 New America will like to welcome you to our virtual event. The program will begin momentarily. While we are waiting, I want to review a few housekeeping notes. This event is being recorded and the recording will be posted to the New America events page within 48 hours after the event. Attendees will be in listen-only mode and you will not be able to be seen or heard by your fellow attendees or panelists. Therefore, we encourage you to share your comments and questions in the slido box located to the right of the video. Close captioning is available by hovering over the video and clicking CC at the bottom of the video. If you encounter any issues during the event, please contact events at newamerica.org. Thank you for joining us. We will begin momentarily. And welcome to today's event on how to maximize federal investments and workforce development in emerging technology fields. My name is Mary Alice McCarthy and I direct the Center on Education and Labor at New America. For those of you not familiar with New America, we are a public policy think and do tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. At the Center on Education and Labor, we are focused specifically on ensuring all Americans have access to good family sustaining jobs and to the education necessary to get those jobs. And speaking of good jobs and the role of education and workforce development, that's a big part of our conversation today. Specifically, our goal is to get a better understanding of how the Biden administration is embedding workforce and economic development as well as job quality principles into its historic investments in technology, manufacturing, and infrastructure, with a particular focus on the CHIPS and Science Act. We will be joined by three senior administration officials from three of the agencies that are implementing these investments. Christina Killingsworth, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and External Affairs from the U.S. Department of Commerce will be joining us. Erwin Ganchandani, Assistant Director for the Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships Directorate at the National Science Foundation will also be joining us. And Brent Parton, Assistant Secretary at the Employment and Training Administration at the U.S. Department of Labor and a alum of New America who we will proudly claim will be joining us as well. So this conversation is the inaugural event for our new initiative on the future of work and the innovation economy that is going to be headed up by my colleague, Shalyn Jotishi, who you'll hear from here in just a minute. But before I hand it over to Shalyn, I just wanted to spend a minute or two doing a little table setting around the conversation and specifically around the relationship between technology, jobs, and workers. For almost a decade or for more than a decade really, New America has been engaged in a wide variety of conversations around the future of work. Indeed, one of our founding principles as an organization was to help communities adapt to the disruptive impacts of rapid technological change. In 2017, New America in partnership with Bloomberg created the shift commission on the future of work, workers and technology. Which focus specifically again on on sort of thinking through some of the scenarios around the future of work and how it might pan out and we brought together a leading researchers, economists. Policy experts and also leaders from across the business and labor community to sort of think through that with a particular eye to what what should the government do in order to make this transition as smooth as possible. Just last last last earlier this year we had the we hosted the five year anniversary of that shift commission event. And it was quite, you know, we brought many of the commissioners to come back together and we looked back at the predictions we had made now we scary to make predictions we didn't predict a lot of things. But I think what was most notable to all of us who are in that conversation was how much the conversation around the future of work and workers has really changed over the last. A few years. There's been a shift in the conversation right when we were talking back then back in 2017 and even going back further. And we were talking about the impact of technology on jobs, there was a certain fatalism to the conversation. Some of it was probably a hangover from from the Great Recession, but there was just a general sense in all of these conversations that technological innovation sort of by definition is not kind to workers, particularly workers with less education. Technological innovation, it was sort of was that the zeitgeist was that it always eliminates jobs, or it makes them easier to offshore, or otherwise makes them worse jobs. Similarly, there was a there was a similar sort of resignation to to concentration concentration and markets concentration and geography and superstar studies. The idea that this was almost intrinsic to the technological innovation process itself this concentration. So as a result of the conversations around what to do about the impact of technological change tended to take as a given that jobs would be eliminated, and to focus on the need to just help displaced workers find new jobs, often at lower pay. And, you know, and for other workers that would get them new skills or to up skill them in the hope of again being able to get back into a good job. But as I said there was a certain resignation to all of this that with each new wave of technological innovation, the only security for workers would come from more and more education. Now just to be clear, we are very pro education here at New America, me in particular. So I'm not knocking education by any means, but something has shifted in the conversation that we're having today around the impact of technology on workers that isn't saying that that more education is the only answer. And those assumptions around what is the impact of technology, both in terms of the jobs and in terms of the concentration that it generates don't seem to hold the same sway that they did just a few years back. And I think we can say we can see that very clearly in the design of these historic federal investments that in addition to spurring and supporting technological innovation and research and development in information technology and manufacturing in energy, are also finding ways to ensure that these investments generate good middle class jobs that don't require an advanced degree. And also making sure that those jobs are not located in just a few superstar cities but rather a part of regional innovation economies that are much broader and more inclusive. For example, the Department of Labor has published a set of job quality principles that are designed to sort of steer all of these investments and sort of provide a North Star around the types of jobs that they should be generating. The Department of Commerce for a couple of years now has run a good jobs challenge again, really tying together economic development and good jobs and the National Science Foundation has also adopted some new perspectives, focusing not so exclusively on four year elite research institutions as the as the source of all technological innovation, but also entering into conversations about the role of community colleges, regional public universities, HBCUs, about their role in regional innovation economies. So without overstating it, I do think it's fair to say that the Biden administration's embrace of industrial policy has brought forth a new approach to helping communities benefit from technological innovation. And then we're going to hear a lot more about that today. But I also think it's really important to point out that it's not just the Biden administration that's changing the conversation around the future work and the impact of technology. It's also other stakeholders, most significantly worker advocates. Last week, the Writers Guild of America secured a contract that dealt with some very tricky issues around the role of generative AI in their in their field. And it did that in a way that did not reject the many possibilities that generative AI brings to their craft, but rather ensures that writers and content creators can use these important tools and exciting tools without losing ground themselves. The United Auto Workers are engaged in a similar conversation today with the three big, the United Auto Workers are engaged in a similar conversation with the three big automakers about how to implement technological innovation in a way that's beneficial to workers, to consumers and to business owners. This is big change, as I said, and I get the sense that we're just at the beginning of it, but there's been a shift in the conversation. I feel like some of it's supported by policy, which we're going to hear a little bit about today. So let's learn more about how the administration is connecting chips and other investments with workforce development, economic development and good jobs. Thank you again for joining us and I'm going to hand the mic over to my colleague Shailen Jotishi. Thank you very much, Mary Allison. Thanks very much to our audience for tuning in and to this distinguished set of panelists for joining us today. As Mary Alice mentioned, my name is Shailen Jotishi and I'm delighted to be serving as the host of today's session. As Mary Alice mentioned, New America has launched its initiative on future work in the innovation economy, largely to respond to these new developments. We established this initiative because technological innovation is rapidly changing work and expectations for education workforce development and place-to-place labor systems. So now more than ever, there's a need to align policy and implementation approaches to R&D investments in science and technology development and our education and workforce development systems, both federally and locally. Doing so could help that regional, ensure that regional innovation ecosystems from West Coast to East Coast and especially in between, not only flourish, but lead the rebuilding of the American middle class. And that's really what our conversation today is going to center on. So that brings us to today's session. If you're interested in these topics as we are, please consider to sign up for our newsletter, which will be in the follow-up materials that we'll send out. You can also follow our education team on Twitter at New America Ed and on LinkedIn at New America Education Policy Program. Engage with us today using the hashtag Emerging Tech Workforce. The social media information for speakers is also available on the registration page, so please engage with them as well. And with that, we turn to our main event. I'd like to invite our speakers on camera. We're really thrilled to have this cross-agency set of leaders here with us to discuss how we can maximize federal investments towards emerging technology workforce development. Delighted to have Irwin, John Tendani of the National Science Foundation. Thank you Irwin for being with us. We're delighted to have Deputy Assistant Secretary Christina Killingsworth with us as well. Filling in for Assistant Secretary Alejandro Castillo who unfortunately had a family emergency, but we're really thrilled to carry on the conversation with Deputy Secretary Killingsworth. And joining us shortly will be Deputy Assistant Secretary Brent Parton of the Employment and Training Administration in the Labor Department, who is a bit delayed from a meeting at the White House, but will be with us here shortly. We've dedicated an hour for a conversation with these distinguished guests and then we will be opening the floor for Q&A. We submit your questions using our online platform or event team or collating them, which we'll then turn to during the Q&A period. Let's begin. Dr. John Tendani, Irwin, thanks so much for being with us today. Our first question is for you and it's about the TIP Directorate, which you now lead. For the audience, as many of you may know, the Chips and Science Act of 2022 established the first new directorate at the National Science Foundation in over 32 years. The Technology Innovation and Partnerships Directorate has had quite an impactful first year launching one of the biggest federal investments in regional innovation in American history. Irwin, what should education and workforce leaders know about the TIP Directorate's work in building innovation ecosystems and how it supports workforce development, especially around those hand-emerging technology focus areas that Congress identified and shifts that are under-jerting many of these innovation ecosystems? Yeah, so, Shailen, first of all, just doing a mic check, you can hear me okay, just fine. Okay, great. Loud and clear. So, thanks very much for having me on this panel today. I'm pleased to be able to join you and Deputy Assistant Secretary Killingsworth and Brent later on this afternoon as well. As a matter of fact, I think Brent and I were both in the same meeting, so I beat him out of it by just a couple of minutes. So, it's great to be part of this New America forum and to really have a conversation today about education and workforce development and just how important that is ultimately to our nation's economy and to the livelihood of all Americans when it comes to trying to be able to create opportunity for everyone everywhere. As you mentioned, Shailen, I have the honor and the pleasure of being able to lead this new Directorate of the National Science Foundation for Technology Innovation and Partnerships, first time in more than three decades that we have set up a new Directorate, so we certainly don't do this every day. And it's also a Directorate that as you noted is codified by statute so Congress in the Chips and Science Act officially authorized the establishment of TIP with some very specific purposes in mind when they did that. You know, when I think about the mission for tip. And when I think about how I see that mission impacting people and individuals all across the country. I think of it as sort of three key dimensions. First of all, it's about trying to really cultivate diverse innovation ecosystems at the regional level in all different parts of the country. You know, I think that my boss the director of NSF Dr. Panchanathan. He tends to stress this point that when you think about the potential of the nation when you think about the full geography of our country. We have it incumbent upon us to be able to create opportunity everywhere, because there's innovation potential anywhere in the country. It's really about trying to harness the full geography the full demography of innovation and so with our investments over this past year and looking forward as well when we think about this focus specifically around diverse innovation ecosystems that can cultivate technology that can cultivate progress in terms of key national societal and geostrategic challenges as well that are also called out in the Chips and Science Act legislation. There's a clear and pressing need for us to think about the jobs that are going to result and how we're training talent for those jobs in these diverse innovation ecosystems across the nation. The second piece of the pie for tip is really around technology development and technology translation to society to the market and to society broadly. You know, this is something that NSF has really emphasized through programs like I core and the Small Business Innovation Research or SBIR program that we helped pioneer for the government. So, but this is an area where we want to really double down on when we think about some of the goals for the tip directorate, because we have opportunity to really accelerate the progress of technology to practice to impact and ultimately to the betterment of society and the economy going forward. And so we have number of new programs in that space that we can talk about through the course of this conversation. Number one is really around workforce development and talent creation that sort of threads the needle across both of the first two pillars of the tip mission space, but I think workforce development is a pillar unto its own in many ways. And in that context from, from my perspective anyway, it's really coming back to what I said a moment ago about trying to think about ways in which we can recognize what are the jobs what are the skill sets that are necessary what are we trying to train for. And how do we then create opportunities for talent at all different levels to be able to be well positioned for those different job types those different job opportunities go forward, across the key technology areas that that you spoke up there 10 that are called out of the chips and science act legislation. In that context, I'll just say I'll just stress this point that for us it's about you know NSF National Science Foundation, historically known for our support of basic research, and as a result support for graduate students right students who are getting their masters or PhDs especially we have a graduate research fellowships program that dates back to the origins of the agency 73 years ago. But I think we have to increasingly appreciate that stem driven jobs of the future the technology jobs of the future. It involves practitioners it involves entrepreneurs it involves technicians it involves educators training the trainers if you will. So researchers yes but it's that full complexion of talent that we really need to be thinking about, and to be able to get there we need to and if we really want to leverage the nation's diversity. We need to be thinking about community colleges and minority serving institutions and other technical colleges and schools, the full diversity of institution types that are out there and be providing pathways to supporting those institutions to supporting students and talent, as well as creating the mechanisms by which they can build capacity to better engage with other institutions of higher ed and private industry and so forth, in various various offerings for talent. You know we have sort of this ambition that we should be thinking about education workforce development not as pipelines of talent, because gone are the days where you get a high school degree and you go off and you get an undergraduate degree and so on, but rather, you get a high school, you complete high school, maybe you go off and you work in the workforce for a bit and then you want to find your way back into some sort of a certificate or degree program in a high tech space that you're interested in exploring. So how can we enable those pivots, if you will, and how can we really create the pathways for folks to come in and out of workforce development and training, while at the same time getting the practical experiences on the job as well. So I'll just summarize to say that in this past year, you know we've pursued a number of initiatives and investments to try to do just that. We have a program for instance on experiential learning for emerging and novel technologies are excellent, or the objective has really been to think about how do we focus in on talent, not just students today, but folks who may be in the workforce but maybe they're interested in doing that pivot into AI or into chips and semiconductors or into quantum or into biotech they've been reading the news they've been seeing it and in the popular press. And so how can we provide them with that practical experience and internship and apprenticeship something to that effect that allows them to be able to do that pivot into into that high tech space they get that exposure. They get even further excited by and now they're interested in pursuing some sort of a certificate or degree program as a result. We just announced an investment of around $20 million last week in fact in a suite of cohorts of regional talent that we're trying to support that afford that talent internships and externships and apprenticeships working at companies working at state and local and tribal governments and so forth. We've also built out, I think relationships over this past year with private industry think part of what we need to ensure when we're thinking about the curricula the instructional material, the teacher professional development the experiential opportunities is making it all really industry relevant industry aware, what are industries needs today and all of those different job types that I talked about. And so that requires partnering with industry to really bring folks to the table to help inform some of that curricula instructional material teacher professional development and so forth. And so we built partnerships this past year for instance with a couple of leading semiconductor and memory companies, Intel and micron, and also others as well in this space to really try to shape the opportunities of how are we going to pursue the research but also pursue the, the workforce development that emanates from that research from those learnings from that research around chips and semiconductors or other high tech trade spaces as well with Intel. It's a $100 million partnership 50 million from NSF 50 million from Intel over the next 10 years with micron for instance it's a $30 million partnership all told, again, touching these different facets of talent development if you will around teacher training around curricula and instructional material around access to labs and clean rooms and other infrastructure and test beds, so that students can get that hands on exposure as well. So I could go on but I hope this gives you a flavor for how we're thinking about tip at NSF is really working collaboratively with EDA, you know we have the regional innovation engines program I'm sure we'll talk about that at some point that there's a great and vibrant partnership between the engines and the tech hubs that EDA has been helping to lead. We talk with our colleagues at EDA all the time about lessons learned and how are we exchanging information and insights and how are we ensuring that our investments are really aligned and and and and synergistic and effective. So, so I think that and likewise colleagues across the interagency right really trying to build those bridges around all of our investments but I think that this is a moment in time that we have to really enact a significant delta you know again establishing a new director it doesn't happen every day and so we're trying to seize the sort of generational moment to move the needle when it comes to workforce and talent creation. I hope that answers your question. Thank you so much for when I thought that was just really, really helpful and for the community colleges or institutional leaders in the audience, viewing this stay tuned new America is in fact producing a set of resources to help elevate the profile of some of the programs that NSF is putting out to build the capacity of institutions to support the innovation economy and program delivery at the institutions through excellent for example so more to come. Deputy Assistant Secretary Killingsworth that that was a great setup for my first question for you which is really around the EDA's role in the innovation ecosystem space that EDA has long been active in tech based economic development and in supporting innovation economies then you know while this is housing the chips program office EDA also received you know half a billion dollars of appropriations of a $10 billion authorization to support this new regional technology and innovation hubs program the EDA tech hubs program, which like NSF tip director at regional innovation engines program to supporting the development of these new innovation economies. What should education and workforce stakeholders know about EDA's work in the space and supporting tech based economic development, and, and especially your work around supporting the alignment of technology and talent development across these programs that are being set up nationwide. Well thank you so much for that and good afternoon to everyone. First of all, I want to thank new America for convening this great discussion, I'm excited to be a part of it and Assistant Secretary Castillo sensor regards and apologies for not being here. Hello panelists, it's very nice to be amongst you and to show that we are continuously collaborating across these programs because our money just won't go as far if we aren't making sure as Irwin said that these programs are complimentary to one another. I have the pleasure of running for of EDA's big national programs. EDA has really experienced a sea change in the last several years with large infusions of supplemental funding that many of which have gone towards big programs that have large workforce goals attached to them and so Chips and Science Act is one of those places, and I will apologize I'm battling a case of bronchitis so you'll hear me out my voice, go in and out today but The Chips and Science Act has two big programs that I'll talk through but I also don't want to overlook the American Rescue Plan programs that EDA is one year into implementing and that have really exciting things going on in the workforce space so let me start with the Chips and Science Act we like to refer to ourselves as the and science part of the Chips and Science Act. The Chips Program Office you're right is housed in NIST. Tech Hubs is a completely separate program and also authorized in the Chips and Science Act is the Recompete Pilot Program. So starting with Tech Hubs it was authorized for $10 billion in the Chips and Science Act and as you noted we were given $500 million. We're very much on our way to developing that program and figuring out how we get money out the door. It's a two-phased program. So applications for the first phase were due August 15th, which was essentially to apply for designation. So if a region is designated as a tech hub they are then able to apply for the second phase of funding. In addition to that we'll be giving out around a half million dollar each strategy development grants for places that either need additional support in getting designated or are designated and need additional support in sort of building out the ecosystem that we're talking about. And it's very important to note especially in the context of this conversation that in order to apply for Tech Hubs funding or to be designated as a tech hub, the statute required that there be consortia and there are five mandatory members of those consortia and one of them is a workforce development organization or a labor union. And so each of the consortia will have one if not more organizations that are solely dedicated to workforce and workforce development. And similar to what Erwin was noting that's not just post-graduate or folks that have spent years and years studying how to deliver on some of these technology areas, but it's folks that are working in manufacturing folks that are, you know, welders or like a whole array of types of workforce that we need to make sure that we're developing in these ecosystems in order for these ecosystems to function effectively. Tech Hubs is a different program for EDA because it's very focused on our economic and national security and the intersection between technology and economic development. And so we've been having lots of conversations with folks across the national security community about how we should be thinking about these programs. And one of the things that I have found most interesting about those conversations is almost every single one of them says you need to be thinking about workforce. Workforce has to be a major component of how you're thinking about this because, you know, we can't excel technologically if we don't have the folks that we need to support it. And we think about these programs as programs that have a loading dock, you know, things that we are making, things that we are delivering. And if we don't have workers to do it, then, you know, the loading dock is essentially useless. We won't have anything to load onto it. So it's something that's very front and center and how we're thinking through the Tech Hubs program. We were authorized for up to $10 billion and we have 5% of the funding and we're really hoping and we can talk about this later. But we're really hoping that this program can be transformational for regional economies around the U.S. as well as regional workforces. Also authorized in the Chips and Science Act is the Recompete Pilot Program, which focuses on highly distressed communities across the United States. And really excited that yesterday was the application deadline for the first phase of this program. And we saw an enormous amount of interest and enthusiasm and excitement for the program. The program is really targeted at areas with a high prime age employment gap. And so, you know, I think it's fairly obvious how workforce aligns with the Recompete program. But we also see this pilot program as an opportunity to be transformational in areas that have had the least amount of investment and where folks are having the hardest time getting into jobs. And so we have 200 million of the billion that we were authorized for in this program. But there's a lot we're excited to show that some investments in some of these under-invested communities can do a lot to get folks into jobs and to get jobs into communities. Moving on past the Chips and Science Act, we have the American Rescue Plan investments that EDA is implementing. And I, about in August of last year, August and September of last year is when we announced these. So we're, as opposed to Tech Hubs and Recompete where we're very much in the development and sort of evaluation phase of those programs. For these ARPA programs, we're very much in the implementation. And it's like, let's see if we can put our money where our mouth is quite literally in how we're getting these programs done. The first one is the Good Jobs Challenge, which is a huge priority to Secretary Raimondo. We are, through that program, a half billion dollar program, we are trying to train 50,000 people and get them into not only jobs but good quality jobs. And it is a first for the Department of Commerce, a program of this scale focused on workforce. But we are seeing some really exciting early wins in the data that we have coming back. And the program was designed purposefully to include employers from the beginning. So we're getting employer commitments to make sure that not only are we training people, but we have a pipeline to get them into good jobs. And it's a win-win situation for the folks that are getting trained, but also the employers who we all know are in desperate need of folks with the right training in their fields. And so we have 32 Good Jobs grantees and we're hoping to keep this program alive and to keep this program going, which is why the President requested funding for it in his FY24 budget. In addition to that, we have the Built Back Better Regional Challenge and a little bit different from Good Jobs, which is trying to get folks into quality jobs. BBBRC in some ways can be seen as a program that's trying to create the industries that will create good jobs. I was in Alaska just two weeks ago visiting one of our Built Back Better Regional Challenge awardees who has $49 million to create a new merit culture industry in Alaska. So farming seaweed and oysters and other types of merit culture, which has huge potential economic impacts, but also huge potential environmental impacts, which is really exciting, not only for Alaska, but also for the U.S. and for our planet and for our place in the global economy when it comes to merit culture. And this is a program that this is an industry just that just didn't exist in Alaska before this. And so while I was there, I went and visited the University of Alaska at Sitka and the merit culture program there that we're funding through our grant. That's not only that's trying to work in concert with the folks that are building this industry to make sure that we have the folks that we need to actually do the work when the industry is built. And so making sure that we're having these feedback loops between our programs so that we're not looking at things in a silo, but rather making sure that workforce is included in everything that we're doing across all of our programs. I also, before I wrap, want to note that just last month we announced 11 recipients to our STEM talent challenge at EDI, which is another program that we have to create pathways to good tech jobs. And, you know, these programs are, their STEM has been around a little bit longer than the four programs that I noted before, but they're really infusing technology and technology workforce issues into everything that EDA does. And before I, before I wrap up, I just want to say to end where I started, which is, it is a huge commitment, not only to the president but to everybody down the chain, that these investments be made in a complimentary way. And so NSF and, you know, the Department of Labor and folks all the way across the interagency that are working on these programs, we're constantly talking to each other to make sure that we're building off of each other and that these investments are not only complimentary but mutually reinforcing. And so I just want to thank you for pulling us together publicly to have this conversation and reassure folks that these conversations are happening behind closed doors as well. So with that, I will turn it back over to you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Christina. It was really helpful just to get a sense of not only the opportunities that have come about from ships but through, through all of the infrastructure investments of the last several years. It was really helpful to get a sense of how the energy is being woven between these different funding programs. You both touched on the important role of employers. So I wanted to turn and think about the role of the states. Needless to say, regional innovation ecosystems and innovation economies are incumbents on states using the moment and responding to this inflow of investments and preparing their communities to both support the technology development and deployment aspects, but also the talent and workforce development aspects. What should state leaders be doing now to maximize the workforce impact of these federal investments in regional innovation ecosystems through engines and 3DA tech hubs that your agencies are leading? Maybe Erwin, we'll turn with you first. Sure. Thanks, Shailen, for that question. I mean, I think that what we have seen, for example, with the regional innovation engines program and just to sort of demonstrate that, you know, we do talk. In fact, Christina and I, this is not the first conversation that we've had. We've had conversations before. You know, we really view the regional innovation engines as being sort of earlier stage, if you will, to the regional tech hubs. The engines really supporting use inspired and translational R&D efforts, but that ultimately then feeds into sort of the tech hubs goals, if you will, in terms of trying to be able to pick up that research, trying to be able to think of infrastructure needs on the ground, trying to be able to really support job training, job creation and economic development in a particular region. And in fact, I think if you read the tech hubs call, Christina, you should correct me if I'm wrong about this. It says explicitly that the tech hubs don't support the R&D work because to a large extent it's the engines that do support that work. So we really see this as a spectrum. And we also see some overlap there, which I think is very healthy and very robust for the ecosystem. Sometimes in Washington overlap can be considered a bad word. But I think in this particular case, seeing some overlap that it facilitates a seamless handoff from an engine to a tech hub, I think is actually very healthy for the overall ecosystem that we're trying to shape and engender across regions and all across the country. So to your question specifically then what we have seen for example with respect to the regional innovation engines program. When we think about some of the coalitions that are forming, we absolutely are seeing active and persistent engagement on the parts of state and local leaders and state and local governmental organizations and it extends to tribal governmental organizations for that matter as well. What does that mean? Well, that means that you know this is an opportunity for those governmental organizations to really come to the table, both in terms of being able to help shape some of the challenges and opportunities that that particular state jurisdiction region faces and how that translates potentially to research questions that we can then pursue to help try to address some of those challenges and then pilot and prototype solutions in those same communities in those same regions across the country. To also thinking about the resources that can be brought to bear to help support these efforts as well. So, you know, if I'm, for example, supporting a regional innovation engine that has something to do with agriculture and farming and food production in a particular region that encompasses multiple states. I think a key question is, you know, that's going to drive that region's economy that's going to drive that region's hopefully wealth and talent creation over time. Well, what are the states encompassed by that region really doing to be able to help shape that driving to be able to help shape the questions that are being asked and also ensure that they're able to elicit sort of the outputs and get those into practice and into the ecosystem as well. You know, we've said from day one and I will stress this point again, we are expecting to fund a set of regional innovation engines for instance, for up to 10 years at up to $160 million the up to is a really defining and important word there right. It's quite possible that we'll fund some projects for a couple of years, it's quite possible that we'll fund some projects for four or five years, every region is sort of on its own glide path, every region has its current starting point and it's longer term that it's trying to pursue and that local level context I think is really important. But what's also important is to think about what's the long term sustainability of that effort, beyond the funding that NSF might provide or beyond the funding. If I can say so that EDA might provide as well, you know, and that long term sustainment effort I think is something that really comes from the local region. And one of the things that we want to look for is, is that engine so impactful to that region, including to the states and the locales and so forth, that now we're starting to see over time, not necessarily on day one but over time, the region, starting to pour in resources and activities and engagements in that particular engine because the success of that engine is so very critical to the long term success of that particular region as well. So I think it's, it's very much a bi directional mode that I, that I hope to see where you know these engines are contributing to the state and local governments and the capabilities that are offered, but the state and local governments also have an opportunity to be able to shape what these look like, and ultimately to be able to think about the long term sustainment of these efforts as well. I hope that answers the question. Absolutely. Yeah, I'll plus one to everything that Erwin just said and add a couple of other things, things that we're looking for state and local governments to do is to show that they are committed to diversity, equity and inclusion, the, you know, the workforce development that we are doing can't just be benefitting one or, or a few communities but it really needs to be thinking about an entire region and everybody who's living in and a part of that region and community. It's EDA is number one investment priority and it's something that we are looking for and all of these competitions that we have out is, you know, what is the commitment, what is the commitment that we're seeing coming from state and local governments as well as the rest of the coalition which leads me to my second point which is, we really are in a new era in which coalitions are so important and no one entity including local government state and local governments or the federal government for that matter can do these things by themselves. But going and seeing some of the investments that we've made at EDA. The money is really important and some of these are very big investments by EDA standards but some of some of what I'm seeing is that the coalitions that we're building because of the money that is coming in the door is equally impactful to a region getting all of the people that need to get together around the table and actually being able to talk through some of the major challenges that they have including in the workforce space. So, you know, being eager to coalition build is really important. And the last thing that I will say, and Erwin mentioned this as well but it's important to see some skin in the game. That is, we're putting big investments in. Hopefully we can keep doing that, although this could be a moment in time. But we need to see that there's a, that there's as much commitment from state government as we're putting it as we're putting in, not necessarily in terms of monetary resources but in terms of interest engagement and commitment to making sure that these investments are long term and worthwhile. And that means thinking through how the big federal investments complement one another. So we should be having those conversations but also state and local government should be having that about their particular regions and making the case for why these investments build upon one another and complement one another and mutually reinforcing of one another. And so having those big, you know, we're running so fast right now everybody's running fast and everybody's tired, but taking time to prioritize the big strategic thinking of how these investments are going to continue to pay off in the long term is really important. Yeah, can I just build on the last comment that Christina, please. You know, I think I'll just be very concrete about that point and and I invite Christina to agree or disagree with this statement as well. You know I think to some extent, when it means when we talk about trying to ensure that the investments are well aligned and that the plans and activities and goals are well aligned between for example, seeking out funding for an engine or seeking out funding for a tech hub where there are other investments to that are that the government is making that are not necessarily reflected on this particular call today. You know I think very concrete illustration of that is what's not effective what's not successful is submitting a proposal to the engines program for instance and then submitting a similar version of that proposal to the tech hubs right or an engines proposal doesn't doesn't pan out to turn that around and submit it to the tech hub or vice versa, right. I mean, we have tried to illustrate, and we can do better about this but by all means I'm not trying to suggest that, you know, we've given the, we've given that we've done the complete due diligence on this and that the I think we can do better in terms of our own messaging to but we've tried to illustrate over the last year or so sort of this spectrum of investment from research all the way to infrastructure economic development boots on the ground on a day to day basis and where the engines lie and where the tech hubs lie. And so just as we have tried to take the time to think through that in terms of our federal investments. I think what what tends to be most effective at least from what I have seen so far from the projects that we have funded in the initial round of the engines towards to some of the conversations we're having with the EDA to some of the projects that I visited as well is really a clear stratification of purpose, right of what it is that a community is pursuing with an engine award versus with the tech versus with BBBRC and so on. Right, and I think that that is something that I cannot emphasize enough and that takes time that takes thought and no doubt we often don't give the community enough time to respond because we have our own deadlines and so forth so, you know, we'll take the blame where there is blame on our side but I think that, and that's why I said we can do better but I think that really thinking through that allows for the maximal chances of success for individual states individual locations not just in terms of being able to secure funding from our agencies, but in terms of what the end goal is that folks are trying to achieve. Absolutely very very helpful and really insightful and thinking through not only how states can best position themselves to respond to federal opportunities but how they can be synergistic across responding to different kinds of initiatives from different agencies that was really helpful. And, you know, along those lines, I wanted to ask both of you a question around the role of unions and organized labor and how they fit into regional innovation ecosystems. As Mary Alice mentioned at the outset of Brook Hall, you know, labor unions may not have historically had as large of a role in tech and innovation conversations they are having now. We see with United Auto Workers Strike and electric vehicles for example the intersection of organized labor and emerging technologies. We see with the Rider's Guild of America in Hollywood and AI the intersection between unions and labor unions and seems like in many states and this will of course vary there's a bit of a changing of tune. A Gallup poll recently found that public support for unions is at a record high and many union leaders we need to think or thinking about how they fit into regional innovation ecosystems and how they can support not just a creation of good jobs but quality jobs and how workers transition into those jobs. What was your message to union leaders and organized labor and what have you seen out there in these early days of these investments? Christina, do you want to go first? I took the last question. I'm happy to. In our first notice of funding opportunity for the tech hubs program, we strongly encouraged union participation in these coalitions. I noted that there had to be a workforce component, but of that workforce component we strongly encouraged union participation. And I'll be very honest that when the applications were rolling in I was really holding my breath and really hoping that there that we would see strong union engagement. And I was extremely pleasantly surprised at how many of the applications including many of the very strong applications came in with union participation. I think that, to your point, there's I that in many ways disproves this idea that there isn't strong engagement in the tech sector going forward. I think in fact the opposite that we saw a lot of interest as we were building this program I was as we were releasing the notice of funding opportunity from unions wanting to be a part of it, which is incredibly heartening and really important for the future of the tech sector that these are strong industries going forward. We often say that we want these to be industries and their good jobs that start grow and remain in America. And we can't do that unless we have strong union participation in a lot of these places and so if we want to make sure that we're not only having the ideas but exporting the ideas somewhere else to actually get them done. We need things to be made here created here and stay here and the jobs here and we need unions to be a part of that story. And, as I noted, it's, we've seen a great showing so far. And of course there's always room to grow in that and that's going to be part of the conversations that we have moving forward. I also say that we've seen really great union participation in our good jobs challenge through training programs apprenticeships and I from what we've heard in the conversations we've had there's been, you know, they've seen a lot of value in the program, as much as we have. And then, lastly, I'll say re compete is another program in which we need strong buy in from unions and from union representatives to make sure that that's a worthwhile sustainable and ongoing program, and we continue to have those conversations and for folks that are listening now and haven't had that conversation with us then you know bring it on we'd love to start and keep it going. With that I'll turn it over to Erwin. Thank you Christina so I couldn't agree more with the sentiments they just expressed with regard to union participation in our programs as well I think that that's something that we have tried to really emphasize both in terms of the conversations that we've had around programs like the engines are excellent, and so forth, but also in terms of just the steps that we have taken in parallel to those programs as well. And in particular what I mean by that is, and we've actually tried to have some direct conversations with unions to better understand the perspective that they can bring to the table. You know, I would be getting a little bit out in front of something that we're doing but we've, we've actually initiated a dialogue to try to establish a memorandum of understanding between NSF and, and one of the leading conversations when it comes to labor unions in this country, so that we can essentially try to bring their perspective into the fold to help shape the funding opportunities that we're putting out so agree with everything that Christina said, but I, I would also say that you know, in addition to that, we're trying to think about, even prior to putting the funding opportunity out so the next engines competition, for example the next excellent competition I think we were all in in a rush to get some of that because of timelines that we had and so forth, right but for the next competition or competitions will have a little bit more lead time. And so is there an opportunity for us to really try to get some of that perspective, fashioned into how we describe what an engine is and how we describe the various stakeholders and constituents whom we want to engage so that, frankly, ultimately labor unions can see themselves more in that narrative, even more so than maybe they did or they felt in this initial round. So I think that's something that we feel really strongly about and we're trying to work toward also thinking through as, as you know, the Chips and Science Act legislation that and science part for the tip directorate authorizes the establishment of an advisory committee, which we are working on trying to fashion together as well and we'll get to that in due course, trying to really focus on getting some of these programs and investments launched as well. But you know I think part of that is making sure that groups like advisory committees and boards and so forth have as representatives diverse coalitions as well and a part of that diverse coalition certainly is is trying to be sure that we engage labor unions in that in that way as well. The last thing that I'll say, and this sort of echoes something that Christina was alluding to earlier with respect to some of the proposals that have come into the tech hubs program and so forth. I think that, you know, one of our goals certainly is to try to be able to ensure that, regardless of geography regardless of topic area regardless of institutional affiliation or no institutional affiliation even for individuals. So we want to be sure that we're giving everyone an opportunity and I think labor unions are a vehicle to be able to do that right to really be able to try to ensure that all of their membership can can thrive. When it comes to learning about technology when it comes to becoming a part of the tech workforce or the tech enabled workforce of the future and there's a lot of re skilling and upskilling that I think we need to be thinking about in that context as well. And again, I think that having labor at the table to help shape those opportunities can be really, really beneficial and valuable so I think from my standpoint it's sort of an all hands on deck in that regard. And I would say to to unions were open for business you know we welcome, we welcome your engagement even beyond the ones who've already reached out to us. Really, really fascinating work from from both of your agencies and and it's, it's heartening I think to hear that in these early days of these new programs or has been interest and growing interest from from unions and and organized labor so thank you so much for those comments. Moving a little bit closer to home here in Washington. I wanted to ask a question about about policy. You both have touched on this and different fashions. You know the chips and science act particularly the science act had a number of great authorizations and not appropriations and we've heard this year's conversations from members of Congress around a chips 2.0 or additional acts that would advance different aspects of policy. So each of your agencies are doing a great deal of work in aligning technology and talent development through these regional ecosystems. But what should policy analysts and advocates and researchers in the audience or tuning in today. I want to talk about additional workforce policy priorities for Congress to consider in light of the innovation, building programs at your agencies. What's what's top of mind, what are the needs, and what are the calls to actions. Yeah, so Shannon, you know, I'll be a little careful here about what I say from a policy standpoint just given given my role within NSF, but I think that at the end of the day you know you mentioned you hit the nail on the head in terms of the and science part of the legislation being an authorizing legislation. And I think I'm sure policymakers fully appreciate and recognize that point to right. It's billed as a $200 billion piece of legislation all together about $5254 billion of that is appropriated and the rest of it is authorized that these are the levels that Congress would need to come back around or may need to come back around to the future years. I mean I think there's a lot of tremendous amount of effort that went into the authorization for chips and science and the science part included in that. And I think there's a lot of good ideas and concepts that are called out in that legislation, some of which we have already, you know we've already started to move out on right engines tech hubs, some of the experiential opportunities that we've talked about some of the workforce development activities focus workforce development activities, you know, in my part of chips and science under the tip director there's a call for entrepreneurial fellowships. And so we've initiated an effort to support PhD trained scientists to really experience entrepreneurship take a concept from the lab to the market over a year or two and be researched to be able to do that and have lab space and connections to finance and other networks to be able to facilitate that transition. So I think there's a lot of good good content there that we are trying to execute on. I think ultimately at the end of the day you know I go back to what was the motivator for chips and science right the motivator for chips and science to a large degree was growing competition in key technology areas, and the pressing societal national and geostrategic challenges that we were facing and that competition and those challenges, those have not gone away, right. And so I think that if we really want to realize the vision that's articulated in chips and science it's about trying to figure out how we get resources that allow us to be able to deliver on that vision. And so I think that to me is sort of front and center on my mind. As I think about sort of the needs and the opportunity spaces here. I think that we're able to show what we can do at the current budget levels and how we can start to move the needle and start to in some of these tech areas pursue significant investments where parts of our country become regional hubs, and become global hubs, right, whether it be an AI or biotech or circular bio economy or quantum and so forth. But being able to do more of that being able to sustain that really being able to leverage the full breadth of talent the full diversity of talent, you know it's been said by many folks that one of America's competitive advantages is our diversity and so trying to be able to fully it's going to require levels that that Congress has talked about right and and and we'll see where things go over time. So that's my primary answer to your comments. To follow on that you know if we want to if we want to stay the global leader in technology and innovation, we can't rely on just a handful of cities to do that we can't rely on Silicon Valley in Boston and Austin to do it all. If we want to stay and remain globally competitive in some of these technology areas that are so vital for our economic and national security that we need to make sure that we're harnessing the power of the entire country and our entire workforce. And we've made some really great strides in recent years and getting the authorizations to have these programs that could be potentially transformational. So the next step is that we need to continue getting the resources that we need to implement on these programs that Congress has asked us to do so. You know, we've done the really heavy lifting of getting them authorized and getting them conceived of and support from both sides of the aisle which I think is really important in all of these programs. We need to continue to make sure that we're resourcing them because it you know we can't stay competitive if we don't. I will also add that EDA is in my opinion and I'm obviously biased but an incredibly important organization that's doing incredibly important work to make sure that the US stays economically resilient and secure and we haven't been authorized in almost two decades. And so we need to get EDA reauthorized to make sure that it's the it's to make sure that it's the organization that Congress our funders and our overseers want for it to be that it continues to do the work that it's doing but also maintain its relevance and make sure that we have the tools that we need to do the type of work that EDA needs to be doing in this day and age rather than when we were last reauthorized. As part of that one of the things that we would love to see is to concretize the good jobs challenge and make sure that that type of work stays a core part of the work that EDA does. And so we're talking to our friends on the hill to see, you know what's possible in that space but it's really important to us. It's really important to the Secretary and I know it's really important to a lot of folks that worked hard to get good jobs in the in at least in the Senate, Mark. Can I can I double down on your comment. Christina and Shannon I'll just, if I can take just a minute to add to that. You know, I'll be even more direct perhaps which is that when we look at what we've done over the course of the last couple of years with chips semiconductors and supply chains right we woke up one morning and found that we were in a very vulnerable situation when it came to semiconductors and supply chains. And when you. So if you take that as a sort of a basis set and then you contrast that with the investments that are being made today by other nations in some of the other key technology areas let's leave aside chips for a moment but let's talk about some of the other key technology areas whether it be AI whether it be quantum whether it be technology and so forth, you know, across all of those areas we see other nations making significant and substantive investments in research and workforce development in some of the economic development that builds off of that research and each of those technology areas. And so I think that the, the, the, there's no doubt about that right there's plenty of data out there about that so it's imperative for us as a nation to ensure that we are keeping pace with those investments. So that we don't wake up one morning and find ourselves in this in a similar situation in those other technology areas that we found ourselves in when it came to chips and semiconductors. A few years back and supply chains a few years back I think that's really the, the, that's really what drives I'm sure Christina and me when we, when we talk about, you know, why we're doing this work and why we're so passionate about some of these investments that we're trying to lay down all across the country in every corner of the country. And that's why it's so important that these programs complement one another because we've seen so many time time and time again that we make these big investments, we create these, you know, next generation technologies, and then the actual work to get the industry factured or get them created gets sent somewhere else and we lose, you know, we lose control over those industries oftentimes here in the US. And so making sure that we have not only a program that's focused on making sure that we continue to innovate and we continue to create those next generation technologies that we need, but also that we have a way to keep them here and to get the workforce that we need in order to keep them here. These things are really important, which is why we continue to talk to one another, but it's also why workforce is not an afterthought for these programs, their front and center and all of these programs because we've seen mistakes that we've made in the past, and we're living with the mistakes that we've made in the past, and we're all trying very deliberately to correct the mistakes that we've made in the past. Really, really insightful from comments from the both of you. Well, you know, at this point, we've talked about the role of labor we've talked the role about the role of states we've talked about federal policy, we've talked about the role of the employer. I'm going to turn us to the Q&A segment now, while we give a little bit more time for Deputy Assistant Secretary Parton to join us, who I understand is running a bit late in Washington traffic from the White House, but will hopefully be with us soon. For those of you tuning in, please continue to put your questions in the chat. They'll be transported into our collection space and we'll ask them promptly. So with that, I'm going to turn to our first question here, which is really thinking about actually a bit of competition that might emerge regionally. So this question comes from one of our audience members, and it states that universities in my community feel territorial when workforce development organizations begin to reach out to partner on engines proposals, this name particularly. What guidance does NSF recommend using to change the mindset of research universities who are used to absorbing most of the investments from NSF? Yeah, sure. That's a fair question, Shaylin. So thanks for the question to whoever in the audience posed it. You know, the way that I would answer that is look at the, is to say the following. I think that I would encourage the institutions of higher education, the research universities and so forth to sort of look at how we have tried to run the engines program from day one. One of the first things that we did, even before we launched the engines program was to have conversations with diverse institution types. You know, we are, we are to some extent, relatively well connected NSF to IHE specifically R1 institutions. We're less well connected to community colleges, to technical schools, to MSIs and so forth, trying to get better at that but it takes time and it takes a real concerted effort. And so we had conversations with those institutions even prior to the announcement of the engines program to really better understand what are some of their pain points when it comes to engaging with NSF? What are some of their pain points when it comes to being able to be a part of a coalition within their region? What are some of their pain points when it comes to being able to get their talent not only trained, do they have the capacity to be able to afford that, but off to some other potential future path for that talent, right? And a lot of what was discussed in those listening sessions I would call them that we ran even prior to establishing the program. We fed into the design of the program. One very concrete example is we made note of some feedback that we received and so we specifically opted to publish all of the concept outlines that we received in response to the engines program back near the very early stages of the overall approach. So we put out a funding opportunity in May of last year. We asked for concept outlines by end of June, I believe, and we published those concept outlines at the end of July beginning of August. Almost 700 concept outlines from every state and territory in the US. And why did we do that? It's something we've never done at NSF. We did that specifically because we wanted to try to put folks on a much more equitable playing field, a much more level playing field. So let's say we're in the DC area, right? So for those who are listening from other parts of the country, you'll have to forgive us. But in the DC area, let's say I'm a community college, Northern Virginia Community College, for example. And I'm interested in being involved in an engine that's helping to support the biotechnology space in Northern Virginia and the DC metropolitan region. And it turns out that George Mason University up the road for me is also interested in that space and also interested in submitting a proposal to NSF for the engines program. What I want to see as NSF, what I want to see as someone who's involved with my engines team, helping to lead this effort, is the partnership being built out between NVCC and George Mason University. It's not effective to have a particular region competing within itself. It's much more effective. You can go much further in terms of the potential, in terms of the impact, in terms of the opportunity that you can realize by actually bringing organizations together. And that's why we've sort of stressed all through this process with the engines program that it need not be the case that an institution of higher education or one institution be in the lead. In fact, worry less about who's in the lead and worry more about who are, who all are partnering together to be able to suss out what are the challenges, what are the opportunities and what are the impacts that you can have in your particular region. And that goes back to something that Christina said earlier, you know, one of the things for state and local governmental organizations extends to everyone in a particular region, which is that we really want to see that group come together everyone have a seat at the table, and everyone have a seat at the table and a meaningful waste that they can be meaningful contributors. I would, I would basically, to the extent that one can share that message with all of the diverse institution types in a particular region to stress that what we're looking for is for again a coalition that's diverse and equitable, but a coalition that's truly inclusive and we have organizations that have unique expertise that can be brought to bear that can address the need and the impact potential for that region in a way that any one organization being the lead and being the primary driver simply cannot. This is a different type of I'll just say this is a different type of investment than a traditional NSF investment or a traditional NSF program. And I think that folks who view it that way are are likely to really meet the meet what we're trying to achieve with respect to this point. Well, the question was focused on engines but Christina just wanted to see if there's anything you might add from the EDA tech hubs lens, imagine there might be similar dynamics. Absolutely. We also posted the applications online for BBB or build back better regional challenge with the intent purpose of coalition building in that way as well like we don't want regions competing amongst themselves. We want to make sure that where it makes sense to be inclusive folks are being inclusive and that includes having some, you know, organizations that might not otherwise be front and center at a coalition, having the opportunity to ask to be engaged in the coalition and we saw that happening across our build back better regional challenge. And it was really effective and something that we've taken as a lesson learned, which is that coalition shouldn't stay static and we shouldn't incentivize coalitions to stay static if we do do that then we're incentivizing to be concerned that the question asker raised and so I do think it will take time to change some of the organizations that might otherwise dominate in some of these areas. But I think we've taken some important big steps in last couple years in trying to as Irwin said spread the message that, you know, there are, there's a new construct of what these programs should look like and there's a new construct of who should be at the table. And hopefully you see us continuing to take the steps to make those incremental changes and if you don't we would love to hear ideas on things that we can do to make sure that we're getting that message out. Absolutely. I'm very helpful. Well, the next question we have from the audience is actually one I was hoping to ask Deputy Secretary Parton, but I think it's really appropriate to ask the two of you as well, which is how are you coordinating with the Department of Labor and Education as as you work on your workforce plans. Maybe Christina will start with you this time. Sure. Yes, absolutely. So, particularly for our good jobs team, they're in constant communication with the Department of Labor and Education. We, like I said, this is our first foray into a major grant program like this at the Department of Commerce. The Secretary, Secretary Ramondo had done something similar when she was governor of Rhode Island and it was important to her that we link the importance of workforce development and the Department of Commerce's mission. And, but we also don't, we also recognize that we have we are a specific piece of this very large puzzle, and that we would be doing ourselves and our programs of disservice if we weren't coordinating. So, if Brent were on the line, I'm sure he'd be agreeing that he's on the phone with our team quite often, including folks on my good jobs team who see him and people in his team as mentors and important collaborators. And similar, when we're thinking through these new programs, we make sure that in our evaluation processes for tech hubs and recompete that we have someone always representing a workforce perspective, or at least we will under my watch. And so workforce is an important part of this. And it's, as I said before, it's not an afterthought. And so because of that, we want to make sure that there is somebody who is in the room with the sole purpose of keeping workforce front and center. And so that has played out, you know, in recent evaluation processes and will continue to do so as we move forward. So Shannon I agree with everything that Christina just said in terms of the collaboration and the spirit of trying to work closely with DOL and also department of that as well. Maybe, maybe a couple of things that I would add to her response from the NSF lens. You know, one of the things that I think we're really interested in all of us are interested in so this is not just specific to NSF is the notion of trying to really be able to measure the impact of what we are trying to do here. And so, for example, if I have funded an engine in the state of Ohio and over time, maybe it spans multiple states but it's, it's based in the state of Ohio, for example, over time that particular engine ought to be producing talent right as a key part of an engine is not just what's the technological capacity that's resulting but what's also the talent capacity that's resulting from that engine. And so being able to sort of really very closely track sort of the individuals who are supported by the engine at some level in some way shape or form at some point in their careers and where they end up the kinds of jobs that they end up in, you know, the impact that they're having, and that the, that the skilling reskilling upskilling that the training program through the engine has provided, I think is something that we really want to be able to discern. And so that's a place where you know Labor has access to a whole host of data sets and assets that they are that they're leveraging to be able to better understand the workforce and the evolution of the workforce over time. That's a place where I think, in addition to the things that Christina just described, we additionally see opportunity for collaboration we've been having some very, I think, very productive conversations with our DOL colleagues on that front. In addition to, you know, working through labor to bring some of the labor labor unions to the table as well and some of the discussions we've been having also. So I think there's a tremendous amount of opportunity there and we, you know, I will say I've been in the federal sector a little over 11 years. And in my time in the USG I haven't seen sort of the level of intentionality and engagement between and across agencies that I've seen over this past year year and a half to really try to drive forward a shared agenda with regard to what we're trying to achieve. I think Brent has joined so I'll let you turn to him maybe Sean but one thing that I want to say, perhaps in response to the previous question as well just sorry for the non sequitur but I think this is important. You noted in the question the way you frame the question from the audience member about the competition within a region. I think there's also competition across regions that we should be mindful of one of the things that that we've sort of stressed is when you're putting a concept for a regional innovation engine. Think about what is your region's competitive advantage relative to other parts of the country. So, you know, I don't want to give an example that's going to make anybody feel bad. But you know, if I'm, I'll give you a positive example, right. So if I, we funded an engine development award in the state of Nevada. Earlier this year, Nevada has come to one of the nation's largest lithium mines and only looking at mine. In fact, it's my understanding. And so, doing an engine development award in that, in that state that is predicated on that predicated on new materials and new capabilities that emanate from that new approaches to sustainable energy and electronics of the future makes a lot of sense for that place given what's the local context there for that state for that region to really be a leader in that space and to offer a competitive advantage and so one of the things that we asked of our proposers and I suspect this is true for Christina as well is what is your region's competitive advantage and is your proposal calibrated to that versus you know, you're putting forward a proposal on a topic that there really isn't a lot of unique expertise or skillset already in place. It may not be a lot but at least some of it that you can then use as a building block for longer term potential impact. Sorry for the non sequitur but I hope that's all. Very helpful, and it's great to see a brand. Thanks so much for joining us. I will turn to you next and get back to our q&a in a moment here so that deputy assistant secretary Parton question for you that we just wrapped with our two other panelists here is really around the role of Department of Labor in emerging technology workforce development and supporting the talent development needs that are coming about these innovation ecosystems that are being supported by NSF's engines program. The EDA tech hubs programs and other programs that have come about from the last few federal infrastructure bills. I'd love for you to just share with those in the audience. What Department of Labor is doing to support this work of the other agencies and also more broadly across the country in in connecting the US workforce system with the emergent workforce development needs. Sure and apologies for the tardiness but as I think many of my fellow panelists know it's been an exciting day for workforce development here in DC. So, Sheila, I'm gonna try to be brief so I cut off the flow but I will say in 1963. There was an effort to found a federal agency at the time that was focused on is called the manpower development agency that was focused that really had a twin ideas that you know when we had a modern industrial policy there would be a federal agency that would serve the goals of one ensuring that we have the skilled workforce we need to compete at that time it was a different landscape of competition but it was specifically focused in the area of automation and technology and the changing economy in the 1960s a changing manufacturing sector. And it was to ensure no worker gets left behind in that transition. So it was to work with industry and labor partners to shape the workforce of the future, but also make sure that workers have that safety and have the ability to cope with changes that might impact their jobs. That agency was founded 1963 has gone through many iterations but it is the employment of training administration today, and it really is it sits in our original mandate to really be a focal point for how we support the existing workforce to prepare the next workforce for changes in our labor market so the country can compete so we can continue to have access to good jobs, so we can continue to build the type of innovation economy that we want. So the Department of Labor now I will say that while you know it's been it's been a while since there's been a modern industrial policy to tag along with that mission is very much about putting those muscles to work in the current when you think of technology and change, you know, we are laser focused on how we're building pathways and bridge to these next set of jobs. I will say that right now, it's a unique opportunity to think about readiness. And we think about readiness in the context of place based readiness, but also the readiness of industry sectors. You have this interesting temporal challenge and opportunity where a lot of these federal investments that are impacting clean industry, ensuring a manufacturing new technology innovation is coming out, it's trickling out, there are jobs being created, but we're really looking at a horizon that's much more five to 10 years. So if you're a workforce development professional sitting in a workforce board if you're a community college leader, if you're a high school superintendent, what do you do now before those jobs are there. And so a big focus that we are working right now is working with cities and states to develop strategic workforce plans for states of course that's tied to our workforce, the workforce investment plans to actually make them strategic. We've launched we have a partnership the National Governors Association on that front, we have a partnership the National League of Cities called good jobs great cities we're working with a set of mayors across the country to tap into the $4 billion and workforce investment that flows in their communities to align them to these strategic opportunities. And we're partnering with industry and labor organizations actually where I was just the White House for a set of manufacturing discussions about how do we build that starter dough curricula and send very strong labor market signals about how jobs are changing how curricula needs to be updated, but there's no community no institution has to start from scratch. So there's really critical readiness work that allows us to actually be strategic and workforce development that's exciting. But at the same time we're always thinking about the role while we're construction builders of building pathways. We're also firefighters, we have tools whether those are workforce services folks that are displaced by work, people who need upskilling in the incumbent workforce, we're being incredibly thoughtful about how we leverage the Department of Labor's resource to support the existing workforces in the sectors impacted by technological change. And that's going towards you know obviously even thinking very proactively about AI, or even much more immediately around the electric vehicle clean energy transformation. Fantastic, really, really insightful friend and I wanted to circle back to a question we asked our other panelists earlier in the conversation which is actually about the role of labor unions and organized labor in emerging technology and workforce conversations you know a Gallup poll had suggested that public support for unions is at a record high and we've already seen the interface between unions and emerging technologies, like the technologies that Congress enshrined as the focus areas and ships, AI and Hollywood United, the writer skilled strike and electric vehicles United auto workers strike from Department of Labor's perspective, what do you see as the role of unions and being able to support the innovation systems that are coming about these federal investments, and ensuring that the, these investments lead to good jobs for the American people. Absolutely, so we believe in it heavily, and we're not only do we believe in it we're putting our money where our mouth is in the last week alone we put about 90 over $90 million on the street into partnerships their workers centered sector strategies where workers, it was a requirement for the first time in those in that H1B investment that worker organizations whether it's through labor unions were I think we were excited to see so many of them come to the table for those partnerships, but also worker centers community based organizations civil rights groups worker voice is a workforce strategy. And if you're an employer and you're looking at a tight labor market more importantly you're looking at how your industry is changing how you want to adapt and how you want to grow. If you are thinking about high quality training, having workers at the table from the beginning, who are the people that are going to be the beneficiaries of that training the participants in that training is critical for what good looks it's also critical for answering questions about where's my workforce going to come from, what do they need on the front end, what's keeping people out of my jobs or what's making it hard for me to retain them. I think we can all talk about the recruitment and retention challenges that exists across sectors workers at the table help you unpack that you think through it. The most important thing I will say to when it comes to the innovation question is innovation I think other countries have figured this out a lot sooner than we did innovation comes from the front lines of work. When you bring workers to the table and they understand how processes work how things change how business needs can evolve. The people who are actually out there doing the work who have their hands on it are the ones are some of the best ideas of the small nudges that can turn into transformative innovation efforts. So having them at the table brings new perspectives and critical perspectives not just how you design for innovation, but also how you implement it at scale. The last thing I will say and this is why we highly value labor management partnerships as a workforce training strategy is we're never going to have enough money and the federal government support the types of workforce needs that we need over time. So when you're talking about a sustainable workforce strategy, bringing labor to the table workers to the table to work with industry to build out collective bargaining agreements that resource training needs, both for the entry level workforce, but also the upskilling change in technology that's needed over time. That's a sustainable way to finance workforce development and it's a way that is a public private partnership in many cases to private private partnership between our labor partners or industry partners. And we see our labor unions that are working with industry to really transform curricula and new exciting ways that I think is really critical so when it comes to quality training comes promoting innovation when it comes to sustainability, getting workers at the table works. I think that's a really fantastic note to capstone today's event. Thank you all very much for joining us today. Erwin Christina Brent really grateful and appreciative of your time in your leadership and and helping us maximize the federal investments on emerging technology workforce development. Thanks to our audience for tuning in and for a great event staff for their help coordinating today's event. As we mentioned at the outset of the hour, New America has launched a new initiative on the future of work in the innovation economy. This is the first of many conversations that will be having at the intersection of workforce development, emerging technologies, the future of work job quality and related topics. If you're interested in following our work, please subscribe to our new newsletter. It's available on the New America website and will be included in your follow up materials. With that, thanks very much for joining us once again.