Commerce chief of staff balances dual roles

Since Donald L. Evans was confirmed as Commerce secretary early last year, he has made no secret of his desire to have his department take the lead within the Bush administration on high-tech policy. Evans raised that profile earlier this year when he named Phil Bond, his undersecretary for the Technology Administration, as chief of staff. Bond, who will also continue as undersecretary, is a former high-tech lobbyist--most recently for Hewlett-Packard. Before holding that position, he spent three years as the chief lobbyist for the Information Technology Industry Council, which represents about 30 of the nation's largest high-tech companies, including Microsoft, IBM, and Intel. During his years as a high-tech lobbyist, Bond, who was a former chief of staff to Rep. Jennifer Dunn, R-Wash., played a key role in helping high-tech companies become more politically savvy.

Bond also was a principal deputy assistant secretary of Defense for legislative affairs for then-Secretary Dick Cheney, and he maintained close ties to the campaign of George W. Bush. When a high-tech policy position opened up in the new administration's Commerce Department, he decided to leave the private sector for government. Bond is the first person in the department to hold two high-level jobs at the same time. In an interview with National Journal, Bond, 45, talked about how he juggles his roles and about Secretary Evans's high-tech policy priorities. Following are edited excerpts from the interview.

NJ: How are you juggling two jobs?

Bond: It's not as difficult as you would think, for two reasons. Technology is in every bureau of Commerce and every sector of the economy. So almost regardless of what issue the secretary is working on, nine times out of ten there is a technology component to it. I found the chief of staff role to be mutually reinforcing with my role at the Technology Administration.

NJ: How did it come about that you became chief of staff?

Bond: I don't know the whole story there, but I think the reason my name came up was two- or threefold. One, I was a Jennifer Dunn chief of staff and she was close to the campaign and to Secretary Evans; two, I was popping up here [in Evans's office] quite a bit, with technology touching so many different things; and three, and most important, since I joined Commerce, I was directing regular technology-coordinating council meetings, and the secretary decided he wanted to make it much more coordinated.

All the technology offices and all the bureaus get together on a regular basis to compare notes. I made sure, as the adviser on technology, that I knew all the latest and that all the bureaus knew what everyone else was doing so they could look for opportunities to work together. The secretary decided he wanted this technology discussion to be much more integrated than has traditionally been the Commerce [process].

NJ: How much time do you spend as undersecretary of technology and as chief of staff?

Bond: I don't know how to do that breakdown because technology touches everything in the department. It's not like I have a 40-hour week delineated between two jobs. I do know that the secretary has done more technology events since January. We've just integrated technology much more into his activities and his appearances. For example, Evans did a homeland security technology demo with [Homeland Security Director Tom] Ridge and spoke at a group that Michael Dell [CEO of Dell Computer] was chairing. Those are all areas that, if I was just undersecretary, I would have been coordinating or involved in to some degree anyway. So now I do it with both hats.

NJ: One of the concerns that was raised by the high-tech and science communities about your role as undersecretary is that you don't have a science degree, unlike previous undersecretaries of technology. What is your response to that concern?

Bond: First of all, you can judge an administration by its budget: [This administration] has carved out enormous amounts for research and development and science in a wartime environment. Point two is that I did go get an experienced Hill veteran in science [Benjamin Wu] to be the deputy undersecretary because I understood the need for that. Third, we got a world-class scientist to head the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Arden Bement. And fourth, we have a bit of an expert in the Commerce deputy secretary, Sam Bodman, who is an MIT professor and a chemical engineer.

And what I have said to science groups is that I acknowledge my background and that I'm not the guy with a science degree. But when you listen to what the science community wants, it is the appropriate attention paid--in the policy councils in the administration and on the Hill--to their needs, and connecting those needs to the overall benefit of the economy and society. I can do that part.

I've also turned around and urged scientists and high-tech people to deploy their forces and intellectual power on the Hill, because in my view, the science community in the country has been hesitant to engage [politically]--to their detriment.

NJ: How have high-tech policy priorities shifted in terms of what the sector wants from the government since the September 11 terrorist attacks?

Bond: Increasingly, when I've talked to folks in the technology sector, they want to talk about homeland security and ways that security can be not just a cost but also a productivity enhancer. Given the downturn in that sector, they want the government to step up as both a policy leader and a purchaser [of security technology]. They want the government to focus on e-government--so you have a record e-government proposal coming forth [in the Administration's fiscal year 2003 budget request]. They want to make sure that we keep the pipeline of ideas and innovation going with R&D budgets. We are responding to that.

NJ: How much has the tech sector's lobbying shifted since September 11?

Bond: There has been a really significant shift, for a number of reasons. One is that when it comes to homeland security and technology's key role in that--whether it is cyber-security, or intelligence and knowledge management--technology is critical. The real expertise resides in the private sector, which is a big shift from 20 years ago. They also all came rushing forward like real patriots after September 11 and said we've got what you need or experts that can come and help. Secondly, because of the downturn, they all realized this is a growing market opportunity because the government is going to have to do a lot in security--and spend a lot more.

NJ: Is the recession over in the information-technology sector yet?

Bond: Not yet. There are some positive signs, but certainly the telecommunications sector has some real problems. In the IT sector, there are some growth components, like cyber-security, and overall spending continues to grow, but not at the pace we saw. IT managers throughout the economy have been holding back. My personal suspicion is that there is some pent-up demand, but because of how severe the downturn was, managers are going to have to be very convinced that things are on the upswing before they buy a new round of IT equipment and upgrade their systems.

NJ: A number of technology executives were in town in March and said they are seeing some turnaround in Silicon Valley.

Bond: There is still a divide between economists, academics, CEOs, and IT managers. They want to see the numbers on their bottom line before they can say there is an upswing, and many of them haven't seen their numbers show up on the bottom line. One thing we have picked up on is that there is a reawakening in the venture-capital [sector], and the initial-public-offering market is starting to crack open again. Those are all positive signs for the entrepreneurial interests.

NJ: What did you bring from your years in the high-tech sector? What have you learned?

Bond: One of the biggest things is understanding of the high-tech culture and where they are politically in terms of their engagement in public affairs. And that goes back to my days in Jennifer Dunn's office, as Microsoft is a big Dunn constituent. So that saves me some of the frustration that some of my colleagues may have in terms of the industry's lack of [political] development.

At the same time, I understand that the high-tech sector has had an incredible run of legislative and policy success, with very, very few people deployed in Washington to achieve that purpose. So if I am a CEO in Silicon Valley and someone like me is telling them that they need to increase their participation in public affairs, my first question would be, "Why? I have two people in Washington, and we've gotten everything we want."

The answer is that there is this grand convergence that is occurring on many layers in Washington and the business world. And that means that things will be decided as public affairs rather than private affairs--as a policy process rather than in the boardroom. Decisions will be made in Washington that will affect their companies and stakeholders. If they want a positive outcome, then they need to be involved.