Event Recap: "Assuring U.S. Global Competitiveness in Science, Technology and Commerce"

On December 15, 2021, the CSIS Renewing American Innovation (RAI) Project recorded a conversation on the future of American innovation and competitiveness with The Honorable Haley Stevens, congresswoman from the 11th District in Michigan. The event aired on December 16 on the CSIS website, with RAI Project Director and Senior Fellow Dr. Sujai Shivakumar introducing Representative Stevens as a member of the House Committee on Education and Labor and as the chair of the Subcommittee on Research and Technology of the House Committee Science, Space, and Technology. He congratulated the congresswoman for her instrumental role in drafting legislation to strengthen U.S. innovation and competitiveness. He then invited Dr. Walter Copan – an RAI Project non-resident senior adviser and former Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) – to begin the armchair discussion.

Inspired by Southeastern Michigan’s Innovative History 

Invited by Dr. Copan to reflect on her path to the U.S. House of Representatives, Representative Stevens began by remarking on the legacy of innovation in her district in the Metro Detroit in southeastern Michigan – a region globally renowned for automotive technology, as well as defense and aerospace production. Since the Second World War, the United States has benefited from great technological advances driven by an innovation system that has long been the envy of the world.

Turning to the future, she asked, “what’s our moonshot for the next fifty years?” We need to think about how we can harness the best of American talent across all our geographies and demographics and harness the best innovations along with not only private-sector enterprises at the table, but also our government and nonprofit and academic institutions.”

Describing her path to representing the 11th District of Michigan in the U.S. Congress, and subsequently to the chair of the House Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Rep. Stevens described how she was inspired by her work at a research laboratory focused on the future of work in manufacturing. This issue, she said, hit home as a resident of the region with the nation’s largest concentration of automotive supplier jobs.

She went on to describe her role as the chief of staff in the U.S. Department of the Treasury during the U.S. auto rescue in 2008.  This was the period of the Great Recession and Stevens saw firsthand the struggles of workers and firms in Michigan caused by the near bankruptcy and the  renewal of the auto industry enabled by the subsequent government bailout of General Motors and then Chrysler.  

Drawing from these experiences, Stevens saw it as her priority to join the Science Committee upon entering Congress. She noted that that the future of U.S. innovativeness, and subsequently, competitiveness, relies on more funding, not less, for scientific research. She recalled that in the era immediately after World War II, the United States invested significantly in research and technology - roughly 2% of U.S. GDP – for federal investment in research and technology. This investment led to such monumental achievements as the 1969 Moon landing and the invention of the Internet.

At present, the country finds itself at a new inflection point with the potential to decide the nation’s economic and strategic future for the generation to come. “Today, there are exciting developments in a multitude of agencies, such as at the National Science Foundation (NSF), NIST, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Department of Energy research laboratories, as well as the ManTech office at the Department of Defense. Quantum computing, biotechnology, data security, and artificial intelligence (AI) are clearly the crucial technologies of the future,” said Rep. Stevens.

She highlighted the importance of investing in battery technologies, especially as electric vehicles start to proliferate in the consumer base. In an era when supply chain woes plague the world amidst the pandemic, Stevens noted that her district in Michigan has one of two electrolyte manufacturers in the United States.

The United States Innovation Competitiveness Act (USICA) of 2021

To secure the technologies of the future, Rep. Stevens acknowledged that it is important to start by protecting basic research as well as supporting the nation’s advanced manufacturing base. 

Remarking on the current semiconductor chip shortage, she noted that “in the 1990s we were making nearly 40% of the world’s semiconductor chips. Now we’ve got some 12% of that market share. Yet, we innovated this technology. And we employed people in this industry, before short term considerations made it more attractive for firms to manufacture these products overseas, particularly in the East.”

Indeed, for Stevens, it is this lack of long-term thinking that has put the future of American global innovation leadership up for grabs. This, she said, is her motivation for driving the passage of the U.S. Innovation and Competition ACT (USICA) through the U.S. House of Representatives. Looking ahead to reconciliation with the Senate version of the bill, she said that negotiators will certainly need to “bring some of the House components in with the Senate components. But the goal is to get this, you know, passed, and signed into law. We had very bipartisan support in the Senate, and I expect similar in the House.”  

To this, Dr. Copan added “And it’s very clear that there are common goals for not only more effective investment in science and technology but in its effective translation too to create jobs, to create economic impact.” In describing the Senate’s version, Stevens said “it’s very much a broad and expansive suite of legislative priorities that got passed and put in there.” As much of this formulation has been translated to the House version of the legislation, Stevens sees some key common themes, especially around chips funding. Specifically, the CHIPS Act calls for $52 billion to support the U.S. based research, design, and manufacturing of semiconductors– making this initiative the linchpin of this legislative portfolio.

Stevens also highlighted the legislation’s focus on the future of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). “On the House side, the members have approached NASA funding and reauthorization diligently – especially as private sector entities enter this space and successfully invest at scale and create jobs.”  Particularly in the Metro Detroit region, Stevens has seen this shift as automobile manufactures have diversified into aerospace manufacturing in recent years. She added that Congress will have to decide if added funding for NASA will be pursued through the USICA conference process or whether that part will be removed to lower the bill’s overall price tag.

Turning next to the NSF, Stevens noted that the House and Senate versions of the legislation will also be negotiated. She noted that some pieces remain popular across the aisle: in the Senate, Senators Todd Young (R-IN) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) share a strong desire to position the U.S. as a global leader in quantum computing. Also of great shared interest are the opportunities for growing regional innovation hubs or technology hubs, which align with Congress’s efforts to bolster the NSF budget to more mechanisms for translating basic research into commercial technology.

For Stevens, this regional focus – from the community college level to the small business supply chain – is important to get right. Done well, this can grow local entrepreneurship capabilities and, in some places, “reverse the struggle with deindustrialization or the small business squeeze”, while giving the U.S. the renewed ability to compete globally.

Renewing the U.S.’s Innovative Capacity for the 21^st Century 

Stevens stated that as the U.S. faces unprecedented competition from China and other nations, the policy community in the U.S. is seeing a linkage between economic renewal and national security. At this time, then, the U.S. must take stock of its opportunities and challenges in manufacturing, supply chains, and human capital, while developing capabilities in new spaces like cybersecurity.

Regarding education and home-grown technical talent, Stevens claimed that “we’re absolutely at a break-glass moment, aren’t we…in terms of what it means to be recruiting and training the talent, and also understanding the nimbleness and the flexibility of the future of work.” For her, the pandemic’s chaos offers the creative destruction needed for building back a better system. Even the current workforce shortages, she said, are evidence that the U.S. needs further investments in apprenticeships, public-private partnerships, and support for its unionized workforce, which has some of the most cutting-edge apprenticeship programs. To maintain a competitive advantage, the U.S. must use all the tools at its disposal, including in the NSF approach with investing in STEM education and different grant opportunities for individuals.

Turning to the issue of standards and intellectual property protection, Stevens said that the U.S. must leverage NIST to further its advanced manufacturing initiatives and competitiveness strategies, calling the agency “a secret weapon of the federal government.” In this same vein, she suggested a reauthorization of the Bayh–Dole Act (Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act of 1980) and the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 at this time when many have come to see innovation as something that just “happens,” rather than something that comes into being through a delicate balance of proper incentives and well-structured networks.

Finally, Stevens turned to the importance of an inclusive and highly skilled technical workforce for innovation, economic growth, and competitiveness.  A key issue facing the future of the U.S. innovation economy, she said, is that it remains strongly male-dominated. Stevens said that she has been enthusiastic about attracting and recruiting more women in the STEM fields and more women in leadership positions. Even in the U.S. Congress, there have been just under 500 women in history who have served among the total 12,000 people who have served in either chamber of Congress. Stevens said that she remains enthusiastic that the proposed Building Blocks of STEM Act would to require the National Science Foundation to make grants to promote the emergence of women in the STEM fields. There is also the power of immigration to the United States, long a magnet to the talent of the world. A key to renewing the country’s competitive edge is to retain and to grow the best talent from across the globe, while ensuring that women in this nation know that they are welcome as innovators and leaders.

Concluding her remarks, Stevens said that she was bullish on the future of science policy to shape the country’s future. President Joseph Biden came into office as a proponent of science and has since elevated his science and technology policy advisor to Cabinet-level. The disruptions of recent times afford new opportunities. “Just these last 10 years alone – again, unprecedented kind of, you know, obstacles thrown at us on occasion but also unprecedented making and doing and collaborating and discovering, and that’s all going to continue to happen.” 

Thanking Dr. Copan for initiating this discussion, she said that “We want to be a place for ideas and a generation of ideas, and that only comes because we choose to have conversations like this.”

The full event video is available here.

Alexander Kersten is a deputy director and fellow with the Renewing American Innovation Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC.
 

The Perspectives on Innovation Blog is produced by the Renewing American Innovation Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).