 So I, because I was the governor of Michigan, and I was there from 2002 through 2010, it was in the middle of the manufacturing meltdown in, in the country, which was the epicenter, the epicenter of which was in Michigan. And I became obsessed with three problems, two of them at the time I was governor and one a little later. The first one is how do you create good paying middle class jobs in America in a global economy? So as a political scientist, I just want to share with you a little bit of data from my laboratory of democracy, which was Michigan and it is a, it's one of those, those defining moment stories. It's one of the reasons why I became obsessed. So when I was, when I was first elected governor and took office in 2003, I got a call from the head of our economic development agency and he said, God, we have a really big problem because there is a tiny little town of Greenville, Michigan. And that little town has about 8,000 citizens in it, but it also has the largest refrigerator manufacturing plant in North America in it, Electrolux. And he said they're about to leave Greenville and go to Mexico. And I said, well, how many people are employed at Electrolux there in Greenville, town of 8,000? And he said 2,700 people. So if you can imagine, I had 2,700 people in a town of 8,000. This is a one company town. This is a town that's grown up around refrigerator manufacturing. They call themselves the refrigerator capital of North America, little Greenville. And so I said, well, I'm, I'm governor of Michigan. We're not going to let that happen. And I asked my whole cabinet to come with me to Greenville and I said, we are just going to make Electrolux an offer they can't refuse so that they won't go to Mexico. So we, we went to Greenville and we met in the city hall is about half the size of this room with all of the poobahs of Greenville, the mayor and the city manager and the head of the UAW who represented the workers and the head of the community college and the Chamber of Commerce. They were all around a big table and we all basically took out our chips, whatever we had and created a pile of incentives and slid our pile of chips across the table to the management of Electrolux. And in that pile were things like zero taxes for 20 years that we would help to build them a new factory because the factory was kind of old. The UAW offered unprecedented concessions because they so wanted to keep these jobs. And the management of Electrolux took our pile, our list of incentives and they went outside the room for 17 minutes and they came back in and they said, this is the most generous that any community has ever been to us to try to keep jobs there but there's nothing you can do to compensate for the fact that we can pay $1.57 an hour in Juarez, Mexico. And so they left. In fact it was like a nuclear bomb went off in that little community of Greenville. It was horrible. And as governor I felt like it was such a failure on my part. And in fact when the last refrigerator came off the assembly line the employees had a gathering that they called the Last Supper. They had it in a big indoor pavilion in Greenville and there were thousands of people there in this pavilion all sitting around eight top tables eating out of box lunches. There was a sad band playing. I actually went to the, well there was a band playing sad music, probably a sad band too. But I went to this place and I went up to the first table. I wasn't even invited but I was so grieving that I couldn't do something. And this guy comes up to me as I went up to the first table and he's got his two daughters and he's got tattoos and he's got a baseball cap on backwards and he says to me, Governor, he said, I am 48 years old. He said I've worked at this factory for 30 years. He said my father worked at this factory, my grandfather worked at this factory. All I know, he said, is how to make refrigerators. And he looked at his daughters who were about teenagers and he put his hand on his chest and he said, so Governor, tell me, who is ever going to hire me? Who is ever going to hire me? And that question was asked by everyone in that room and by everybody in the 50,000 factories that have left America in the first decade of this century. Who's ever going to hire me? Which is why, Avi, your question about how to create manufacturing in the United States, even if you take less people but requires greater skill levels is a solution. I became obsessed. Second problem, a big one, an existential problem for the planet of course is how to solve global climate change. When are we going to do something as a nation? Are we still going to be standing idly by as other nations do something? But I mean, CO2 does not know geopolitical lines and the United States is inactive, not in the game at all. That's problem number two. Third problem is how do you solve this crazy congressional gridlock? We all know that the Congress has a terrible approval rating, while there was a poll that was done in January, comparing them to all sorts of bad things. Yes, Congress is worse than Lice, cockroaches, Nickelback, who knew to test that, Ruth Canals and Donald Trump. But the good news is they did test more favorably than Meth Labs and Gonorrhea. So maybe there is some work that we can do, but nonetheless, what can we do? So it got me to thinking, mere political scientists that I am, what policies could we put in place that could be democratized, that could be taken to scale, that actually work? What is it on the policy side? I know the XPRIZE always funds technology solutions, but I'm wondering, could we look at what policy solutions could cause massive change? So is there an example? What can you think of? Is there something from the Obama administration that caused massive change across the country and states? Obamacare has not been accepted by, voluntarily, by the states. This is what, as governor, I can tell you. No? Race to the top for education. Race to the top was a competition. It was a challenge. They put a pot of four and a half billion on the table, which is one-tenth of 1% of federal spend. And they said to governors, compete for it. And it was all voluntary. 48 governors convinced 48 state legislatures to defy their local control interests to raise high school standards. It had never been done before. 48 states. All right, Texas and South Carolina. But 48 states made me think, well, could we do a competition to the governors to solve these other problems? What if? What if we create a clean energy jobs, race to the top as a challenge to the governors? I mean, we know the problems, right? First of all, we got more than $1.8 trillion being spent by the private sector in other, in countries around the globe. And it used to be that the United States was number one, but you can see China has far surpassed us in private sector investments in clean energy. And of course, those investments all translate into jobs because other countries are adopting policy that makes sense for those clean energy businesses to locate there. So could we not do something in this country that would allow us to compete? What if there was a challenge to the governors? And I know my governors and I know they would jump in. What if we had a challenge and the price of entry into the competition, like the race to the top for education? You had to enter the competition by raising your high school standards. What if the price to enter the competition were, say, what the president has put on the table as his goal of having a clean energy standard of 80% by 2030? In other words, for those of you not in the clean energy realm, that we get 80% of our energy from clean sources by the year 2030. He broadly defines clean. So you could say it includes renewables. It also includes natural gas. It might include nuclear. But make it a broad commitment as a nation to raise the standards. But if Congress won't do it, why not have every state do it? Why not distribute the policy generation to the states instead of just distributed generation of energy? Every single region of the country has something to offer. It's not a cookie cutter solution. And that's the beauty of it. For example, you could look at Iowa and Ohio. One of them could, those are the governors, Brandstad and Kasich. They might say, well, we're going to make wind turbines and deploy them for wind. Well, you might look at the Sun Belt states. And they say, we're going to deploy solar and maybe Jerry Brown says, we're going to make the solar panels instead of having them be made in China. Every region, I use these little icons, but it could be, you could pick the icons that would go in the appropriate areas. I mean, in the mountain states, you might look of the Northwest. They might have geothermal in Texas, because Texas could do wind or solar. You might say they're going to find the grid solutions because we need to transport some of this renewable energy in the, I use corn, but I meant really biomass because that was the only icon I could find. That was really bad. But bottom line, taking waste from agriculture or wood waste and putting it into biofuels, you could have those states do that. You could have in the Northeast the place where they do energy efficiency really well. They could be the experts of that. You could have the Atlantic Coast be offshore wind. You could have the state of Michigan be the place where the batteries for the electric vehicle where vehicle 2.0 is made. Every single region has something to offer. And the question is, can you get around the concern that it would be a top-down system where you don't prescribe who does what, as Peter would say. You don't prescribe whatever state is doing. You just say to them, we're going to have you get to this goal. But you tell us how. You do a SWAT analysis on your economy and tell us what your strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats are. And the beauty about it is that it respects the states and federalism. It would be opt-in, so it wouldn't be a top-down solution. Democratic and Republican governors love to cut ribbons and bring jobs to their states. And it fosters innovation at the state level. So if you have the price of entry being 80% by 2030, you give people points for partnering with their universities or for streamlining, permitting, or for taking away the barriers to the deployment of energy systems. Everybody gets bonus points for the more that they bring or however creative they are. Right now, economic development in this country is done because governors poach from one state to another. We go to other states and we go, hey, I'm going to take your jobs, just come to my state and I'll give you tax incentives to make a good deal. That's a really stupid national strategy for job creation. Because you're just moving the chairs around on the deck of the Titanic. Why not have a comprehensive solution that allows the states to be able to highlight their own benefits. Now, so the question is really how you pay for it. And I know this is the big one. So you could go through Congress, which is highly unlikely. But perhaps you could have them do something that actually got Democrats and Republicans together. You could challenge Congress. As a challenge, somebody puts up an amount and says, we will put in a dollar for every dollar you put in, or my favorite is to go around Congress. Could you have a private sector challenge to the governors to create a national energy strategy? Could, I mean, it's a little bigger than what XPRIZE normally does, $4.5 billion. But could you, could the private sector come up with, could there be a financing model with the finance community that would give them a benefit that would enable a challenge to go forth to the governors? Because every governor would step up if we were able to do this. So the bottom line is, if we created a national energy strategy from the bottom up that was led by a challenge from the private sector, we would not be, as a nation, we would not be watching our economic competitors eat us for lunch. We can either be at the table or we can be on the table. And I don't know about you, but I prefer to dine. Thank you.