Issue link: https://iconnect007.uberflip.com/i/1521713
42 SMT007 MAGAZINE I JUNE 2024 We know that government investment in the industry is necessary, and by and large, government leaders agree. the most advanced electronics manufacturing capabilities with abundant capacity and access to well-priced base materials. is makes Asia a prime destination for investment in new manufacturing facilities. e key question for U.S. policymakers and the industry is which electronics technolo- gies and systems should be manufactured in the U.S. given their strategic importance to national security, economic competitiveness, and/or technological leadership? What kind of investments are necessary to ensure such capabilities and capacities are put in place? e question is not moot, and it is not a matter for tomorrow. Today, the U.S. is equipping its men and women in uniform with less than the very best technologies because key segments of the electron- ics manufacturing sector do not have the manufacturing capabilities that are state-of-the-practice in Asia. Has this interest translated into meaningful funding support? No. It's great that we are seeing increased government interest in the electronics supply chain, but we have not seen funding support in the U.S. or in Europe, where the concerns are very similar. Again, we shouldn't expect high- volume commercial electronics to come back, but every region and every country should achieve "strategic autonomy." at's the term the Europeans use for industrial resiliency, and I think it's a good one. Achieving strategic autonomy means get- ting serious about a holistic, silicon-to-sys- tems manufacturing strategy with a targeted approach to identifying those technologies that are important and sensitive enough that there is a strategic interest in seeing them man- ufactured domestically. We should feel urgency around this task because it's hard to predict when supply chain disruptions may arise as a result of geopolitical tensions, national disas- ters, or pandemics. The challenge for government is not an easy one, is it? No, it's not. We know that government investment in the industry is necessary, and by and large, government leaders agree. In the U.S., the industry has backed the Protecting Circuit Boards and Substrates Act (PCBS Act, HR 3249), which would authorize up to $3 billion for investments in PCB facilities. In Europe, IPC and its partners are launching a renewed advocacy campaign in June, arguing for govern- ment investment in the indus- try there. But government leaders want to understand the scope and severity of the electronics manu- facturing problem better. ey want to understand where the manufactur- ing vulnerabilities are most dire. ey want to understand how funding will be allocated and to whom. Most importantly, they want to understand how government investments will lead to sustainable, long-term strategic auton- omy. ese are difficult questions because the economics are so challenging, but we are mak- ing progress by educating policymakers about the importance of electronics manufacturing to security, innovation, and competitiveness— and by showing that increased investments can lead not only to greater capabilities but greater cost-competitiveness. What makes the most sense for government to do? ere are four or five key areas where gov- ernments should be focusing more attention to strengthen this vital industry. 1. ey need to help U.S. companies mod- ernize their domestic facilities, to become