New Bill to Repeal Military Commissions Act in House

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) recently introduced a bill that would restore the Constitution's system of checks and balances, as envisioned by our Founding Fathers. Titled the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 (H.R. 3835), the bill would restore habeas corpus by repealing the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

The following is an excerpt from the American Freedom Agenda Act:

(a) The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is hereby repealed.

(b) The President is authorized to establish military commissions for the trial of war crimes only in places of active hostilities against the United States where an immediate trial is necessary to preserve fresh evidence or to prevent local anarchy.

(c) The President is prohibited from detaining any individual indefinitely as an unlawful enemy combatant absent proof by substantial evidence that the individual has directly engaged in active hostilities against the United States, provided that no United States citizen shall be detained as an unlawful enemy combatant.

(d) Any individual detained as an enemy combatant by the United States shall be entitled to petition for a writ of habeas corpus under section 2241 of title 28, United States Code.

The American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary as well as the Committees on Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and Intelligence.

Subsidized health care: How poor is needy?

No wonder nobody talks about compassionate conservatism anymore, said E.J. Dionne in The Washington Post. Before President Bush’s veto last week of an expanded S-CHIP program, which provides health care to needy children not poor enough to qualify for Medicare, 12-year-old Graeme Frost of Baltimore recorded a radio appeal in support of the bill. Frost and his sister suffered serious brain injuries in a 2004 car crash, and have relied on the S-CHIP program for their extended hospital stays, rehabilitation, and subsequent care. No sooner did the political advertisement air, however, than right-wing bloggers and talk-show hosts started attacking the Frosts. The Frosts, the critics said with no little venom, are middleclass homeowners who own three cars and send their children to private school! By relying on a government-funded health-care program, they were obviously ripping off the system.

Within days, the attack on Graeme and his family had become an "all-out smear campaign," said Paul Krugman in The New York Times. Columnist Michelle Malkin even drove past the Frosts' house for a closer look at its opulence . . . and then the story started falling apart. It seems the Frosts paid a mere $55,000 for their dilapidated house in 1990 and spent years fixing it up themselves. The children attend private school on scholarship. The couple has a household income of only $45,000, with no employer-provided health insurance. Even if you have no sympathy for the working poor, what kind of "vicious political movement" makes its arguments by attacking injured children?

Let me see if I have this straight, said William Voegeli in The New York Sun. It was fine for Democrats to use the Frosts' predicament to make a political point, but an unspeakable act of savagery for conservatives to then investigate that predicament? That seems a little unfair. All conservatives are asking, said Mark Steyn in National Review Online, is for an honest debate on whether taxpayers should bestow free health care on middle-class families as well as the poor. If Democrats don't want the Graeme Frosts of this world dragged into that debate, maybe "next time put up someone in long pants to make your case."

Admittedly, the Democrats used the boy to make a political point, said Cynthia Tucker in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. But it was over "an issue that matters-health care for children of working families." Republicans, you'll recall, carpeted the nation with upsetting photographs of a comatose Terri Schiavo to stoke their conservative base into a frenzy. "It seems a bit churlish of them to complain when the tables are turned." In fairness, said Joan Walsh in Salon.com, the right probably had to demonize a brain-damaged 12-year-old. "They know they're on the losing side of this issue, politically and morally."

No, we're not, said syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin. First of all, the bill the president vetoed didn't even apply to families like the Frosts, who are already covered by S-CHIP. What the president vetoed was the expansion of that program to cover middle-class families making up to $62,000 a year-which would hand another $35 billion in costs to overburdened taxpayers. A majority of Americans, according to the polls, doesn't support that expansion. That's why Democrats deliberately obscured the debate behind a flurry of "Romper Room politics." When this war of anecdote is over, said The Wall Street Journal in an editorial, we can all agree on one thing. "It's hard for some lower-income families like the Frosts to find affordable private health coverage." The real issue is whether the best solution is for the government-and taxpayers-to step into that gap, and provide the coverage for free.

Only in America

The City Council of Belmont, Calif., has voted to ban residents from smoking in their own apartments. Many of the state’s apartment complexes already have no-smoking policies, but Belmont is the first city to pass legislation making it a crime to light up at home. The city of Calabasas may be next. “The time has come,” said Councilman Barry Groveman, sponsor of the Calabasas no-smoking bill, who acknowledged the public reaction has not been wholly positive. “I’ve gotten threats like you wouldn’t believe.”

Iraq: Fight now, pay the bill later?

If you thought the war in Iraq was unpopular now, said Thomas Friedman in The New York Times, imagine if we actually had to pay for it! So far, despite President Bush’s insistence that “the struggle against radical Islam is the fight of our generation,” he’s chosen to fund the Iraq war by putting the entire $600 billion cost—soon to be $1 trillion—“on our children’s Visa cards.” Last week, a group of House Democrats proposed the obvious: Rather than funding the war by simply adding it to our already monstrous national debt, we do what this country has always done in wartime—pay slightly higher taxes until it’s over. The White House, of course, immediately ridiculed the idea. But the reasoning of the proposal’s sponsor, Rep. David Obey, is difficult to dismiss. “If this war is important enough to fight,” Obey says, “then it ought to be important enough to pay for.”

Ah yes, those fiscally responsible Democrats, said The Wall Street Journal in an editorial. Where would we be without them? The truth is that this proposal has nothing to do with Iraq and even less to do with fiscal prudence. In reality, we’re spending “relatively little on defense by historic wartime standards.” During the Vietnam era, we spent 9 percent of our gross domestic product on defense, while it’s only 4 percent today. We don’t need to raise taxes. Even the Democratic leadership sees this cheap stunt for what it is, said The Washington Times. That’s why Speaker Nancy Pelosi dismissed the “war tax” almost as quickly as President Bush did. Pelosi’s worst nightmare, with elections looming, is for Democrats to once again be “labeled the party of tax and spend.”

Too bad the Democrats don’t have more courage, said E.J. Dionne in The Washington Post. For years, Republican hawks have been able to get away with making stirring speeches about our need to pay the cost of freedom, while simultaneously reaping the political benefits of cutting taxes and spending the taxpayers’ money on pork. A vote on the war funding bill would be “a magnificent way to test the seriousness” of the war’s defenders. If the great economic theorist Adam Smith were alive today, said George Will, also in the Post, he’d be all for imposing an Iraq tax. If the costs of war had to be paid for by “revenue raised within that year,” Smith once wrote, “wars would be more speedily concluded and less wantonly undertaken.”

Happiness: Why women find it so elusive

Women are spending more hours working outside the home, and less time on cooking and cleaning. By most measures, their lives are vastly better than they were 30 years ago, with more material goodies and more choices. Yet “in an intriguing—if unsettling—finding,” said David Leonhardt in The New York Times, two new studies report that women are significantly less happy today than they were a generation ago. In a long-term study, University of Pennsylvania economists found that in the early 1970s, women reported being slightly happier than men. “Today, the two have switched places,” and this “happiness gap” seems to be growing. Princeton University economist Alan Krueger has one possible explanation: Women spend 90 minutes more per week than men performing duties deemed unpleasant, such as doing laundry or paying bills. At the same time they’re doing the chores, women are comparing their career achievements and income with men’s, and worrying if men think they’re still “hotties.”

So, feminists, how’s that Superwoman thing working out for you? said Shaunti Feldhahn in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The main problem with feminism is the notion that women have to have a career to be fulfilled—and that there is no cost to working outside the home. No one warned today’s “frazzled” multi-taskers that trying to have it all is usually “a recipe for a nervous breakdown.” Nor did anyone tell the women who opted for the corporate jungle that they might find, at 42, that it’s too late for a family. “If feminism had been content with just pressing for equality,” instead of the right for women to aspire to everything simultaneously, we might all be a lot happier.

Nonsense, said Karen von Hahn in the Toronto Globe and Mail. If women are unhappy, it’s because the gender revolution hasn’t come far enough. For decades, we’ve outperformed men in school and worked harder just to prove that we’re worthy of respect. Yet we’re still underpaid and “underrepresented in the cozy inner sanctums” of most of the major professions. And when we get home from work, we still clean up men’s messes. Perhaps, though, we have only ourselves to blame, said Andrea Cornell Sarvady in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Men find it easy to kick back, pop a beer, and enjoy the fruits of their labor. Women, by contrast, are very hard on themselves, with a never-ending “To Do list.” So, my fellow multi-taskers, here’s some advice: “Add up your accomplishments, cut yourself some slack, and learn to say ‘no.’” And don’t forget to tell your man to do the dishes.

Climate change: Bad news from the North Pole

Santa might want to trade in that sleigh for something seaworthy, said Andrew Revkin in The New York Times. Or perhaps he should just move his workshop away from the North Pole, where 1 million square miles of sea ice—the size of “six Californias”—simply melted away over the summer. The ice’s “vanishing act” was a shock to even the bleakest of eco-pessimists, who now say global warming may be happening faster than even they expected. A few optimistic souls managed to be heartened by the brief appearance of the mythical Northwest Passage shipping route through the Arctic, said Jane Kay in the San Francisco Chronicle. But that’s little consolation to the various species for whom the melting ice cap spells disaster: polar bears, walruses, penguins, and eventually, humans.

No need to panic, said Skeptical Environmentalist author Bjorn Lomborg in The Washington Post. Even if we do nothing about greenhouse-gas emissions, climate scientists say, sea levels will rise by a mere 12 inches over this century. That’s roughly how much the seas have already risen over the last century, and we seem to have coped with that. “We do need to fix global warming in the long run,” but it hardly poses a threat to human civilization. Imposing major cutbacks on carbon emissions now would cost trillions of dollars that could otherwise be spent ending hunger or eradicating malaria—and all we would achieve is to delay the sea-level rise by a mere five years. The only sensible, long-term solution to climate change is to focus the world’s best minds on developing new, low-carbon sources of energy, so we can halve emissions without having to wreck our economies.

Before this summer, that argument might have made sense, said Thomas Homer-Dixon in The New York Times. But with the Arctic turning into a vast, open expanse of water this summer, panic is beginning to look appropriate. In their previous predictions of global warming’s pace, it now appears, climate scientists didn’t fully take into account the various “feedback” loops inherent in Earth’s “interlinked climate systems.” Higher temperatures don’t only mean melting ice caps. Because the ice cap has shrunk, it then reflects less sunlight back into space, which results in even higher temperatures. And as the oceans warm, they absorb less carbon dioxide. It all adds up to a “vicious circle” of ever-accelerating global warming. We need to act now, and not 30 years from now, if we plan to have a future on this “swiftly melting planet.”

North Korea: Diplomacy stages a comeback

The Bush administration has rediscovered a mysterious art once practiced by “past civilizations,” said Rosa Brooks in the Los Angeles Times. It goes by the name “diplomacy.” For the first seven years of Bush’s bellicose reign, the president and his aides disdained the very notion that they ever negotiate with unfriendly foreign governments, preferring instead to provoke and threaten them. So it came as quite a shock last week when the U.S. and North Korea—a charter member of the “axis of evil”—announced a breakthrough agreement. In exchange for food, fuel, and other aid and the lifting of economic sanctions, North Korea agreed to disable its nuclear facilities and subject itself to international inspections. North and South Korea also agreed to negotiate an end to the simmering hostilities that have endangered the peninsula for decades. Funny what more talk and less “saber rattling” can accomplish, said Newsday in an editorial. Kim Jong Il may still be nuts, but he no longer poses a nuclear threat.

For that accomplishment, Bush deserves credit, not ridicule, said Investor’s Business Daily. Let’s not forget that the new agreements resulted from the six-party talks the administration insisted on—as opposed to the one-on-one approach favored by Democrats “and their media toadies.” It was the combined pressure from the other countries, especially North Korea’s only real ally, China, that apparently brought the paranoid “Dear Leader” Kim to his senses. But don’t start celebrating yet, said Richard Halloran in The Washington Times. Kim has a long history of “deception, lies, and broken promises,” so we shouldn’t believe him until every bit of nuclear material is turned over.

In the meantime, we can only marvel at this stunning turn of events, said Jim Hoagland in The Washington Post. “Why has a secretive government addicted to power politics and flexing its military muscles abruptly turned to negotiations and peaceful compromise?” I’m referring not only to Kim’s Communist regime but to the Bush administration, too. The answer may well be that with only a year left in his presidency, Bush is desperate for an international legacy other than the Iraq war. As for Kim, he faces a different kind of desperation. As his country’s “economy implodes and its people starve,” he may have decided that food and fuel were more useful than nuclear bombs he couldn’t use anyway. In diplomacy, as in life, “timing is everything.” And for Bush and Kim both, it was time to drop the threats and make a deal.

Fargo Politics Forum: Economic Insights: Banking On Our Entrepreneurial Spirit

The Midwest has always been a place of self-reliant people, pioneers who overcame all kinds of hardships and challenges through their own devices, pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps kinds of people.

Over the years, a sort of natural selection made sure of that; anyone who couldn’t make a go of it didn’t last. “Can’t” was a dirty word for those who did and, for the most part, we’ve inherited their outlook and drive.

But we aren’t just survivors; we’re inventors, leaders and, when necessary, risk takers. From the beginning, we have controlled our own destinies and taken initiative to make our situations better. We’ve known all along no one was going to do it for us.

When you get right down to it, we’re entrepreneurs. As we work to design an advanced economy, we’re banking on it.

Regular readers of this column know the GFMEDC and our many partners are engaged in a strategic planning process to develop a technology-based economy for Greater Fargo Moorhead. Short term, the goal is to enhance infrastructure in a variety of areas – technology, education, transportation, telecommunications and others – to make Greater Fargo Moorhead more attractive to high-tech companies and more competitive in the global economy.

I’ve discussed the metaphorical three-legged stool that supports economic development in this space before. The three legs are creation, expansion and recruitment. Building a healthy economy requires the retention and growth of existing companies, attraction of new companies from outside the community, and entrepreneurism, or the formation of start-up ventures. That’s been true for years, and remains so in today’s global, technology-based economy.

I’ve also discussed the phenomenon of strategic convergence in economic development. Strategies that attract outside companies also enhance potential for existing business expansion and entrepreneurism. So, as we make Greater Fargo Moorhead more attractive to outside businesses, we also make it more fertile ground for entrepreneurs.

Long-term, that’s the real goal. Greater Fargo Moorhead needs to be a place where high-tech entrepreneurs can turn ideas into marketable products and services and go on to found enterprises that contribute to our local, regional and state economies.

This is important for a couple of reasons. First, attracting outside companies and their leaders is a hit and miss proposition. Greater Fargo Moorhead is only one of many blips on their radar screens. Second, the best, longest lasting and most profitable economic development is homegrown, initiated by someone who believes in and has a vested interest in the community.

We are fortunate to have Tony Grindberg, executive director of the NDSU Research & Technology Park (RTP), chairing our Entrepreneurism Working Group. He leads a team that is developing recommendations for how Greater Fargo Moorhead can make itself more fertile ground for entrepreneurs and converting their talents and ideas into viable businesses.

The working group is discussing issues such as technological and telecommunications infrastructure; improving access to capital; the role of the Center for Technology Enterprise (CTE), the high-tech business incubator at the RTP; improving programs and offerings in key science disciplines at our local universities; enhancing government-university-private sector collaboration; and others.

Fortunately, we already have a great start. The CTE is an excellent example. The facility already has two exceptional anchor tenants, and the goal is for it to house eight to 10 new high-tech start-ups on an annual basis.

In August, the U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration presented the RTP its Award for Excellence in Technology-Led Economic Development. The RTP was selected from among 20 finalists from across the nation, and the CTE was a major reason.

The Excellence in Economic Development awards recognize innovative economic development strategies of national significance and are designed to showcase best practices and highlight outstanding results. The EDA evaluated nominees based on how effectively they support technology-led economic development and reflect the important role of linking universities, industries and technology transfers.

I congratulate Tony, NDSU President Joseph Chapman and their teams. They deserve the majority of credit, not only for the EDA honor but for their leadership in developing our potential for technology-based entrepreneurism.

The award is only the culmination of a vision, one that incorporates Greater Fargo Moorhead’s intellect, work ethic and self reliance. Someone – or in this case, many someones – turned that vision into a reality that continues to improve.

So here we are, discussing more ways to create more visions, to enable more individuals with good ideas to influence our economic future. And “can’t” still isn’t part of our lexicon.

Walters is the president of the Greater Fargo Moorhead Economic Development Corporation. He can be reached at 701-364-1900 or bwalters@fmedc.com.

Fargo Politics Forum: Economic Insights: We’re Going to Have to Pay to Play

My father used to say you have to invest money to make money. Put another way, you have to pay to play.

In economic and workforce development, Greater Fargo Moorhead is capable of becoming a global player. To become one, we are going to have to invest in improvements attractive to businesses that will drive our country’s future prosperity. How we make those investments remains to be seen.

A few weeks ago, a front page headline in The Forum proclaimed, “Half-cent sales tax on priority list.” The story discussed the possibility of Cass and Clay counties implementing a half-cent sales tax to fund economic development initiatives. The story was accurate in terms of the discussions that are taking place regarding how to fund economic development initiatives, but it was somewhat premature.

The Greater Fargo Moorhead Economic Development Corporation (GFMEDC) is engaged, with business, education and civic leaders, in a community strategic planning process. The goal is to transition to a stronger, tech-based economy.

We are now competing in national and global economies where, beginning today and into coming decades, businesses in high-tech sectors will create the majority of high-paying jobs. We want to make certain Greater Fargo Moorhead is well positioned to participate.

I’ve made the case numerous times in this space for the need to improve our business, education and communication infrastructures. Greater Fargo Moorhead needs to stay ahead of competing communities, or at least keep pace with them, or our population and job growth will slow dramatically; good, high-paying jobs will become even harder to come by; and we will be in an even weaker position for retaining our young people and attracting professionals from outside the region.

The community strategic planning process is ongoing. Good, workable ideas are evolving objectives supported by action plans. As we’ve have progressed, it’s become clear that it will cost money to make the necessary infrastructure improvements. There is just no way around that.

Naturally, then, recent discussions have included possible funding mechanisms. These are appropriate conversations, not only for an economic development entity such as the GFMEDC, but also for business, education and government leaders who have a stake in our collective future. We absolutely should be talking about improving our communities’ economy and what needs to happen to make it happen. If we weren’t having these conversations, we wouldn’t be doing our jobs.

Most communities, and certainly those we now compete with, fund economic and workforce development initiatives through sales tax, property tax, incentives from their states or a combination of all three.

With that said, I want to make it clear that no decisions have been made, by the GFMEDC Board of Directors or anyone else. We have a long way to go before we determine what will be the most effective way to fund the infrastructure improvements we need to become a hub of high-tech business. A sales tax is just one is one of several options we have an obligation to consider.

The GFMEDC and our partners take seriously our responsibility for creating good, high-paying jobs and positioning our communities for future prosperity. The results we desire won’t come about without focused and deliberate efforts that include discussions regarding funding.

It would be a wonderful political world if we could promise continuing prosperity at no cost. Unfortunately, that would be a fantasy world.

The high-tech economic development game is anything but a game, and communities have to pay to play. The stakes are high, with future economic health and prosperity of both citizens and communities hanging in the balance.

This won’t happen overnight. Re-engineering an economy is a long-term process that takes years of planning, guidance and execution. Fortunately, we have a great start. Once we’ve determined exactly what needs to be done, next steps will include figuring out the best way to pay for it.

All of this is about creating opportunities in Greater Fargo Moorhead for our children and grandchildren. In my judgment, those are priorities worth investing in.

Walters is the president of the Greater Fargo Moorhead Economic Development Corporation. He can be reached at 701.364.1900 or bwalters@fmedc.com.

Fargo Politics Forum: Economic Insights: Getting Our Universities Connected

In the global business environment, telecommunications infrastructure isn’t just an afterthought, it is fundamental. So much so, in fact, that the GFMEDC’s community strategic planning initiative has identified telecommunications infrastructure as one of the five building blocks that Fargo Moorhead must develop to transition to a technology-based economy.

Today there are two different forms of telecom infrastructure that we need to distinguish. The first is telecom build out within the community. This type of infrastructure allows us to get internet access in our homes and businesses, and is delivered by local providers like IdeaOne, Qwest and others. The other form of telecom infrastructure is an advanced fiber optical backbone that is capable of transporting huge amounts of data efficiently and cost-effectively, and is available only to research universities, federal research laboratories and their partners.

Right now, this advanced broadband information services network connects research and educational institutions across the United States – except, unfortunately, North Dakota and a handful of other states in the upper Great Plains and Northwest. That’s why North Dakota and Minnesota have partnered with universities, federal research labs and network organizations to create the Northern Tier Network Consortium, whose mission is to bring the next generation of connectivity to this area. Since the consortium’s inception, advanced fiber optic connectivity has spread and the original gap between Chicago and Seattle has been shortened to the distance between Minneapolis and Billings, Mont.

Fargo-Moorhead needs its local universities – North Dakota State University (NDSU), Minnesota State University Moorhead (MSUM) and Concordia College – on the Northern Tier map. Being connected to institutions around the country will empower our universities to participate in world-class collaborative research and will empower our community to participate more profoundly in the nation’s technology economy.

I have commented on the marriage of higher education, research, and the private sector in this column in the past. Technology companies choose their locations based on access to talent, intellectual capacity and intellectual infrastructure. This means hiring world-renowned scientists and researchers and recruiting the best and brightest students to our universities. These are the elements that growing technology companies demand in a business location.

Bonnie Neas is the Associate Vice President of Federal Government Relations and Director of the Center for High Performance Computing at NDSU. She is currently on sabbatical to lead the North Dakota University System’s ConnectND project and also devotes a great deal of her work to the Northern Tier consortium. She sums up the importance of Northern Tier’s mission well. “This type of networking is becoming a requirement for our scientists to compete successfully for federal grants. It is a resource to support collaborations between educational institutions, and between research universities and their private sector partners in developing new technologies and products. Last, but not least, this capability is needed for us to be able to recruit students and recruit and retain top research faculty. It is an economic driver.”

Neas is currently working with officials from a number of states to connect Fargo Moorhead to the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities on the east, and the University of Montana at the Montana border on the west. This means securing money for equipment, implementation and recurring costs. It is no small task. Neas works tirelessly and deserves much credit.

U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan also deserves big thanks for securing $3.25 million of federal money to begin the implementation of the network connecting NDSU and UND to the University of Minnesota. State funding has been requested from North Dakota to complete the other Northern Tier Network segments within the state. Local leaders will continue to work with both states, Minnesota and North Dakota, to secure the operating funds needed to maintain the network.

When we successfully finish what Bonnie Neas, the Northern Tier Network Consortium, and Senator Dorgan started, we will be empowering our universities to collaborate and compete on the national level. The telecommunications infrastructure building block of our community strategic planning initiative will be in place and we will be further on our way to a technology economy.

Walters is the president of the Greater Fargo Moorhead Economic Development Corporation. He can be reached at 701-364-1900 or bwalters@gfmedc.com.

Fargo Politics Forum: Aldevron Announces Expansion to Vaccine Testing Facility

Aldevron, LLC is expanding its Genetic Immunization and Antibody (GIA) facility to accommodate an increased volume of vaccine screening contracts. Aldevron’s proprietary GIA technology is used to make antibodies and to rapidly screen potential vaccine candidates via DNA-mediated immunization.

Research labs in over 20 countries worldwide utilize Aldevron’s technology for innovative disease research to develop vaccines for such targets as HIV, Influenza and cancer. An Aldevron milestone project was the production of the West Nile Virus DNA Vaccine used to immunize endangered species. This was the world’s first DNA vaccine to be used outside of a trial setting.

The current 3,500 square foot facility will grow to 6,500 square feet to house the GIA services. Although the facility will be filled to capacity immediately, Aldevron will be working with new contracts to schedule for openings beginning in the third quarter of 2006.

The unique design of Aldevron’s GIA™ facility combined with Aldevron’s proprietary gene delivery technology allows the company to rapidly screen a large number of vaccines in parallel. A support lab is also being constructed which will allow exploration of vaccine delivery methods.

“The growth of the GIA facility diversifies the services to our client base and reaches to new clients. It also enables Aldevron to capture both screening and production elements of vaccine testing,” states John Ballantyne, Chief Scientific Officer.

In 2005, Aldevron and its partners announced over $14 million in vaccine development contracts and grants. The GIA platform is being used for contracts with organizations such as the Department of Defense, HIVRAD, IAVI and USAMRID.

“This facility expansion will support the contracts we have received over the past year. The expansion will also allow us to increase our workforce,” says Aldevron’s CEO, Michael Chambers. “We would like to thank Senator Dorgan for setting up key meetings with scientists from NIH and the Department of Defense that have helped make this expansion possible.”

Founded in 1998, Aldevron provides products and services to academic, government, and industry biotechnology labs. Aldevron’s core services are production of plasmid DNA manufacturing and Genetic Immunization and Antibody production (GIA™). More information can be found at www.aldevron.com.

Fargo Politics Forum: Brian Walters: Gearing Up For Our High-Tech Future

There’s good news, bad news and more good news for Greater Fargo Moorhead and our economic prosperity.

First, the good news.

Greater Fargo Moorhead is doing better than ever. We have an exceptional base in primary-sector industries that, over the past two decades, have made our economy strong. New and existing companies are creating jobs, our unemployment rate is consistently among the lowest in the country, retail sales are at all-time highs and incomes are rising.

Now the bad news.

Despite everything we’ve done, national experts project deceleration in population, job and income growth in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan statistical area (MSA) by the end of the decade. They categorize our economy as mature, meaning we lack a significant base of technology-oriented businesses that will create the majority of US jobs over the next ten years.

Three emerging sectors will be driving that growth: information technology, life sciences and physical sciences. We have started to build a modest base in related industries, thanks to the vision, hard work and cooperation of entrepreneurs, our elected officials and higher education and community leaders. Consider the development of the NDSU Research and Technology Park, the existence here of several high-tech companies, the selection of our community by Alien Technology and the fact that one of Microsoft’s largest campuses is here. All prove that high-tech companies can and do conduct profitable business in Greater Fargo Moorhead.

Even so, today the FM MSA does not compare favorably to other MSAs in most categories that high-tech companies consider when selecting locations. The FM MSA does not even appear in a ranking of the top 127 technology economies in the country.

Fortunately, there’s more good news: We can and are doing something about it.

The GFMEDC recently launched a strategic planning initiative to position our communities to compete for companies in emerging industries. The process includes working groups in the three targeted sectors, existing industries and entrepreneurship; a survey of business, community and education leaders; and meetings with economic development groups throughout Cass and Clay counties.

Each of the working groups will be composed of experts from the private sector, government and education who will closely examine opportunities and develop action plans for exploiting them. The survey will incorporate information and insights gathered through the working groups. It will help fill in the picture of our strengths and weaknesses, as well as opportunities we can pursue to enhance economic potential.

The outcome will be realistic objectives, strategies and tactics for achieving them, and recommendations for infrastructure improvements necessary to make it happen. We expect to present a completed plan to the public later this year.

As we move forward, we will continue to work as hard as we always have to support, strengthen and grow industries and companies that have built our economy.

Two months ago I dedicated this space to the fact that Greater Fargo Moorhead has moved up to a higher level of competition; we’re now up against bigger, better funded communities around the country and the world. We’re in the big game now, I wrote, and it’s time to suit up.

We have recruited big-time players who are putting together a strategic game plan. But it won’t mean a thing without action and that’s what this initiative is all about.

Walters is the president of the Greater Fargo Moorhead Economic Development Corporation. He can be reached at bwalters@fmedc.com.