Inside PCBAA's Fight for American Circuit Board Manufacturing

Join host Zach Peterson as he sits down with David Schild, Executive Director of the Printed Circuit Board Association of America (PCBAA), fresh from their annual Washington D.C. meeting. Discover how the organization is advocating for critical legislation like H.R.3597, the Protecting Circuit Boards and Substrates Act, and why American PCB manufacturing dropped from 30% to just 4% of global production. Learn about the workforce challenges, private investment opportunities, and the strategic importance of domestic microelectronics manufacturing for everything from F-150s to F-35s.

This in-depth episode of the OnTrack Podcast unpacks the policy battles happening behind the scenes as PCBAA works to secure tax incentives and federal support for American PCB manufacturers. David shares insights from their recent congressional meetings, explains why major OEMs like RTX (Raytheon) are joining the fight, and discusses the organization's mission to educate lawmakers about the critical role circuit boards play in national security and commercial applications.

Watch the Episode:

More Resources:

• H.R.3597
• PCBAA
• David Schild
• "Chip War" by Chris Miller
• Forbes Article about US Manufacturing
• Happy Holden OnTrack Episode
• Blake Moore OnTrack Episode

Transcript:

Zach Peterson 

Hello everyone and welcome to the Altium On Track podcast. I'm your host, Zach Peterson, and today we are speaking with David Schild, executive director of the Printed Circuit Board Association of America. David is fresh back from Washington, DC after this year's annual PCBAA meeting, and I'm very excited to talk to him today about all the things going on in Washington surrounding PCBs. David, thank you so much for being here today.

David Schild

Zach, it's always good to be with you. Thank you.

Zach Peterson 

Yeah, absolutely. First of all, it's been very strange times this year, of course, right? I feel like since 2022 and since the Russo-Ukraine war has started, there was kind of this tacit nod towards American manufacturing and the semiconductors were able to lobby their way into some money. Of course, you'd have to be living under a rock to not...

to not know about that. But it feels like the rest of the US manufacturing industry was just kind of like, yeah, US manufacturing is nice, but we're not going to put any weight behind it. And now all of a sudden in 2025, this has really become a big priority. Part of that being manmade by the administration. But I think more broadly, there's a realization that, yeah, maybe we should make more of our own stuff locally.

So if you could, give us your impression of everything that's gone on this year and then how that's starting to translate into policy in Washington, DC.

David Schild

Sure, Zach, you're absolutely right that, you know, in times of global uncertainty, I think people are reminded that often our supply chains are a little bit fraught. They stretch all over the world. Sometimes they stretch into our adversaries, borders and centers of manufacturing. And as we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic and as we've seen with various interruptions of seaborne shipping, for example, production shortfalls in other countries, this is risky, right? And people need to price risk into their models. And I think the Chips and Science Act, as you mentioned,

was a reflection that that is an unacceptable risk for strategic technology semiconductors. Well, we know and we say at the PCBAA that chips don't float. You've also got to have those IC substrates. You've also got to have those boards. And so I think there is an increasing recognition in Washington in a bipartisan way that we have to have industrial policy at scale. We can't just limit it to semiconductors. And one of the things that I've said repeatedly to Congress and others is that very often

Private money follows public action. And so while I am impressed and I am grateful for the $52 billion allocated under the Chips and Sciences Act, I'm even more impressed with the more than $400 billion in private commitments, money that has come off the sidelines. What you see, Zach, is that people see the federal government as the ultimate guarantor, the ultimate underwriter. And when Uncle Sam says this is a strategic priority, boy, private money really moves quickly off the sidelines. I have a instinct.

that there will be a similar process when it comes to other technologies. So that's why we're pushing so hard right now in Washington.

Zach Peterson 

Yeah, you mentioned that $400 billion figure. A couple of years ago, I was doing an article for the Altium website just exactly on that point, how much private money has really flowed in. And that was two years ago, and it was already a significant fraction of a trillion dollars. And now we're getting up to $400 billion. mean, these are staggering numbers when it comes to private investment in manufacturing in the US. So that's semiconductors. And I think

anyone who looks at those numbers and, you know, looks into the supply chain and sees what the inventories are like, they would say, okay, I think we've got this part of it handled. But what about other critical industries like printed circuit boards and substrates? What's happening there with private money?

David Schild

Yeah, you know, right now, I think the toughest business case to make in microelectronics outside of semiconductors is where is the customer? And there are a number of things that could affect that. tariffs are the stick, and we do see tariffs moving markets slightly. But of course, they come with their own baggage in terms of the inputs that domestic printed circuit board manufacturers require. And we're a carrots focused organization right now by way of incentives. That's why our new bill, H.R. 3597, the Protecting Circuit Boards and Substrates Act, focuses on a tax credit.

And when you talk about the demand signal for both aerospace and defense, as well as commercial printed circuit boards, it's really important to be able to say to your customers, there is a buy America tax credit on the table. Of course, the Chips and Science Act also came with tax credits, but we feel that those have a longevity inside the tax code that really allows business leaders on both sides of that transaction to plan for the future and to reallocate their sourcing. And there are so many companies in the United States that need to answer that question we originally brought up. Where is the customer? The best answer.

And we talked to OEMs, we have OEMs now that are members of PCBAA, is to say there is a federal financial tax incentive to buy American boards. Once that's there, I think again, the business case, the investment case, most importantly, starts to emerge for the expansion of factories, the growth of workforce, the adding of capabilities to our domestic capacity.

Zach Peterson 

Yeah, there's a number of threads to pursue there. You've brought up a couple of them. One of the ones I would actually like to bring up is workforce, because if you talk to folks in industry, you talk to folks at, example, IPC, PCEA, the groups within the industry that really focus on some of these issues, but without necessarily getting directly involved in legislation, they have focused a lot on workforce.

as one of the huge pain points. And PCEA constantly points to the fact that the retirement rate is in some cases exceeding the number of new entrants coming into printed circuit board design. And I'm sure you can make a similar statement about manufacturing. And then just yesterday or the day before, I saw a news story, I think from Forbes, that there's gonna be

at some point, 400,000 open manufacturing jobs in the US. And that's not just electronics, right? I mean, that's across industries, right? So the workforce thing seems to be just as much of a pain point as some kind of financial incentive for private money to start to move into investing in manufacturing capacity. What's your take on that? And what's the take of lawmakers on

David Schild

think you are addressing one of the hardest problems that we have to solve. And it doesn't just apply to printed circuit boards. It doesn't just apply to microelectronics. If we're going to have an American manufacturing renaissance, we're going to need a talent pipeline to service the factories that are going to be built. Now, certainly automation in order to remain cost competitive is going to be part of the build out equation in the United States. But, you know, I think back to when Intel broke ground on its factory outside of Columbus, Ohio. There was something very telling that day. In addition to the governor of Ohio,

congressional delegation and Intel's executive leadership on that stage, you also had the president of Ohio State University. And to me, that was a sign that business leaders are thinking about the partnerships that are necessary in higher education and the talent pipeline. When I talk to our members, PCB executives, they will say exactly what you have just iterated here. They will say, hey, we don't have a replacement workforce. It's older, it's graying, it lacks the diversity and it lacks the continuity.

that we need to continue. Now, certainly we're meeting the demands, you know, again, of that aerospace and defense customer right now. It's a high talent workforce. It can be a career, which is something I don't think a lot of people appreciate, but this is where once we have those tax incentives in place, and once we have a commitment to expand these facilities, I think you're looking at the next major initiative that our group, that our industry, really that manufacturing as a whole is gonna have to tackle, which is where are the workers, right? In high school, in college, how do we reorient educational and training programs to say,

There's a career in manufacturing. There are good jobs in manufacturing. I'm really impressed with the way the Chips and Science Act really works from the ground up. You have state and local authorities. You have higher education, excuse me, higher educational institutions at the table. I think we're gonna have to do something similar, but candidly, it's almost a bigger challenge than the legislative initiatives that we're talking about right now.

Zach Peterson 

I would agree it is a bigger challenge. I think creating financial incentives and sticks as you called it, whether or not you agree with them or how they're implemented, I think that is actually easier than trying to create a cultural shift around the perspective with respect to manufacturing jobs. And I think it's happening a little bit under the surface and at the edges with a resurgence in the trades.

David Schild

Right. Yep.

Zach Peterson 

I think a lot of students are rightfully looking at this idea that I was told when I was younger, which is that, well, everybody just needs to go to college and you're automatically gonna be more successful than your parents. And for a lot of people that didn't necessarily turn out to be the case. And so I think it makes sense to see a resurgence in the trades. Do you think that same kind of resurgence can happen around manufacturing? Because I ask that because I happen to believe that I don't think there's really anything that government can necessarily do to like,

force that cultural shift, right? You can throw money at some program all you want, but if the kids don't see the value or the coolness or the cool factor or whatever, it's kind of wasted.

David Schild

Yeah, I think you've got to make it appealing. And certainly there are, you know better than anybody, very high end jobs in these careers. And there are jobs that are in the trade space as well where you don't need a four year degree. And I think we're going to have a mix of both. Again, I fly into Phoenix these days. I see nothing but construction. I see nothing but cranes on the skyline. And I think that what you will see is that the market will signal to job seekers that this is a boom town now and the booming industry is semiconductor manufacturing. Imagine

if we could expand those nodes in places like New York, Ohio, Texas, Arizona, to include IC substrate production, to include print circuit board production, or expand the facilities that we've already got. We certainly need more good jobs in New York state, in South Carolina, right in Florida. And so that's what PCB manufacturing offers. You know, the market has a way of sorting these things out, but the talent gap and the educational incentives that are going to have to be there. That's where I think you're going to have public private partnerships.

Zach Peterson 

Okay, okay. So there probably are some things that, you know, public money can do, but at the end of it, you got to have some private buy-in to really make that shift. You probably need some influencers on TikTok, you know, making videos in their manufacturing job just to make it look cool and everything.

David Schild

Absolutely.

David Schild

Sure, yeah.

David Schild

Well, we're going to make PCBs in America again, but we got to make it cool to make PCBs in America again.

Zach Peterson 

Yeah, absolutely. Excuse me. So you also mentioned earlier that there have been some membership updates, which I think are pretty telling about the progress the organization has made. And I think you mentioned there are now some OEMs that are members of PCBAA. Tell us about that.

David Schild

Mm-hmm.

David Schild

Yep. Yeah, so you know, we were started less than four years ago with five founding members, primarily board shops. Today we're north of 75 members and it's really the entire ecosystem that's represented. We've got raw and refined materials. We've got board manufacturers, assemblers, and now OEMs at the table as well. And I'm really proud that RTX is our first OEM member. I think in the coming weeks, you're going to see more of those companies coming on board. But really, Zach, it's a recognition that up and down the supply chain, that we have a shared fight, that we have a shared cause here.

And if you think about some of the really high end aerospace and defense applications that we see on the news now, every single night, they are brought to life because people are pulling copper out of the ground and they're turning it into copper foil and they're pressing it, you know, to a laminate and they're creating a board and that board is getting populated and then it's going on and it's becoming a javelin missile or a spy six radar. And everybody in that supply chain understands that we need an advocacy effort focused on that supply chain in Washington. So I don't think that

RTX is going to be the last OEM member, but we created that category because there was a recognition with the ultimate customer that they don't want these critical national security applications to slip or lag because there are single points of failure or interruptions down the chain when it comes to microelectronics, right? We are the thing that makes smart munitions smart and they know that. And so I think everybody sees the industrial policy implications. They see the national security implications. And, you know, I'm confident that we'll be

north of 100 members this time next year, and we'll continue to pick up folks throughout the ecosystem.

Zach Peterson 

Yeah, you called out RTX there, which for folks who don't follow stock tickers is Raytheon Technologies. but yes, RTX is, I mean, that's an impressive name to land. They're a huge company, tens of thousands of employees, I think. I don't even know the number, but they're, they're massive. And, I think when you go to talk to policymakers or universities or anybody else, right. I think it helps to have a name like Raytheon in your membership list rather than just, you know,

five or ten mom and pop board shops.

David Schild

Yeah, absolutely. You know, this is something that affects blue chip companies that everybody's heard of. And, you know, they have a significant political footprint in Washington. What I like to talk about is those pins on the map. We represent companies in 34 states right now. I need to get that number up because when we go to Washington, right, so often your political footprint relates to your political power. And so what I want to be able to do to lawmakers in the House and the Senate is say, we represent people who work and live and manufacture and pay taxes in your district.

And by the way, we make programs like the Columbia class submarine possible. We make programs like the F-35 fighter possible. And you know, yeah, there's a recognition that these marquee systems are dependent on complex supply chains and that they're built all over America.

Zach Peterson 

Yeah, and one of the slogans that you've said quite often is from F-150s to F-35s. And you've got the F-35 end covered through Raytheon, because of course one of the companies they own is Pratt & Whitney. But what's the progress on getting Ford for getting the F-150 end of it covered?

David Schild

So we are talking to a lot of OEMs both in the commercial and the aerospace arena right now. I will say, think the aerospace folks, you know, more immediately because of some of their critical deadlines and because there are so few folks who manufacture their microelectronics, they were the first ones at the table, but I'm confident that commercial OEMs will come along as well. So while they don't have ITAR pressures, while they don't have national security professors, what I see in talking to their chief supply officers, right, is they want to de-risk. They are fine.

buying from a global portfolio. But right now, Zach, as we know, it really isn't a global portfolio. Nine out of 10 boards come from Asia. Six out of 10 boards come from mainland China. That's not a diverse and resilient supply chain. And so a lot of these companies want to say, we need to have, you know, a portfolio that represents things across North America, things across Europe, things across Asia as well. That way, if there's an interruption, manmade or natural, regardless of its nature, we can step in and continue to deliver products.

I'm confident that commercial folks see it as well. I also think there's a recognition that certain sectors of the economy are probably going to remain overseas, lower tech, microelectronics, things that are high volume, but relatively low on the innovation side, right? Think thermostats, for example, the PCBs that might go in your vacuum cleaners. But let's talk about high-end domestic applications that are not aerospace and defense. What about everything that's powering AI data centers? What about everything that's powering medical devices, the water and power grid?

Certainly those are places where, you we've got really good reasons to make sure those supply chains never get interrupted. And yet in those applications I just discussed, if you were to crack boards and boxes open, I don't know that you would love the flag that you would find marked on that equipment. that's part of the challenge is this educate, advocate, legislate mission in that order. First, explain to people that they're surrounded right now by foreign microelectronics and they may not even realize it.

Zach Peterson 

Yeah, I mean, I can understand the motivation here, To broaden out the supply chain across different nations, right? Whether it's Canada, Mexico, Europe, I think a big advantage with that is it lets you be more responsive to customers in that region. Yeah, so you can produce closer to customers, ship directly. It lets you cut out all of this logistics and management cost.

David Schild

Sure. Yeah, I think.

David Schild

Yeah, obviously, you you you introduce a certain amount of trust and surety when you're shipping from Wichita and not across the Pacific Ocean, right? And we are not trying to undo a global economy. Let's be clear about that, right? What we're trying to undo is a global imbalance. And there's a difference. We are not trying to shut down international trade. We're trying to shut down and terminate international dependency. And I use those words very specifically.

because once there's only one source or once one source is producing nine out of 10 items, you're in a risky position. Everybody would concede that. So let's get some incentives for domestic production. Let's get some incentives for Wall Street to invest in domestic factories and let's solve that problem. And I would just say, Zach, also, we dug ourselves into this hole as an industry over three decades. We're not going to dig ourselves out in three months, but those first steps are important.

Zach Peterson 

So if anyone is interested in moving their production closer to home, what are some of the first steps that they take? Do they just try and find a CM in Mexico or Canada? Do they just try and contact CMs here in the US? I ask this because I think those steps are going to be a little different depending on the size of the company.

David Schild

Yeah, so I won't speculate too much because I'm not leading a PCB manufacturer. What I will talk about is how public policy can advantage that. I would start with state and local authorities. You know, when I'm in Arizona, it's not just the state of Arizona, but it's the city of Peoria, as an example, right? That's also making it very attractive to manufacture. If you look at some of the money that's gone out at the federal level, let's use DPA, Defense Production Act dollars, in places like New York, in places like New Hampshire, in places like Michigan. Well, guess what?

In many cases, there are also state and local dollars at play. Now it's generally smaller amounts, but there's a recognition and I think some governments are out in front, are leading in this space, that if you signal to us that you're willing to open a job creation center and that's what a manufacturing site is, we're going to make it easier to do that, right? We can speed permitting, we can reduce regulation, we can give you tax breaks and tax incentives. And I'm impressed with what Michigan has done. I'm impressed with what the state of New York has done, right? I think about Calumet,

And I think about TTM and the new facilities and capabilities that are coming online in those states. There's state and federal money and incentives at the table there. So the first thing that I would say to anybody is look at what municipalities, look at what state governments, look at what the federal government is willing to do to make this attractive to you and then talk to your customers, right? How would it be a game changer if I was doing this manufacturing domestically? And I think a lot of them are going to greet you with a smile.

Zach Peterson 

OK, OK, that's actually a really great point. I think, especially if you're at the higher end of the volume manufacturing and planning to open up your own facility. Now, speaking of captive facilities here, you brought up something really important about the really critical infrastructure that's being powered by PCBs and, of course, cutting edge tech like AI. And I've often wondered what

why some of those companies don't go into joint ventures on manufacturing. Because if you rewind back to the 80s, Hewlett Packard and those kinds of companies, they had captive operations. They were American companies, so of course those captive operations were here in the United States. And then they started outsourcing it over to Taiwan. And one of our guests, Happy Holden, tells this whole story very eloquently because he kind of facilitated all of that over the years.

David Schild

Mm-hmm, sure.

David Schild

Right.

Zach Peterson 

But, you know, there's been kind of recognition among, you know, particularly the big hyperscaler tech companies that are, you know, creating all this AI infrastructure that it's probably a good idea for them to invest in energy infrastructure. Right. And who would have thought that three mile Island would get restarted because of AI demand and data centers. Right. So these companies, obviously they need tons of PCBs and I'm just kind of confounded as to why you don't see more joint ventures between some of these massive OEMs.

David Schild

Right. Right.

Zach Peterson 

that spend a lot on PCBs and American PCB manufacturers.

David Schild

Yeah, so there's two things that come to mind when you talk about this. One is that, they're driven by the bottom line. And right now, without the incentives that I've been talking about, the kind of things that are in the PCBs Act, you know, they can't make it work on paper. Philosophically, they all want to de-risk, but the cost differential is just so high. Tariffs get us a little bit of the way there. But really, a tax incentive would get us very close to parity and cost competitiveness on certain boards. That's something we know for sure. The second thing that I would say is that you do see some examples

of new domestic facilities coming online at scale. I think I'm impressed with what Schweitzer has done in Moscow, Idaho. And of course, out in Bastrop, Texas, you now have one of the largest PCB facilities anywhere in the world in the form of what SpaceX, what Starlink, what those guys are doing to make boards. I think it's a Starlink facility specifically, but you crack open those receivers, those antennas, you'll find a giant PCB inside. They've decided to make in Texas their own boards.

And so by a lot of measurements, that's one of the biggest facilities anywhere in the world. And I think there is a recognition that putting it all under one roof makes sense. But the economic challenges, Zach, are very real, right? The things that drove us overseas, I think we're less philosophical and more market-based. And I'll say something else about, you know, the example you used, right, Taiwan. If you've read Chris Miller's book, Chip War, one of the great insights of that book is that it didn't just happen organically. A lot of things left Silicon Valley

to go to Taiwan, to go to China, to go to Thailand, to go to Japan, those governments got in on the ground floor. They recognized that they could be in a very competitive position. And we're seeing this right now, right? What Taiwan did for TSMC, what China did for its manufacturers, you're seeing the Thai government step up. You're seeing the Vietnamese government step up. There's this phrase, China plus one. Well, if we're not careful, if we don't move in the United States, we're not gonna be the plus one. The Thai government's gonna beat us to the punch.

Zach Peterson 

Yeah, yeah. And that's actually something else I wanted to you to comment on was the growth of some of that manufacturing in Vietnam and Thailand and elsewhere in Southeast Asia. I guess what I'm hearing from you is people are just looking at the Taiwanese and Chinese playbook and saying, do that.

David Schild

I think that we have a deliberative government in Washington, but in this case, speed would be an asset, right? It took six years. I remind our members of this all the time, because we were founded four years ago. It took six years from the idea of the Chips and Sciences Act to actually getting signed into law. And of course, now, we're three or four years out from it being signed into law. We still haven't spent all that money. We still haven't brought all those factories online. So this is a long road, and we need to get started with those first steps. I'm encouraged that...

DPA dollars are flowing into defense applications. I'm encouraged that state and local governments are stepping up, but we really need that federal policy and we need it sooner rather than later, right? The market doesn't wait. It moves at the speed of business as people say. And what you're seeing is other countries who are like, right now is the opportunity to act. Let's make it very attractive for microelectronics manufacturers and businesses moving accordingly. Now, what happens when you're in those countries? Sure.

Some of the geopolitical risks might be lessened, but you're still on the other side of the Pacific Ocean. And some of the geographical risks inherent in multi-thousand mile supply chains, right, that are seaborne in nature, that are still within, I would say, China's sphere of influence, right? Those risks are still present. And so we're all for a diverse and global supply chain, but part of that diversity needs to be here in the United States. I know I've quoted these numbers to you before, but we used to have 2200 board shops in America.

Now we have less than 150. We used to make 30 % of the world's boards. Now we make less than 4%. We're not trying to get back to where we were in the year 2000, but we need a sustainable segment of the market for these industries.

Zach Peterson 

OK, so I'm going to ask you the magic question that I asked to Representative Blake Moore when I had him on. Obviously, 30 % was too much. The market has made itself clear. Now we're in the case where we're at 4%. That's too little. Where do we need to be? It's somewhere in the middle, right?

David Schild

And somewhere in the middle, I'd be thrilled if we could double our current capacity. I will use an example of a single point of failure that never should have come to pass, right? We came very close to losing Denki in Camden, South Carolina, and that was going to be the only high-end copper foil manufacturer in the United States. They were within weeks of going under. They had announced their bankruptcy plans. Fortunately, a very wise group came in and bought them. It's been renamed as Camden Copper. They're proud members of PCBAA.

and we're gonna continue to produce copper foil and essential refined material here in the United States. There are any number of places in the supply chain where we are close to or at single points of failure. And so now is the time for government and industry to get together and prevent those kinds of risks from ever manifesting in the first place. I think doubling where we are today, getting to 8 % of global production would be a great milestone.

This is not a fight that's really ever going to stop, right? Nations compete in the global marketplace. And it's not just companies, as I say all the time, I don't think American companies are losing to Chinese companies. I think American companies are losing to the Chinese government. They are playing the long game. They have been subsidizing these industries for decades and decades. We've been doing serious industrial policy in this country for less than a decade. So we're gonna have to keep our foot on the gas. This isn't gonna be a fight that's gonna be over, you know, anytime in the near future.

but we've got to take those initial first steps to remain competitive.

Zach Peterson 

Sure, sure. Now, the PCBA has made its position very clear, right? And I tend to agree with it, right? As a US citizen, of course. I think we should definitely manufacture more of our own stuff here. And obviously, we can buy stuff from China as well. And we can all live happily ever after. I think the challenge here, though, is how do you get more lawmakers?

to understand what it is you're even talking about when it comes to circuit boards. Because one thing that I have heard folks who deal with people in the government say is that they say, yeah, we're here to talk about printed circuit boards. And they respond with, you mean the silicon wafers that they, didn't we handle that with the CHIPS Act? Why are you in my office talking to me about this?

David Schild

Right, Yeah.

Yeah, you we launched this organization with a mission that said educate, advocate, legislate. And there's a reason educate comes first because you can't expect public policy from people who don't understand what you're talking about. It's a technology stack, semiconductors, substrates and boards, and nothing works without a complete stack. I am really envious and kind of in awe of what the semiconductor industry, what SIA and SEMI did to educate not just the Congress, not just the administration, but the entire public at large about why chips are so critical.

We need to push similarly. need to have a widespread education effort. I should say we do have a widespread education effort underway. One of the ways that we do that, Zach, is we get away from the component discussion. And as we talked about earlier, we mentioned those end use applications that are so critical. Everybody understands what a pacemaker does. Everybody understands what it is that keeps a cell tower in operation. Everybody understands what a B2 spirit bomber is, right? And when you talk about those end use applications,

and that they don't do and they don't accomplish their mission without microelectronics and PCBs. That's when the light bulb tends to go on. So as much as I want people to understand layers of lamination and tracing and etching and chemical processes and some of the technical things that I'm still learning about myself, what's really important to me is that people understand the role we play in the ecosystem and in the supply chain and what technologies can't power the modern world without PCBs. That's the message that is most effective. And when you talk about education,

You know, I've got to call out our annual meeting. We were just in Washington a couple of weeks ago. We went to 27 different congressional offices. Already some of those teams are signing up to be co-sponsors on HR 3597. But nobody is more effective of a storyteller than the person running a board shop, the person running an assembly company. And so we took those folks directly into congressional offices to plead their case, to tell their story and emphasize why action is needed.

Zach Peterson 

Yeah, yeah, and I guess that's a good segue into our next topic, which is the most recent PCBAA meeting. So obviously, since the organization has been in existence, there has been an annual meeting in Washington, DC. You guys go and make the rounds on Capitol Hill. Tell us about this most recent one beyond what you just mentioned about being in Congress and talking to members of Congress.

David Schild

Yeah, I'm so proud of our team for delivering what I would describe as the biggest and best meeting yet, right? We had almost 60 executives from all over the country reflecting our growing membership and diversity. We called on a record number of offices. We heard from officials from the Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce. We had a keynote address from Senator Ruben Gallego of Arizona. I think there's a recognition now in the most senior places in Washington that industrial policy is a critical political issue and you garner great subject matter experts.

as a result of that recognition. We also had a first ever defense OEM panel featuring Northrop Grumman, featuring Lockheed Martin, featuring Raytheon Technologies and all three of those companies sat with us, right? Their suppliers and said, here's what we need to continue to deliver our critical items to the war fighter. And I think that was a really, really great discussion because it shows everybody who is making copper foil, everybody who is doing chemical processes, everybody who is assembling boards that the ultimate end use customer

is now aware of these efforts and what we're doing. And so the reviews have been very positive and we're looking forward to a bigger and better meeting in 2026.

Zach Peterson 

So this is gonna take me back to what I asked you earlier, right? That's the F35 end of the group. What about the F150 end of the group? Are we gonna see an automotive OEM panel at a future PCBAA meeting?

David Schild

It's a great idea, Zach. You're going to be volunteering for the annual meeting planning committee here if you're not careful. Yeah, you know, we're talking to those companies across, you know, sort of the Fortune 500. A lot of them have now assigned executives to supply chain issues and they see us in a very unique space doing a very unique mission. So we're having those conversations. Obviously, they're trying to balance their bottom line against what they know are very real strategic considerations on their sourcing. But of course, we're not going to have

a robust industry in the United States, if we're not meeting both the defense and a commercial demand signal. You know that most of the companies, large companies that are still left in this space are servicing the aerospace and defense sector. We have got to have commercial customers as well at the table on a part of this effort, and I'm confident we will.

Zach Peterson 

Okay, okay. Well, I'm looking forward to seeing that automotive OEM panel for sure. Hopefully it happens in the near future and I'll be able to make my way over to DC myself for one of these meetings. Thank you. So I wanna shift gears here for just a moment. So you were recently speaking at a panel, I believe in front of members of Congress. It was the US China Economic and Security Review Commission.

David Schild

We'd love to have you.

David Schild

Mm-hmm.

Zach Peterson 

and you were there with a few other people from some critical industries. Tell us about speaking on that panel.

David Schild

Yeah, really, what an honor to be invited to speak in front of the USCC. You know, that was one of those opportunities that is rare, but we welcome it because it's a chance to stand on the national stage and talk about our issues. And that panel that day was really focused on China dominance 2.0. What do we need to do beyond semiconductors? And of course, there were pharmaceutical industry representatives there. There were semiconductor industry representatives there. And then I was asked to be a representative for America's PCB and other microelectronics manufacturers.

And I think the message that we sent is that we've got to finish the fight. The CHIPS Act is just a down payment. It's just a first step. There are other places where we do see dominance by China, other industries where that introduces a unique sort of risk that we can ill afford. So it was a very full day of testimony, but I was honored to be a participant in it. And I don't think it's the last time you'll see us on a stage like that in Washington, because as we do that educate, advocate, legislate mission, there's more and more recognition.

amongst various congressional committees, amongst various think tanks, amongst journalists, that we need to be a part of the conversation.

Zach Peterson 

Yeah, I think it really underscores how far the organization has come in really delivering such an important message and helping to help people understand how important printed circuit boards are across all different classes of products. I mean, you're sitting up there with folks from the semiconductor industry and the pharmaceutical industry. I mean, these are like massively powerful industries, huge, total addressable market.

And then here's some guy talking about circuit boards, right? I mean, I say this because like so often, you know, the circuit board is just seen as like, it's that green piece of plastic they glue the chips onto, right? And people don't really understand what goes into it.

David Schild

Sure.

David Schild

We, this is the reason we were founded, right? I mean, if you want a moment in time when those five companies that founded us four years ago were seeing their vision become real, I think it was this testimony. And again, I don't think it's the last time we'll do it, but we cannot expect, and this is what I say to the folks who run these companies, you cannot expect that people in Washington are just going to have a sudden moment of enlightenment and realize that we have not finished the fight with the Chips Act. We have got to get in their faces politely.

and we've got to send these messages. And so this was a great first opportunity to do it. It won't be the last one. And this is why we exist, right? This is the purpose of this organization. We don't do technical standards. We don't do trade shows. We educate, advocate, and legislate on behalf of American Microelectronics manufacturers.

Zach Peterson 

Well, speaking of American microelectronics manufacturers, how can any interested companies or just interested individuals get involved in PCBAA?

David Schild

Absolutely. Find us on social media, on Twitter and LinkedIn, or visit us at PCBAA.org. We are having conversations every week with everybody across the ecosystem. Members are signing up pretty regularly. And as I said, our political power comes from our geographic diversity. If you are sitting out there running a microelectronics business, I want to get your member of Congress out to your facility. I want to make your Senator someone who's interested in our legislation. I want the White House to know that you

Zach Peterson 

.

David Schild

are producing critical assets here in the United States. And we need you on the team to make that happen.

Zach Peterson 

You know, I'm always kind of inspired when I see people, you know, I've gone through many factory tours myself. And when I see people who's not, someone who's not a technical person go through a factory and their mind is kind of blown, you know, watching what goes on. Do you ever see that with elected representatives who then make their way into a factory and then like really see what happens with all this manufacturing and their mind is kind of blown?

David Schild

Well, first I see it when I look in the mirror, right? I'm not a technical expert on a lot of this stuff. I'm a liberal arts guy. And I will say that when I get our members to give me facility tours, I'm blown away. And I've walked through a number of these sites, excuse me, with members of Congress. And that is exactly right. It's not a green piece of plastic. It's a complex engineered microelectronic component. And I do think that once people come in, first they see how much work goes into it. They see all the raw materials, all the processes, all of the...

very precise engineering, high touch labor, right? Complex machining. Members of Congress, they want to walk through these factories, but as you know, they're nondescript. You drive by one and you wouldn't understand what's going on behind those four walls. So a big part of what we're going to be doing during the August Congressional Recess Act is we are going to be hosting members of Congress at facilities all over the country. Nothing tells the story better than that facility tour. And you better believe they go back to Washington with an understanding that it's not just

RTX, Northrop and Lockheed. It's the other members of the critical supply chain that bring these technologies to life. Factory tours are just a great way to do it.

Zach Peterson 

Absolutely, absolutely. Well to anyone who is out there listening, I hope you will check out the links in the description, connect with David Schild and connect with PCBAA on social media. Go to the PCBAA website if you want to get involved. And of course, David will be checking in with you again to get more updates as all the legislation and education unfolds.

David Schild

There's a lot going on. look forward to talking about it with you, Zach. Thank you.

Zach Peterson 

Absolutely. To everyone that's out there listening, we've been talking with David Schild, executive director of the Printed Circuit Board Association of America. If you're watching on YouTube, make sure to hit the like button, hit the subscribe button. You'll be able to keep up with all of our podcast episodes and tutorials as they come out. And last but not least, don't stop learning, stay on track, and we'll see you next time. Thanks, everybody.