions. Who is at the head of the line? It's the global foundries, and I'm not surprised, but will they exhaust all $52 billion? No. For PCB manufacturers in the United States to buy a $10 million piece of drilling equipment is a tremendous capital expenditure. e govern- ment may be able to help with those capital expenditures through direct funding. e industry will not turn around on the proposed $3 billion in the House's PCB bill. at's why we coupled a grant program with a tax credit. We want to be sure the govern- ment is buying, especially for national security applications, inside its American supply chain. We are very confident that when the Pentagon audits its supply chain and does a more thor- ough job to eliminate foreign microelectron- ics, it will necessarily have to buy more Amer- ican. Our members who are selling into Ray- theon, Lockheed, Boeing, Honeywell, and such, could potentially see some growth. The money seems to be moving quickly from the DoD and private sources rather than Commerce. Is this a situation where those funds might be more quickly available, per- haps helping a small boutique approach? As a taxpayer, as well as the leader of a coali- tion of domestic producers, we should have a direct investment of government dollars in this industry. Having a domestic capacity to pro- duce printed circuit boards and IC substrates is a national security concern. You're right that government money tends to move slowly. e CHIPS Act took four years to implement, and it may take 10 years to disperse all those funds. It might even take 15 years from the time we first thought about giving semiconductor manufacturers money to the time we finally wrap it up. Fieen years is an eternity. Our challenge is that private money doesn't see a demand signal. Private money sees a very healthy aerospace and defense market under an ITAR restriction requiring things to be made in America. But in the commercial space, where we have most of the offshoring, margin pressures still force sourcing. e chal- lenge that private money faces is investing in our members and our domestic capacity with- out the obvious commercial demand signal. Can you talk about a redefinition of critical infrastructure? We talk a lot about how a board for a Javelin missile or radar must be made at a DoD-trusted U.S. site. at's an easily understood concept. But do we think that missiles and radars are the extent of the things that should have trusted microelectronics? What about banking so- ware, the energy grid, and critical infrastruc-