[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                 BUILDING REGIONAL INNOVATION ECONOMIES

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
                             AND TECHNOLOGY
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                              JUNE 9, 2021

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-20

                               __________

 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology



                 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
               



       Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov




                                 ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

44-720PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2023











              COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

             HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman

ZOE LOFGREN, California              FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma, 
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon                 Ranking Member
AMI BERA, California                 MO BROOKS, Alabama
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan,             BILL POSEY, Florida
    Vice Chair                       RANDY WEBER, Texas
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           BRIAN BABIN, Texas
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York              ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
BRAD SHERMAN, California             MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
JERRY McNERNEY, California           PETE SESSIONS, Texas
PAUL TONKO, New York                 DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
BILL FOSTER, Illinois                MIKE GARCIA, California
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
DON BEYER, Virginia                  YOUNG KIM, California
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida               RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina         JAY OBERNOLTE, California
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin                PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DAN KILDEE, Michigan                 VACANCY
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
VACANCY
                                 ------                                

                Subcommittee on Research and Technology

                HON. HALEY STEVENS, Michigan, Chairwoman

PAUL TONKO, New York                 MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida, 
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin                    Ranking Member
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania             ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
BILL FOSTER, Illinois                JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
DON BEYER, Virginia                  PETE SESSIONS, Texas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina         PETER MEIJER, Michigan










                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              June 9, 2021

                                                                   Page

Hearing Charter..................................................     2

                           Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Haley Stevens, Chairwoman, 
  Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, 
  Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...........     9
    Written Statement............................................    10

Statement by Representative Michael Waltz, Ranking Member, 
  Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, 
  Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...........    11
    Written Statement............................................    13

Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member, 
  Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 
  Representatives................................................    13
    Written Statement............................................    14

Written statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, 
  Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 
  House of Representatives.......................................    15

Written statement by Representative Deborah Ross, Subcommittee on 
  Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and 
  Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................    16

                               Witnesses:

Mr. Dan Berglund, President and CEO, SSTI
    Oral Statement...............................................    17
    Written Statement............................................    20

Professor Erica R.H. Fuchs, Department of Engineering and Public 
  Policy, Carnegie Mellon University
    Oral Statement...............................................    35
    Written Statement............................................    37

Ms. Paula Nas, Director, Office of Economic Development, 
  University of Michigan--Flint
    Oral Statement...............................................    56
    Written Statement............................................    58

Hon. Elizabeth Hutt Pollard, Secretary of Science and Innovation, 
  State of Oklahoma
    Oral Statement...............................................    66
    Written Statement............................................    68

Discussion.......................................................    74

              Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Mr. Dan Berglund, President and CEO, SSTI........................    90

Professor Erica R.H. Fuchs, Department of Engineering and Public 
  Policy, Carnegie Mellon University.............................    96

Ms. Paula Nas, Director, Office of Economic Development, 
  University of Michigan--Flint..................................   101

Hon. Elizabeth Hutt Pollard, Secretary of Science and Innovation, 
  State of Oklahoma..............................................   103
    Addendum: ``2021-2026 Science & Innovation Strategic Plan--
      Developing an Innovation Economy in Oklahoma''.............   105





 
                 BUILDING REGIONAL INNOVATION ECONOMIES

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 2021

                  House of Representatives,
           Subcommittee on Research and Technology,
               Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                   Washington, D.C.

     The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., 
via Zoom, Hon. Haley Stevens [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] 
presiding.


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


     Chairwoman Stevens. Well, this hearing will come to order. 
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recess at 
any time. Pursuant to House Resolution 8, today the Committee 
is meeting virtually. Just a couple of reminders that we've 
gone over before about the conduct of this remote hearing. 
Members should absolutely keep their video feed on for as long 
as they are present in the hearing. Members are responsible for 
their own microphones. Please also keep your microphones muted, 
unless you are speaking. Finally, if Members have documents to 
submit for the record, please e-mail them to the Committee 
Clerk, whose e-mail address was circulated prior to the 
hearing. And, with that, allow me to say good morning, and 
welcome to today's hearing on Building Regional Innovation 
Economies. Thank you to our distinguished witnesses for joining 
us.
     In recent decades economic growth has become increasingly 
concentrated in a relatively small number of cities and 
regions. This is then tracked across analysis from leading 
experts. Between 1980 and 2016, for instance, the top 10 metro 
areas saw their earnings grow 57 percent more than elsewhere in 
the country. The top 10 metro areas saw their earnings grow 57 
percent, almost 60 percent, more than anywhere else in the 
country. According to a recent report from the Brookings 
Institution, more than a third of American jobs in high growth 
innovation industries within the technology sectors, computer 
manufacturing, biotech, telecommunications, are located in just 
16 counties. We certainly want to recognize and celebrate the 
success of American innovation hubs spanning this country, and 
continue to support their role in advancing U.S. 
competitiveness while we drill down and identify opportunities 
to create economies of scale across the country, particularly 
in areas that have experienced decline or transformations of 
the resources based on trade challenges, and different dynamics 
that have led to decline.
     The United States needs to remain globally competitive, 
and, as such, we must continue to address issues that are 
hindering geographic diversity and economic growth, and we must 
have intentionality in addressing some of the root causes of 
the increasing social and economic disparities in our country. 
The Federal Government has long been a partner in building 
regional innovation economies through many agencies across the 
Federal Government with different missions. Today we will be 
focusing particularly on the role of the Economic Development 
Administration (EDA) at the Department of Commerce. And, in 
full disclosure, I have worked at the Economic Development 
Administration from 2011 to 2012. Your Chair has worked there.
     I was pleased to see that President Biden shares a vision 
to support EDA's core mission. In the American Jobs Plan, the 
President calls for supercharging Federal support for regional 
innovation by investing $20 billion in EDA grants to develop 10 
regional innovation hubs. Such a plan, if developed and 
implemented carefully, could spark economic activity, economic 
growth, build community wealth, and help close the gap in 
access to the innovation economy for communities of color and 
rural communities in particular. We also ask the question, if 
the President is making these investments, if we should stop at 
10, and continue to expand and grow from there.
     We have an opportunity to be intentional about how we 
continue to grow and achieve shared purpose in the country in 
an age of rapid transformation. EDA has demonstrated historic 
success by allowing regions to self-select what their 
innovation ecosystem looks like. Now we have the opportunity to 
build on this work, allowing the--for the growth and the 
development of clusters in industry-specific innovation, to 
build economic development in regions that may have--otherwise 
been left behind. That is certainly an example that we have 
seen across the board in a place that I call home here in 
Michigan. Not only did we put the world on wheels at the 
beginning of the 20th century with automobiles, but we built an 
entire innovation ecosystem that sprung up around new machines.
     In 1912 the Nation's first Highway Materials Testing Lab 
opened in Ann Arbor, Michigan. In 1918 a police officer from 
Detroit invented and installed our Nation's first four-way red, 
yellow, green electric traffic light at the corner of Woodward 
and Michigan Avenues in Detroit. In 1960 Michigan became the 
first State to complete a border-to-border interstate. Now our 
auto companies, at the turn of another century, are leading the 
world in electric vehicle technology, autonomous and connected 
vehicle technology, connected infrastructure, and other 
innovations that are the very back bone of our Midwestern 
regional economy.
     Building regional innovation economies is certainly no 
simple task. It requires many committed partners, it requires 
intentionality, and it requires a lot of complicated things to 
fall into place. Federal investments are needed now more than 
ever to help build new and vibrant innovation economies, 
transforming us and propelling us into the 21st century--the 
mid-21st century, where we are heading. We will learn from past 
successes, failures, and unintended consequences if we are to 
get this right. The Science, Space, and Technology Committee 
led the authorization for the Regional Innovation Program at 
EDA, in 2010, and we will continue to evaluate these new 
proposals for the agency. We want to thank our witnesses for 
being here today, and we certainly look forward to the 
discussion.
     [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Stevens follows:]

    Good morning and welcome to today's hearing on building 
regional innovation economies. Thank you to our distinguished 
witnesses for joining us.
    In recent decades, economic growth has become increasingly 
concentrated in a relatively small number of cities and 
regions. Between 1980 and 2016, the top 10 metro areas saw 
their earnings grow 57 percent more than elsewhere in the 
country. According to a recent report from the Brookings 
Institution, more than a third of American jobs in high-growth 
innovation industries such as technology, computer 
manufacturing, biotech, telecommunications, are located in just 
16 counties.
    We should celebrate the successes of innovation hubs such 
as Silicon Valley and Boston and continue to support their role 
in advancing U.S. competitiveness. However, for the United 
States to remain globally competitive we must address issues 
that are hindering geographic diversity in economic growth and 
we must have intentionality in addressing some of the root 
causes of the increasing social and economic disparities in our 
country.
    The Federal government has long been a partner in building 
regional innovation economies through many agencies with 
different missions. Today we will be focusing particularly on 
the role of the Economic Development Administration at the 
Department of Commerce.
    I was pleased to see President Biden shares my support for 
the EDA's core mission. In the American Jobs Plan, the 
President calls for supercharging Federal support for regional 
innovation by investing $20 billion in EDA grants to develop 10 
regional innovation hubs. Such a plan, if developed and 
implemented carefully, could spark economic activity, build 
community wealth, and help close the gap in access to the 
innovation economy for communities of color and rural 
communities.
    We have an opportunity to be intentional about how we 
continue to grow and achieve shared purpose in the country in 
an age of rapid transformation.
    EDA has demonstrated historic success by allowing regions 
to self-select what their innovation ecosystem looks like. Now 
we have the opportunity to build on this work, allowing the 
growth and clusters of industry-specific innovation to build 
economic development in regions that may have otherwise been 
left behind.
    That's what we've done in Michigan. Not only did we put the 
world on wheels at the beginning of the 20th century with 
automobiles, but an entire innovation ecosystem sprung up 
around these new machines. In 1912, the nation's first highway 
materials testing lab was opened in Ann Arbor, Michigan. In 
1918, a police officer from Detroit invented and installed our 
nation's first four-way red, yellow, green electric traffic 
light at the corner of Woodward and Michigan avenues in 
Detroit. In 1960, Michigan became the first state to complete a 
border-to-border interstate.
    Now, our auto companies are leading the world in electric 
vehicle technology, autonomous and connected vehicle 
technology, connected infrastructure, and other innovations 
that are the very backbone of our Midwestern regional economy.
    Building regional innovation economies is no simple task, 
requiring many committed partners, and many different pieces to 
fall into place. Federal investments are needed now more than 
ever to help build new and vibrant innovation economies in 
regions across the country.
    We must learn from past successes, failures, and unintended 
consequences if we are to get this right. The Science, Space, 
and Technology Committee led the authorization for the regional 
innovation programs at EDA in 2010, and we will continue to 
evaluate these new proposals for the agency.
    I want to again thank the witnesses for being here today 
and I look forward to the discussion.

     Chairwoman Stevens. And with that, slightly over time, 
asking for your obliging, I now am going to recognize Mr. Waltz 
for an opening statement.
     Mr. Waltz. OK. Thank you. Good morning. Thanks, Chairwoman 
Stevens. Thanks for holding today's Subcommittee hearing on 
regional innovation, and also thank you to our expert witnesses 
for being with us. I think the question before us is how do we 
spur regional innovation to ensure all Americans have the 
opportunity to participate in the innovation economy? And 
that's, you know, whether they live in Daytona Beach, in my 
district, or all the way up in Boston, Massachusetts, or over 
in Michigan. You know, this is a challenge that policymakers 
have long struggled with, as the Chairwoman noted, and one that 
has received renewed interest over the last few months, as we 
seek to advance our economy through technological innovation, 
and compete with our adversaries, and our competitors, like 
China.
     There are multiple proposals from the administration, by 
our colleagues in Congress, calling for significant investments 
in the development of regional innovation economies, and I'm 
glad that the Science Committee has taken the time to carefully 
review and investigate these proposals. You know, and--we have 
to be candid, and, unfortunately, the history of regional 
innovation is littered with successes and failures. In the 
1980's the United States invested heavily in science and 
technology industrial parks. Many of these parks, 
unfortunately, were unable to attract the high-tech companies 
needed to drive economic growth, and ultimately ended up 
failing. The buildings were impressive, but they were empty. 
And we need to make sure we don't repeat those mistakes. We 
need to make sure we don't just throw money at what we all, I 
think, agree is an issue, and a cause worth supporting. I hope 
we can use this hearing, amongst others, as an opportunity to 
hear different perspectives and new ideas on how Congress can 
successfully support regional innovation, and avoid the past 
failures.
     Me--my home State of Florida is a great case study, I 
think, in the successes and challenges of regional innovation. 
Our Florida space coast is a key part of Central Florida's 
economy. It's created jobs for Floridians in the private space 
industry, high-tech manufacturing, academia. From NASA's 
(National Aeronautics and Space Administration's) first launch, 
putting man on the Moon, the Florida Space Coast has pioneered 
technological innovations, has given the U.S. the resources and 
edge necessary to enhance national security, defend against her 
adversaries in the 21st century space race.
     But at the same time, Florida has struggled in other areas 
of innovation. For example, Florida ranks comparatively low in 
access to early [inaudible] despite its size partly because 
many of Florida's accredited investors typically focus on real 
estate, or other low-tech investments because they're 
unfamiliar with the opportunities in innovative technology 
companies and equity-based investment mechanisms. Florida's 
technology sector also faces a skill shortage, struggling to 
find qualified workers to fill STEM (science, technology, 
engineering, and mathematics) jobs, which is a significant 
barrier to growth.
     So one of my goals is to ensure that these critical 
innovation jobs continue to grow, remain an integral part of 
our economy, and we take a long-term, decades-long approach. To 
that end, I think we need to understand how to successfully 
bring together local, State, and Federal Government with 
industry, with investors, with educational institutions at all 
levels within our community, and I look forward to hearing 
ideas from our witnesses of how we can do that.
     I believe that strategic investments in science, in 
technology, in research, in STEM education are key to enhancing 
our national security and economic competitiveness, so I think 
we have a lot of agreement there. Our Committee has already 
worked together, which I'm proud to say on a bipartisan basis, 
to develop two bills that would double down our investments in 
science and tech, the NSF (National Science Foundation) for the 
Future Act and the DOE (Department of Energy) Science for the 
Future Act--the Department of Energy Science for the Future 
Act. I will also soon be introducing bipartisan legislation to 
create a national science and technology strategy and 
quadrennial review process. This will allow us to direct more 
strategic, whole of government planning process, and put that 
process in place to establish some priorities, and better 
coordinate between agencies with a large focus on also then 
securing that research from theft, particularly from China.
     This strategy will help the U.S. remain competitive on a 
global scale, and stay a leader in cross-cutting innovation. 
The U.S. must not fall behind in developing the technology of 
the futures. I believe that together our Committees and the 
bills will help the U.S. remain a global leader. Thank you 
again, Madam Chairwoman, thank you again to our witnesses, and 
I yield back.
     [The prepared statement of Mr. Waltz follows:]

    Good morning and thank you Chairwoman Stevens for holding 
today's subcommittee hearing on regional innovation. And thank 
you to our expert witnesses for being with us.
    How do we spur regional innovation ensure that all 
Americans have the opportunity participate in the innovation 
economy, whether they live in Daytona Beach, Florida or Boston, 
Massachusetts? This is a challenge that policymakers have long 
struggled with, and one that has received renewed interest over 
the last few months as we seek to advance our economy through 
technological innovation and compete globally with countries 
like China.
    There are multiple proposals from the Administration and by 
Members of Congress calling for sizable investments for the 
development of regional innovation economies, and I am glad 
that the Science Committee is taking the time to carefully 
review and investigate these proposals. Unfortunately, the 
history of regional innovation is littered with policy 
failures. In the 1980's, the United States invested heavily in 
science and technology industrial parks. Many of these parks 
were unable to attract the high-tech companies needed to drive 
economic growth and ultimately ended up failing. The buildings 
were impressive, but empty. We need to make sure we don't 
repeat those mistakes. I hope we can use this hearing as an 
opportunity to hear different perspectives and new ideas on how 
Congress can successfully support regional innovation and avoid 
the failures of the past.
    My home state of Florida is a great case study of the 
successes and challenges of regional innovation. Florida's 
Space Coast is a key part of Central Florida's economy, and has 
created jobs for Floridians in private space industry, high-
tech manufacturing, and academia. From NASA's first launch to 
putting a man on the moon, Florida's Space Coast has pioneered 
technological innovations and has given the United States the 
resources and technological edge necessary to enhance national 
security and defend against our adversaries in the 21st century 
space race.
    At the same time, Florida has struggled in other areas of 
innovation. For example, Florida ranks comparatively low in 
access to early-stage capital despite its size, partly because 
many of Florida's accredited investors often focus on real 
estate or other low- tech investments because they are 
unfamiliar with opportunities in innovative technology 
companies and equity-based investment mechanisms. Florida's 
technology sector also faces a skills shortage, struggling to 
find qualified workers to fill STEM jobs, which is a barrier to 
growth.
    My goal is to ensure that these critical innovation jobs 
continue to grow and remain an integral part of Florida's 
economy for decades to come. To do that, we need to understand 
how to successfully bring together the local, state, and 
federal government with industry, investors, and educational 
institutions at all levels within a community. I look forward 
to hearing ideas from our witnesses how we can do that in 
Central Florida, and all regions of the country.
    I believe strategic investments in science and technology 
research and STEM education are key to enhancing our national 
security and economic competitiveness.
    Our Committee has already worked together on a bipartisan 
basis to develop two bills that would double down on our 
investment in science and technology: The NSF for the Future 
Act, and the DOE Science for the Future Act. I will also soon 
be introducing bipartisan legislation to create a national 
science and technology strategy and quadrennial review process. 
This will allow us to direct a more strategic whole-of- 
government planning process to establish national priorities 
with better coordination between agencies with a large focus on 
securing research from China. This strategy will help the 
United States remain competitive on a global scale, and stay a 
leader in cross- cutting innovation.
    I hope today's hearing will start an important dialogue on 
what strategic investments are needed to encourage and support 
innovation economies in the United States and will yield 
potential legislative ideas for the Committee to consider. The 
U.S. must not fall behind China in developing the technologies 
of the future, and I believe that together our Committees bills 
will help the U.S. remain the global leader.
    Thank you again to our witnesses for your participation 
today. I yield back.

     Chairwoman Stevens. Perfectly on time. The Chair now 
recognizes the Ranking Member of the Committee, Mr. Lucas, for 
an opening statement.
     Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens, for holding 
today's Subcommittee hearing, and thank you to our witnesses 
for your participation today. I look forward to hearing your 
expert testimonies on how we can support the development of 
regional innovation economies, as innovation is a propelling 
force for economic growth and prosperity. I would especially 
like to thank Secretary Pollard for taking time to speak with 
us today about Oklahoma's science and innovation strategy plan. 
This commitment to investing in innovation will grow our 
State's economy, provide Oklahomans with high-paying jobs, and 
advance our competitiveness. Oklahoma has significant existing 
infrastructure in three key technology areas, aerospace and 
autonomous systems, biotechnology and life sciences, and energy 
diversification. Further investments in these key areas would 
advance Oklahoma's innovation and potential to become a top 10 
State for science and technology. The Oklahoma City Innovation 
District, the Tulsa Innovation Labs, the OSU (Oklahoma State 
University) Discovery Building, and the Oklahoma Pandemic 
Center for Innovation and Excellence are also examples of 
Oklahoma's commitment to lead in innovation.
     Despite these investments, there are a few challenges 
affecting Oklahoma's ability to develop an innovation economy. 
Oklahoma ranks last for State investment in human capital, and 
36th place in total R&D (research and development) 
expenditures. It's important to recognize these challenges to 
better understand how Oklahoma can leverage State, local, and 
Federal Government resources, along with academic and industry, 
to overcome these challenges. While these challenges are 
specific to Oklahoma, the fact is every community has their own 
unique set of goals and challenges for developing their 
research industry infrastructure.
     As my colleague noted earlier, there are multiple 
proposals from the administration and Members of Congress on 
developing regional innovation economies, and I'm happy to see 
that this Committee is using this hearing as an opportunity to 
explore these proposals, along with new ideas to foster 
regional innovation. As we consider these proposals, I want to 
make sure we keep in mind the flexibility required to ensure 
they work across urban and rural areas, coastal and Midwestern 
States, big and small communities, and everything in between. 
For instance, while current proposals consider regional 
diversity when issuing awards, more often than not many rural 
communities, like those in my district, struggle to compete for 
funding, since the matching requirements are beyond the 
resources available within these communities. I hope today we 
can learn how all communities can have the opportunity to 
become leaders in regional innovation, and help solve some of 
the 21st century's most challenging problems.
     With that, I thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
     [The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]

    Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens for holding today's 
subcommittee hearing. And thank you to our witnesses for your 
participation today. I look forward to hearing your expert 
testimonies on how we can support the development of regional 
innovation economies, as innovation is a propelling force for 
economic growth and prosperity.
    I would especially like to thank Secretary Pollard for 
taking the time to speak with us today about Oklahoma's Science 
and Innovation Strategic Plan. This commitment to investing in 
innovation will grow our state's economy, provide Oklahomans 
with high- paying jobs, and advance our competitiveness.
    Oklahoma has significant existing infrastructure in three 
key technology areas: aerospace and autonomous systems; 
biotechnology and life sciences; and energy diversification. 
Further investments in these key areas would advance Oklahoma's 
innovation and potential to become a Top 10 State for science 
and technology. The Oklahoma City Innovation District, Tulsa 
Innovation Labs, OSU Discovery Building, and the Oklahoma 
Pandemic Center for Innovation and Excellence are also examples 
of Oklahoma's commitment to lead in innovation.
    Despite these investments, there are a few challenges 
affecting Oklahoma's ability to develop an innovation economy. 
Oklahoma ranks last for state investment in human capital, and 
36th place in total R&D expenditures. It is important to 
recognize these challenges to better understand how Oklahoma 
can leverage state, local, and federal government resources 
along with academia and industry to overcome these challenges.
    While these challenges are specific to Oklahoma, the fact 
is that every community has their own unique set of goals and 
challenges for developing their research industry 
infrastructure. As my colleague noted earlier, there are 
multiple proposals from the Administration and Members of 
Congress on developing regional innovation economies, and I'm 
happy to see that this Committee is using this hearing as an 
opportunity to explore these proposals, along with new ideas to 
foster regional innovation.
    As we consider these proposals, I want to make sure we keep 
in mind the flexibility required to ensure they work across 
urban and rural areas, costal and midwestern states, big and 
small communities, and everything in between. For instance, 
while current proposals consider regional diversity when 
issuing awards, more often than not many rural communities, 
like those in my district, struggle to compete for funding 
since the matching requirements are beyond the resources 
available within these communities. I hope today we can learn 
how all communities can have the opportunity to become leaders 
in regional innovation, and help solve some of the 21st 
century's most challenging problems.
    Thank you, and I yield back.

     Chairwoman Stevens. Well, thank you, Ranking Member Lucas. 
And if there are any other Members who wish to submit 
additional opening statements, your statements will be added to 
the record at this point.
     [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]

    I want to thank Chairwoman Stevens and Ranking Member Waltz 
for holding this hearing. And thank you to our esteemed panel 
of witnesses for joining us to share your expertise.
    The U.S. innovation ecosystem is the envy of the world for 
its capacity to create new technologies, jobs, and wealth. A 
number of U.S. cities and regions have led the way in building 
vibrant technology hubs. In an increasingly technology-driven 
world, these hubs are where new high-skilled, high-paying jobs 
are being created. While they benefit the country as a whole, 
the prosperity created by technology hubs is not shared equally 
across the country. It is not even shared within the regions in 
which the hubs are situated. If unaddressed, the concentration 
of economic growth will hamper our science and technology 
leadership and continue to exacerbate other societal 
challenges.
    There have been a number of proposals for building upon 
longstanding Federal investments in building geographically 
diverse innovation economies. President Biden has called on 
Congress to invest $20 billion to fund at least 10 regional 
innovation hubs and to help increase access to the innovation 
economy for communities of color and rural communities. He has 
also called for significant investments in research, technology 
development, and manufacturing innovation through our nation's 
premier science agencies. These are bold and timely proposals. 
The Science, Space, and Technology Committee is leading the way 
in thoughtful and transparent discussion and vetting of these 
proposals, including through this hearing.
    In making any new investments of the scale called for in 
the American Jobs Plan and elsewhere, we must focus on ensuring 
a more equitable distribution of the benefits of new innovation 
economies. In addition to prioritizing geographic diversity, we 
must take steps to avoid replicating the income inequality and 
housing issues troubling our existing technology hubs. This 
starts by bringing a more diverse set of experts and voices to 
the planning table. Every city and every region is unique. The 
Federal government should not dictate local plans for building 
regional innovation economies. However, the Federal government, 
as a partner and co-investor, can require that every plan have 
certain elements and include certain kinds of partners.
    Addressing these challenges at the Federal level will also 
require a renewed commitment to collaboration between Federal 
agencies. While today's hearing is focused on the Economic 
Development Agency, or EDA, it isn't the only agency with an 
important role to play. Moreover, the EDA cannot accomplish 
these goals on its own. Congress must be clear about the role 
of each agency in contributing to regional innovation. And we 
must leverage the strengths of each agency for maximum benefit.
    I look forward to hearing our witnesses' insights on how we 
can address these challenges. And I look forward to continuing 
the bipartisan work of this committee to advance bold and smart 
science and technology policies for our future.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Ross follows:]

    Thank you for holding this hearing, Chairwoman Stevens, and 
thank you to all the panelists for joining ustoday. I represent 
a district that includes much of the Research Triangle Park, 
the largest research parkin the United States and a premier 
global innovation center. The Triangle is an ecosystem of 
hundreds ofcompanies, government agencies, academic 
institutions, startups, and nonprofits that in effect work 
inconcert to attract talent; bolster the local economy; and 
provide critical research, technology, and cleanenergy 
leadership to the region and nation. Last week I led a 
roundtable in my district on regionalinnovation. We determined 
that three key ingredients that have contributed to the 
Triangle's successare local business community buy-in, 
connections to universities, and an environment conducive 
tostart-ups. We also discussed challenges facing the region, 
including the need for more early educationSTEM opportunities 
to strengthen the talent pipeline and the growing affordable 
housing crisis.

     Chairwoman Stevens. Also at this time I want to take a 
moment to introduce our just phenomenal witnesses, who have 
graced us with their presence today. Our first witness is a 
sincere privilege for me to introduce, Mr. Dan Berglund. Mr. 
Berglund is the President and CEO (chief executive officer) of 
SSTI (State Science & Technology Institute), a non-profit 
organization that leads, supports, and strengthens efforts to 
improve State and regional economies through science, 
technology, and innovation. Mr. Berglund has held this position 
since SSTI was founded in 1996, and under his leadership, SSTI 
has developed a range of services focused on communication, 
education, information, data analysis, and research. Prior to 
his position at SSTI, Mr. Berglund served as the Director of 
Ohio's Thomas Edison Program, and the Ohio Technology Transfer 
Organization, and as the Assistant Deputy Director of the Ohio 
Department of Development's Division of Technological 
Innovation. But all of that's to say, if you are in the 
technology-based economic development world, you are connected 
to SSTI, and leveraging their resources, or you are very likely 
doing it wrong.
     Our next witness is Dr. Erica Fuchs. Dr. Fuchs is a 
professor in the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at 
Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), and a Research Associate with 
the National Bureau of Economic Research. Her research focuses 
on the development, commercialization, and global manufacturing 
of emerging technologies and national policy in that context. 
Professor Fuchs is leading Carnegie Mellon's College of 
Engineering moon shot on national technology strategy in 
critical technologies supply chain and infrastructure. She also 
was the founding faculty director of CMU's Manufacturing 
Futures Initiative, an initiative across six schools aimed to 
revolutionize the commercialization and local production of 
advanced manufacturing projects.
     And now, for our next witness, Ms. Paula Nas, I would like 
to yield to my friend, and the dean of the Michigan delegation, 
Mr. Kildee, to introduce Ms. Paula Nas of the Economic 
Development Office at the University of Michigan at Flint.
     Mr. Kildee. Well, first of all, thank you, Chairwoman 
Stevens, and Ranking Member Waltz for holding this hearing, and 
I'm sure I'm joined by our Chair, Chair Stevens, and my friend, 
Representative Peter Meijer, in welcoming a fellow Michigander 
to testify before us. It's my pleasure to welcome Paula Nas to 
testify as a witness today. Paula is the Director of the Office 
of Economic Development at the University of Michigan--Flint, 
where I once, many decades ago, was a student. She's been a 
lecturer in Economics at U of M-Flint for the past 25 years. 
She oversees several impressive programs that I've been 
observing for some time, including the Economic Development 
Administration's University Center for Community and Economic 
Development, the GIS (Geographic Information Systems) Center, 
the Innovation Incubator, and the Cybersecurity Training Center 
at U of M-Flint. Her primary academic interests are law and 
economics and microeconomic theory. She's a graduate of the 
Honors Program at U of M-Flint, and holds a Master's in 
Economics from Michigan State University, a fact which I will 
not hold against her, and a J.D. from Wayne State University 
Law School. She's also an active member of our community, 
serving on a number of community boards and councils, including 
as a member of the Grand Blanc City Council, a large suburb of 
my hometown of Flint. She serves on the Board of Educational 
Association of University Centers as well. So, Paula, thank you 
for your commitment to the community, to economic development 
in our region, and for joining us to share your expertise 
today. With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
     Chairwoman Stevens. And, with that, let it be known that 
three of the 14 Members of Congress from Michigan are on the 
Science, Space, and Technology Committee.
     Our final witness is the Honorable Elizabeth Hutt Pollard, 
Secretary of Science and Innovation for the State of Oklahoma. 
Secretary Pollard was appointed to her position in June of 
2020. In this role she places a strategic emphasis on enabling 
science and innovation to impact health, commerce, and STEM 
education for Oklahoma. Prior to her appointment as secretary, 
she served as Deputy Secretary of Science and Innovation. In 
addition to her cabinet role, Secretary Pollard is Executive 
Chair of Applied Silver, a materials science health tech 
company located in Silicon Valley, addressing infection control 
and antibiotic stewardship.
     As our witnesses should know, you will each have 5 minutes 
for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be 
included for the record for the hearing. When you have 
completed your spoken testimony, we will begin questions. Each 
Member will have 5 minutes to address the panel, and we will 
start with Mr. Berglund.

                 TESTIMONY OF MR. DAN BERGLUND,

                    PRESIDENT AND CEO, SSTI

     Mr. Berglund. Good morning, Chairwoman Stevens, Ranking 
Member Waltz, and Ranking Member Lucas, and distinguished 
Members of the Subcommittee. My name's Dan Berglund, President 
and CEO of the State Science & Technology Institute. I'm 
honored to appear before you today to discuss a topic that I've 
dedicated 36 years of my professional life to. My testimony is 
grounded in my personal experience of 7 years in creating, 
administering, and evaluating innovation programs in Ohio, and 
over the last 29 years working with all 50 States to build 
innovation economies.
     For several decades, many States, as well as 
municipalities, philanthropic, and industry partners have been 
investing in their regional innovation economies to create 
tectonic opportunities. As I outlined in my written testimony, 
Georgia, St. Louis, and Pennsylvania, among others, are those 
that have been remarkably successful. We need to build on their 
examples and other successful efforts. Those efforts that are 
working share characteristics that can guide a responsible 
Federal program. They, first, bring all actors together. The 
private sector, institutions of higher education, economic 
development organizations, nonprofits, foundations, to work 
collaboratively. Second, they develop an approach that's 
customized to the local strengths, needs, and cultures of the 
region. And third, they make long term, sustained commitments 
that are of a scale to make a difference, and flexible enough 
to adapt to emerging opportunities.
     Data show we face significant economic problems. In 1970 
the middle class made up 62 percent of U.S. aggregate income, 
according to the Pew Research Center. By 2018 that had declined 
to just 43 percent. The percentage of population in the middle 
class shrunk in every State but Nebraska from 2000 to 2017. In 
2018 the Pew Research Center calculates that Black median 
household income stood at 61 percent that of White households. 
An Iowa State University economist, David Swenson, has 
estimated that between 2008 and 2017 98-1/2 percent of non-farm 
job growth occurred in metropolitan counties. Meanwhile, the 
Chinese are making major investments in science and technology. 
While we lead in basic research, that is not enough. As 
valuable as basic research is, many people have a mistaken 
belief that if we just fill the pipeline with basic research, 
it'll somehow magically make it into the marketplace throughout 
the U.S. It takes more than magic. It takes hard work and 
resources that, right now, are coming primarily from States and 
universities to identify the research with commercial 
potential, fund proof of concept, and actually get the 
technology to the private sector.
     We know this work can be done successfully because we're 
seeing it done at the local level. So what do we need to do? 
There's 40 years of experience at the State and local level on 
approaches to build innovation economies. We need a national 
strategy, and the funding to take those lessons and implement 
them in a sustained effort to bring this work to scale, and in 
all areas of the country. We need bold, robust support from the 
Federal Government that offers flexible funding to States and 
organizations to build regional innovation economies, and 
transform our national economy. Funding from the Federal 
Government that addresses the whole innovation system, rather 
than individual elements of a system, would be critical to 
building a regional innovation economy, and different than any 
other Federal program.
     The regional technology hubs proposal of the Endless 
Frontier Act deserves serious consideration by this Committee. 
The legislation accomplishes much of what I've described above, 
with specific focus on entrepreneurship through business 
development, technology maturation, and workforce. The 
legislation as it passed through the Senate Commerce Committee 
could support dozens of hubs that are focused and large enough 
to have a meaningful impact on their regions. The results would 
be more areas and people benefiting from a technology economy, 
and a stronger country. As I outlined in my written testimony, 
there are specific items in Endless Frontier that should be 
addressed, including the makeup of eligible recipients metrics, 
evaluation of the program, and where the program is located.
     In summary, we can no longer afford to follow an approach 
where regions are cobbling together support from States, 
private entities, and single-purpose Federal programs. 
Congress, which clearly recognizes the critical threats facing 
the American economy, should guide a strategic substantial 
investment in regional innovation economies. Thank you for the 
opportunity to provide this testimony. My apologies for going 
over.
     [The prepared statement of Mr. Berglund follows:]


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
     Chairwoman Stevens. With that, Dr. Fuchs.

            TESTIMONY OF PROFESSOR ERICA R.H. FUCHS,

          DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC POLICY,

                   CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY

     Dr. Fuchs. Fuchs. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens, Ranking 
Member Lucas, Ranking Member Waltz, and Members of the 
Subcommittee. Trained as an engineer, I bring perspectives from 
my research laboratory, which is the factory floor of 
manufacturing firms across the United States and around the 
world. Over the last half a century, the global geopolitical 
balance of scientific, economic, and production capabilities 
has shifted away from U.S. dominance. Today China is the 
largest producer, and second largest consumer market. The U.S. 
is no longer in a singular position of scientific and 
technological leadership across domains. Meanwhile, we face 
equal or greater challenges on our home front. Economic 
inequality has increased, and social mobility declined. Central 
to these trends are trade and technology change. While 
increased and more evenly distributed science and technology 
funding is essential for national security, economic 
prosperity, and social welfare, realizing policymakers' 
multiple objectives for these Federal investments will require 
institutional innovations to ensure our technology investments 
realize the economic and social benefits we seek.
     First, strategic investments in science and technology can 
change the playing field and rules of the game. To regain and 
maintain global economic competitiveness, our priority should 
be making products that can only be made here, and that 
everyone in the world wants. In advanced semiconductors for 
communications, our research finds that while firms can save 
costs in the short term by producing older generation products 
offshore, the innovative next-generation products hold 
potential to address national security firm--concerns, and 
enable firms to access new, larger markets. Those innovative 
next-generation products can only be produced in the U.S. and 
Europe, and involve more skilled and innovative jobs for high 
school educated operators. Similarly, as the world scales up 
electric vehicle production, the country that leads in 
innovations in battery recycling and cobalt-free batteries has 
the potential to change global market prices, change the global 
location of production, and free itself from single country 
supply risks. Our research again suggests that battery 
production may involve more skilled and empowered jobs for high 
school educated shop floor workers. We need to invest to ensure 
we make these and other critical technologies here.
     Second, to help regions reap locally the longer-term 
economic benefits of research and technology investments, we 
need to strategically invest in infrastructure now. Nationwide 
investments in the infrastructure of the future hold promise 
not only to improve security, productivity, and equity, but 
also to revitalize the U.S. worker skills and manufacturing 
ecosystems necessary to manufacture the products of the future. 
The mason, floorman, engineer, and computer science skills 
relevant to intelligent transportation and urban infrastructure 
systems have corollaries in resilient grid infrastructure, 
privacy preserving health infrastructure, and intelligent 
manufacturing. Our investments and trainings should be 
strategic to leverage these overlaps, and the career 
transitions between them.
     Third, the U.S. must invest in the intellectual 
foundations, data infrastructure, and analytic capabilities 
necessary to inform technology investments. Research by 
ourselves and many other shows that inadequate data and 
analytic capability is weakening government decisionmaking 
regarding critical technologies, supply chains, and 
infrastructure. Our research demonstrated the possibility of 
using text processing of public information to substantially 
improve the government's real-time situational awareness of 
critical medical supply chains during COVID. In other work we 
are leveraging new tools to quantify the skills required for 
emerging technologies before large-scale investments are made, 
and to better understand skill crosswalks that enable firm 
pivots and skill transitions. The executive branch, legislative 
branch, and all agencies need access to, and to be informed by 
the data and analytics today's technology and public/private 
collaborations could make possible.
     Finally, the U.S. should create a nimble entity with 
national technology strategy as its mission. U.S. agencies are 
single-mission driven, and yet technology investments, by their 
very nature, simultaneously affect security, economic 
competitiveness, and social welfare, including health, 
environment, and equity. Regional investments in research and 
development, in infrastructure of the future, and local 
economic development have the potential to have their 
investments multiplied, if thoughtfully linked. A new 
directorate focused on national technology strategy will need 
to be empowered, to influence, and have incentives to 
collaborate with the excellent mission-oriented agencies in our 
government. Getting these investments right is non-trivial, but 
as we've shown in our research, win-win solutions exist. This 
directorate must be backed by the star-studded 
interdisciplinary data and analytic team necessary to make 
tradeoffs transparent and help policymakers ensure the security 
and welfare of all citizens in our Nation.
     [The prepared statement of Dr. Fuchs follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
     Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you, Dr. Fuchs, and we're glad 
to hear from you in Congress today, and we're hoping the White 
House has you on speed dial too. And, with that, we'll hear 
from Ms. Nas.

                  TESTIMONY OF MS. PAULA NAS,

           DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,

                 UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN--FLINT

     Ms. Nas. Hello to Chairwoman Stevens, Ranking Member 
Lucas, and Ranking Member Waltz, and distinguished Members of 
the Subcommittee, including Congressman Kildee, who represents 
my home State. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before 
the Subcommittee today. My name is Paula Nas, and I serve as 
the Director of the Office of Economic Development at the 
University of Michigan in Flint, where the U of M-Flint EDA 
University Center for Community and Economic Development is 
housed. It is an honor to share my views----
     Ms. Moore. Madam Chair, I can barely hear her. Is----
     Chairwoman Stevens. Yeah. Thank you. Congresswoman Moore 
is recognized. I have 20/20 vision. I don't know what the 
hearing is. I was having a little problems hearing too with 
you, Ms. Nas, so maybe you could just speak a little bit closer 
to the microphone?
     Ms. Nas. OK, sure. Thank you. It is an honor to share my 
views--are you able to hear me better? It is an honor to share 
my views about the importance of the Economic Development 
Administration's support for the development of regional 
innovation economies. The U of M-Flint EDA University Center 
for Community and Economic Development coordinates, forms, and 
contributes to economic development efforts that cultivate 
innovation, support proof of concept development and 
commercialization, and provide employer-identified workforce 
development programs needed to build and sustain a resilient, 
inclusive economy.
     Research on building effective innovation ecosystems 
points to the importance of interactions among key actors in 
the region. Typically these include institutions of higher 
education, industry, government funders in economic 
development--among others. There's also consensus on a need for 
other elements, a research and development ecosystem, access to 
capital, mentors, innovation labs, and training programs. These 
are all necessary conditions for creating an environment that 
spurs innovation and contributes to regional economic growth. 
What is often left out of this equation is the fundamental 
issue of how one enters this complex system, and what the 
barriers of entry are. At the University of Michigan in Flint, 
we think about how we, as key players in the innovation 
ecosystem, make a concerted effort to minimize, or completely 
eliminate barriers to entry, and once an innovator has entered 
the ecosystem, we are mindful of how to best provide them with 
the tools and knowledge needed to navigate the system.
     The development of regional innovation economies can be an 
engine of economic growth, but if that growth is going to be 
sustainable, we must provide avenues of access to those who are 
at risk of being locked out, particularly innovators from 
underserved communities in both urban and rural areas. Much of 
the work of U of M-Flint's EDA University Center is dedicated 
to solving these issues. Through the U of M-Flint's EDA 
University Center, we've had the opportunity to serve as an 
entry point for a diverse group of regional entrepreneurs, 
delivering services to over 2,000 individuals over the past 5 
years. One such individual is a community member named Linda, 
who was inspired by her deaf mother to create a technology to 
help deaf and hard of hearing communities. Linda launched an 
emergent technology company, Bell Tech Communications, which 
has developed English to ASL (American Sign Language) real time 
translation software and hardware that removes learning 
barriers by teaching ASL speakers English grammar and sentence 
structure, in addition to the ASL equivalent translation. Bell 
Tech has been supported by our staff through ongoing one-on-one 
counseling, workshops, and resource connections, including 
personnel and funding opportunities. Linda is an excellent 
example of a local innovator who may not have entered the 
ecosystem without the support of our EDA University Center.
     In addition to minimizing barriers to entry in the 
ecosystem, our EDA University Center is working to build a 
strong foundation for a sustainable innovation economy by 
creating programs that foster the entrepreneurial and 
innovation mindset. We have developed a suite of offerings that 
introduce campus and community partners of all ages to 
entrepreneurship and innovation. Through programs on U of M-
Flint's campus, such as faculty innovation fellows, an 
interdisciplinary innovation capstone course, and student 
innovation competitions, we aim to create a culture of 
innovation. We also offer a menu of innovation programs for our 
community partners. We have introduced entrepreneurship at an 
early age--we've created the Young Sharks and Junior Sharks 
Curriculum, and pitch competitions for elementary and middle 
school students, and we are confident that today's efforts to 
create awareness of the importance of innovation will have 
long-term benefits for the economy.
     As we collectively think about best practices for building 
strong and inclusive innovation economies, we need to keep in 
mind the perspective of our population, and what people need in 
terms of support systems, what they need in terms of making 
sure that everybody has access to everything they need to move 
their innovations forward. Through programs like this, we know 
that we will be able to keep in mind that solutions are not 
one-size-fits-all. We need to provide entry points into the 
ecosystem, and supports to ensure that opportunities are shared 
broadly, so widespread participation involves planning and 
implementing innovation initiatives. Thank you again for the 
opportunity to testify today. I look forward to answering your 
questions.
     [The prepared statement of Ms. Nas follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
     Chairwoman Stevens. Just fabulous. And, with that, 
Secretary Pollard.

           TESTIMONY OF HON. ELIZABETH HUTT POLLARD,

              SECRETARY OF SCIENCE AND INNOVATION,

                       STATE OF OKLAHOMA

     Ms. Pollard. Madam Chair Stevens, and Ranking Member 
Waltz, House Science Committee Ranking Member Lucas, thank you 
for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Elizabeth 
Pollard, and I have the honor of serving as Secretary of 
Science and Innovation for the State of Oklahoma. In addition, 
I serve as a C Suite Executive, with decades of experience 
working in Silicon Valley, and understand how to bring capital 
and investment together to meet market needs. I'm here today to 
discuss Oklahoma and its expanding innovation ecosystem. There 
is a confluence of forces within State leadership, industry 
partners, higher ed, and the philanthropic community to grow 
Oklahoma's innovation economy. To ensure this vision for our 
safety becomes a reality, the State of Oklahoma released its 
new Science and Innovation Strategic Plan. Under the Governor's 
leadership, this plan outlines the vision for establishing 
Oklahoma as a global leader in scientific research and 
innovation through state-of-the-art research facilities, 
cutting edge technology, and progressive partnerships.
     Today our State ranks first among other States in terms of 
cost of living, second in terms of cost of doing business. 
Oklahoma also ranks third in economic outlook, with low-income 
tax rates ranking sixth in the Nation for tax burden per 
capita, and the State has developed a strategic plan to 
leverage these assets. The plan is focused on three key sectors 
where we have expertise. One, energy diversification. Oklahoma 
has a long and rich history as a leader in oil and gas research 
and exploration, and continues to lead the way in these areas. 
Oklahoma is also increasing its focus in environmentally 
friendly alternative energy solutions to put--support the needs 
of the changing globe. We're ranked best State to own an 
electric vehicle, and ranked third in the Nation for 
electricity generated by wind.
     Second, aerospace and autonomous systems. Today Oklahoma 
is home to FAA's (Federal Aviation Administration's) Mike 
Monroney Aeronautical Center, Tinker Air Force Base, and the 
sustainment headquarters of the United States Air Force, and 
many aviation, aerospace, and cyber-related companies. We have 
strong university programs across aerospace, including Oklahoma 
State University's Rocket Test Site, and International Space 
Station projects through NASA's EPSCoR (Established Program to 
Stimulate Competitive Research) Program. And third, 
biotechnology and life sciences. We have had significant 
biotech research and development activity underway for decades. 
Some examples include the University of Oklahoma's 
comprehensive health system and NCI (National Cancer Institute) 
Cancer Center, Oklahoma State University's Human and Animal 
Schools of Medicine, with a focus on one health, and many other 
groups, such as Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma 
Blood Institute, Noble Research, and so on.
     The Science and Innovation Strategic Plan for the State 
lays out Oklahoma's innovation opportunities, and recommends 
seven strategic goals to ensure solid foundation and serve as a 
catalyst for growth. First, to establish the Office of Science 
and Innovation to facilitate meaningful collaborations, and the 
collection and analysis of data. Second, to focus on these 
strategic industries and large-scale focus investments and 
partnerships. Third, establish centers of excellence in 
research to ensure Oklahoma's economic competitiveness and 
leadership. Fourth, create superclusters in innovation and 
support systems, with focus areas in both urban and rural 
communities to develop as superclusters for innovation. Fifth, 
establish a federally funded research laboratory. Sixth, invest 
in education, workforce development, and internship programs to 
ensure diversity in workforce, and seven, secure public and 
private financing to fund all of these recommendations.
     Today the State funds entrepreneurs, researchers, and 
companies to help commercialize their technologies and grow 
their businesses through the Oklahoma Center for the 
Advancement of Science and Technology, and i2E, a nationally 
recognized private not-for-profit corporation, and the Oklahoma 
Manufacturing Alliance. These bold long-term strategies work 
together to build a dynamic research infrastructure and 
attract, retain, and empower a diverse and talented workforce 
in our State. One specific case example is the recently 
established Oklahoma Pandemic Center, which was created in 
response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a first of its kind 
collaborative and immersive campus located in the heart of the 
U.S., bringing cutting edge science to the fields of human/
animal environmental health. As a largely rural and 
agricultural State, Oklahoma is uniquely positioned to capture 
the benefits of animal science insights as a tool to improve 
human health and prevent the spread of disease to humans.
     Madam Chair Stevens, Ranking Member Waltz, House Science 
Committee Ranking Member Lucas, thank you again for the 
opportunity to speak today. Thank you for your efforts to 
explore ways Federal agencies can support the development of 
innovation economies in States like Oklahoma. We urge you to 
consider funding timelines to better align with smaller States' 
needs, their legislative cycle, and to invest in diverse States 
with rural, urban, and tribal representation, like Oklahoma. 
This is a new era in Oklahoma, one that embraces and leverages 
our State's unique assets to make Oklahoma a top 10 State for 
innovation. I appreciate your consideration, and welcome any 
questions you may have. Thank you.
     [The prepared statement of Ms. Pollard follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
     Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you. Thank you so much, and we 
know SSTI is very familiar with your i2E Program, and a lot of 
your best practices. So, with that, after these phenomenal 
testimonies, we're going to begin our first round of questions. 
Chair's going to recognize herself for 5 minutes.
     And, Mr. Berglund, I wanted to start with you. In your 
written testimony, which I encourage my Committee Members to 
review--all 12 pages. I wanted to reference something that you 
touch on at the beginning of your written testimony, with Dr. 
AnnaLee Saxenian's book, Regional Advantage, where, quote--she 
said--you know, she describes the origins, growth, and 
differentiators of Silicon Valley and Route 128. Silicon Valley 
and Route 128 were--or--were not planned as technology hubs, 
but they did not happen by accident either.
     And so I wanted to draw down on that, and something else 
that you said in your testimony, which is you talked about the 
need for flexible funding. And I'm just wondering if you could 
describe that nexus between flexibility at the Federal level 
and the intentionality that comes from a region? Because we 
talk a lot about not being too top town and prescriptive, so if 
we're going to fund these regional innovation clusters, how do 
we meet what the needs are at the local level? So I'll let you 
start, and I--you know, Ms. Nas wants to get into it, you know, 
I know you're touching some of that as well. That'd be great.
     Mr. Berglund. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens, for the 
question. In terms of flexibility, I think the issue, really, 
is that there's just very--great variation between the regions. 
So, using some of the examples from my written testimony, if 
you look at what Georgia did in the Georgia Research Alliance 
(GRA), at the creation of GRA, part of this fate's concern--
part of the business community's concern was that they didn't 
have the research capability, and so they invested first in 
building up their intellectual infrastructure. And then, as 
time progressed, as that strength emerged, it then invested in 
bringing the technology from the university into the 
marketplace. And then, as they were successful at that, they 
evolved again to setting up seed funding for the resulting 
companies. So I think we need to meet the regions where they 
are with their particular strengths.
     Infrastructure, from a physical infrastructure viewpoint, 
may be very important in some regions, but in other regions, 
that won't be important, that they have an excess of available 
space, or are able to find funding from other sources. So the 
Youngstown Business Incubator, for example, took advantage of a 
weakness of the community, that they had a lot of empty office 
space, and turned it into an asset, by using it as space for 
startup companies.
     Chairwoman Stevens. Ms. Nas, did you have anything you 
wanted to contribute to that?
     Ms. Nas. Yes, Chairwoman Stevens, thank you. Following up 
on Mr. Berglund's statement about meeting people where they 
are, regions where they are, in the work we do we're very 
intentional about meeting people where they are. I mean that 
literally--so that might be creating a business boot camp out 
in the community--in a community center--it might be us going 
into an art classroom to talk about entrepreneurship, or it 
might be our Youth Entrepreneurship Program, where we bring 
innovation and entrepreneurship into the elementary school 
classroom. We're really thinking intentionally about how we get 
to entrepreneurs and innovators that we normally wouldn't get 
to.
     Chairwoman Stevens. Yeah. And giving you the freedom to be 
able to do that, right? Without being so overly prescriptive 
about the program requirements. And, a minute left, but, with 
Dr. Fuchs, and your testimony, particularly focusing on supply 
chain, and manufacturing diversification, and some of the 
weaknesses, I just wonder, in terms of this--it--and it's not 
going to do it justice in a minute left, so we might have to do 
it for the record, or get more comments from you, but I'm just 
chewing on what you talked about with some of these weaknesses 
in our supply chain, and being dependent on one country, and 
then also recognizing that there are some things in our supply 
chain that we don't even produce.
     So let's circle back to that, because I want to do that 
justice, and we've only got 14 seconds, and I've been gabbing 
for a while, and we've got some really great Committee Members 
here who have questions, so I'm going to put a pin in that for 
that you, but, you know, this is just--this is the start, with 
a bunch of stakeholders in this innovation ecosystem world that 
we're working on with EDA. And so, with that, Mr. Waltz, I'm 
going to turn to you for 5 minutes of questions.
     Mr. Waltz. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And I'm not 
100 percent sure who's best to answer this question, so, Ms. 
Pollard, I'll go to you. And I'm relatively new in the last 
couple of years to this Committee and to this position, so I'm 
just kind of asking a level-setting question. I'm trying to get 
my mind a round what the EDA does, and its various innovation 
activities, versus what the Small Business Administration has 
done, and is doing, historically, and where are those--and I 
can describe some of them, but I'm assuming that you're 
relatively familiar. You know, where are those duplicative, 
where are they complimentary? Just trying to understand that 
dynamic. So, Ms. Pollard, I'll throw it over to you. Mr. 
Berglund, if you want to chime in, or anyone else, on that 
question.
     Ms. Pollard. Thank you. I really don't believe I am the 
best person on the panel to answer that specific question, 
coming from the vantage point of wanting to drive a discussion 
about how to set up innovation within a State. But, having said 
that, I'd like to have one of the other panel members respond 
accordingly, specifically around EDA and Small Business 
Administration. Thank you.
     Mr. Berglund. So I'd be happy to do that, if that's all 
right----
     Mr. Waltz. Sure.
     Mr. Berglund. So, broadly speaking, the Small Business 
Administration (SBA) tends to focus on financing of individual 
companies. They also play an important role, through their 
Small Business Development Centers, as serving as an entry 
point for any person that might be interested in starting a 
company, but that can be a mom and pop type franchise, so--a 
Subway store, for example. I think of them as the large part of 
a funnel in helping potential entrepreneurs think about whether 
they should start a business. EDA tends to focus on physical 
infrastructure because of its authorizing statute, the large 
part of it. However, they also have a section that is the 
Regional Innovation Strategies Program, which is now called the 
Build to Scale Program. These are smaller projects, about 
750,000, a million dollars in size, that last for a shorter 
time period.
     So--not a lot of time to go into the level of detail. I'd 
be happy to follow up with you or your staff in more detail, 
but I'll pause here so you have the opportunity to ask other 
questions, or--of other panelists.
     Mr. Waltz. Sure. Dr. Fuchs, you had a comment there?
     Dr. Fuchs. I was just going to add that research on the 
Small Business Innovation Research Program has--by Josh Lerner 
and others has suggested that it is quite effective in the 
commercialization of emerging technologies, particularly in 
areas that have existing good venture capital. There may be 
room for growth in other areas, but it is important in that 
role. It's interesting in its history. It actually originated 
out of something called RAN, historically, which was about 
research in areas of national need, and commercializing them 
domestically, coming back to some of our conversations today.
     Mr. Waltz. Thank you for that, Dr. Fuchs. If I could just 
follow up, you said in your testimony, ``Increases in science 
and technology funding alone will be insufficient to ensure 
U.S. technology competitiveness without a strategy for how to 
ensure that those investments realize our national 
objectives.'' Can you just flesh that out a bit more, and the 
role of a national strategy for science and tech can play in 
promoting a more even nationwide distribution of science and 
tech education funding commercialization?
     Dr. Fuchs. Yeah. Thank you very much. So I think there's 
threefold there. One is that we need to--we have limited 
resources, in the end, and we need to think about how to invest 
those resources, but at the same time, it can be confusing, as 
I read in my testimony, exactly how to do that well. So I'm not 
arguing for choosing technology winners, but--rather than 
choosing the right goals, right? So in the semiconductor 
industry, which I've studied extensively, right now, in the 
next 10 years, we are going to have a problem of not having 
hardware to continue to advance computational capabilities, not 
having the device. I would argue that funding the last--the 
Commodity Semiconductor of today may be far less important than 
changing the game, and making sure we lead in the computational 
capabilities of the future that even our AI (artificial 
intelligence) aspirations require. So getting that right is not 
trivial, and there are strategic national security and economic 
prosperity setup objectives in that context.
     Two is that, when I speak of infrastructure, and 
infrastructure of the future, I mean reinvigorating the 
country's infrastructure, from broadband, to electric grids, 
to--the entire system. That can serve as a platform for 
innovation, but also for developing the manufacturing skills we 
need for the future, and the firms that we need to manufacture. 
I was stunned when we've been studying firms that pivoted under 
COVID-19, that--they--some of them come from being formerly 
garbage distributors, and then construction workers of 
buildings, and now they're like, ``Wow, manufacturing's great. 
It's not smelly, and it's inside. I love this job.'' So we need 
to figure out how to make those crosswalks in--but by doing the 
infrastructure of the future, we can buildup our dilapidated 
manufacturing ecosystems to have that firm capability as well.
     Mr. Waltz. Well, thank you for that, and, Madam 
Chairwoman, thank you for allowing her answer to go over our 
time. And I couldn't agree with you more, Dr. Fuchs. I hope 
that all of our colleagues can reach a deal on what 
infrastructure is, and how to best support it. Thank you so 
much. I yield.
     Chairwoman Stevens. Yeah, thank you. And, just as a point 
of reference, the Economic Development Administration will be 
coming to see this Subcommittee for a deeper dive either in the 
form of--sometimes we do internal meetings, but certainly as 
part of ours for the record and hearing process. And it is a 
great question about understanding the differences in the 
investment, and I will note to my obligation of fiscal 
responsibility that a proposed $20 billion investment in EDA is 
much higher than its average levels of 300 million, right? And 
it's an agency that for every $1 into an economic development 
project--some of which are public works, and it hangs out in 
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, right? We have 
oversighted of their innovation programs, but for every $1, 
seven jobs created or retained. But it is absolutely worth us 
being, you know, the authorizing stewards of this agency to 
really analyze and address the suggested plus-up in funding, 
and what we could get out of it. Certainly with Route 128 and 
Silicon Valley, it remains immeasurable.
     And, with that, we're going to go to just, you know, an 
incredible Member of this Committee, Mr. Tonko from the nice 
State of New York.
     Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chair Stevens. Can you hear me? OK. 
Thank you for holding today's important hearing, focused on 
economic development and further involvement of regional 
innovation strategies. NIST (National Institute of Standards 
and Technology) has two programs that are focused on building 
manufacturing capabilities in regions across the United States, 
Manufacturing USA, and the Hollings Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership (MEP). Certainly the network of 11 New York MEP 
centers cultivate the growth of high tech industry, and 
certainly help smaller manufacturers to modernize. These 
independent not-for-profit organizations share a common 
commitment to providing direct, strategic assistance to 
companies in the areas of entrepreneurship, technology 
commercialization, product development, high tech business 
incubator management, and technology transfer services.
     New York State, and the Capital Region of New York, are 
strong examples of where these programs have helped facilitate 
the integration of innovation and technology throughout the 
region's economic development efforts. It's estimated that in 
Fiscal Year 2020 New York's MEP programs saw the creation or 
retention of over 5,000 jobs and over $214 million in new 
client investments. So, Mr. Berglund, what do you see as the 
role of the Manufacturing USA Program, and the Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership, in regional innovation efforts?
     Mr. Berglund. Thank you, Representative Tonko, for that 
question. I think both of them are critical organizations, or 
can be critical organizations. I have much more familiarity 
with Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, which, full 
disclosure, SSTI receives funding from MEP, so a strong 
familiarity with the work that they're doing on the local 
level. Part of what we try to do is see where there are 
opportunities for the MEP Centers to work with some of the 
entrepreneurship and technology commercialization activities 
that are occurring in a region. So, good example in Pittsburgh 
area of connecting entrepreneurs working on hardware startups 
with local manufacturers to help design the influence of that 
product so that it'll be manufactured here in the U.S., rather 
than in China.
     Mr. Tonko. And do you see these MEP Centers as necessary 
partners in building new regional innovation economies?
     Mr. Berglund. Oh, absolutely, and in particular the MEP 
Centers have a national reach, and--into rural areas of the 
country as well, where it's much more difficult for the 
technology economy to take root, so critical actors.
     Mr. Tonko. So what can we at the Federal level do to best 
support these programs so that they can continue to benefit the 
communities in which they are located?
     Mr. Berglund. Well, I would say the--I think one next step 
is on this regional technology hubs legislation that the 
Senate's approved, that, as Chairwoman Stevens has talked 
about, there's more of an intentionality with this program on 
creating a whole innovation ecosystem. So part of what the 
Federal Government has done well is in funding individual 
programs that support individual activities, manufacturing 
competitiveness, workforce development. The regional tech hubs, 
in my mind, would be able to tie all of these different 
elements together to deliver results in an area.
     Mr. Tonko. And in your testimony you mentioned that 
evaluation requirements for new investments in technology hubs 
should follow the lead of the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership, and some of the NSF funded centers that do these 
given evaluations annually, what do you think the MEP is a good 
model for--why do you think they're a good model for evaluating 
programs that invest in regional innovation economies?
     Mr. Berglund. In part because it's ingrained in the MEP 
system culture that the evaluation is going to happen. It's 
going to be an external evaluation, where external evaluators 
are contacting the companies to get the results. And MEPs also, 
historically, have been interested in experimenting with 
different forms of evaluation as well.
     Mr. Tonko. Thank you so much. Madam Chair, I yield back.
     Chairwoman Stevens. Great questions, thank you. And with 
that we will turn to Ranking Member Frank Lucas.
     Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chair. Secretary Pollard, in 
some estimates Oklahoma currently ranks near the bottom of 
States with respect to innovation. In your testimony you State 
that Oklahoma should prioritize resources to grow the airspace 
and autonomous systems, biotech, life sciences, and the energy 
diversification sectors to maximize their current investment, 
and I believe that's very logical. So could you discuss for a 
moment how can the Federal Government help connect the pieces 
to bolster innovation in these key sectors?
     Ms. Pollard. Thank you. Excellent question. I think that 
it's critical that we align funding with technology--regional 
centers have core capability. The State of Oklahoma being those 
three areas is critical, where we have a strong foundation, and 
linking up that adaptable capital such that it's available 
based upon the needs of that region or State, and also is 
available in alignment with legislative cycles so that matching 
can appropriately happen at a time when it's needed most. 
Funding lags innovation, and we need to figure out how to 
provide funding in a way that is more timely and meets the 
needs of those unique technology areas. I also think that 
focusing on public/private partnership is--how do we leverage 
relationships that exist around core technology areas? Whether 
that is with our military, whether that's with private 
companies, and align those kind of partnerships, and enable 
those with the right kind of funding sources to make them 
really go.
     I would also then just also add that, thinking about this 
in regard to rural and urban, as we begin to expand our urban 
centers out toward rural communities and create these 
technological centers, we begin to enable rural communities in 
a way that have not been in our past. And so how do we begin 
to--technology clusters or hubs outside of urban centers that 
begin to grow our rural capability and footprint, and improve 
how we are providing education opportunities to rural 
communities? Thank you.
     Mr. Lucas. Continuing with you, Secretary, STEM 
occupations are some of the fastest growing and higher paying 
jobs, compared to non-STEM occupations, and innovation 
economies rely on steady and a consistent flow of STEM workers 
to be successful. What can States do to attract the STEM 
workforce necessary to drive the economic growth?
     Ms. Pollard. I think that our STEM programs, and our 
programs through our higher ed and career tech might need to 
actually be aligned with the State strategies around technology 
development, or the region strategies around technology and 
development, so that you have a diverse workforce ready and 
able to respond as economic development opportunities are 
presenting themselves.
     One of the real opportunities is thinking about not just 
how do we create the best engineering program, but how do we 
also create engineering technician programs within career tech 
to provide support to workforce diversity within companies that 
are developing, or moving in or out of a State or region. And I 
think if we can do a better job of aligning those programs with 
capabilities of that region or State, we will have a much 
better output in regard to a workforce that's prepared, and 
ready, and able to support.
     Mr. Lucas. One last quick thought. You know Oklahoma has a 
large portion of the population residing in rural communities. 
How can we make sure that rural communities are not left 
behind, and have the same opportunities to grow their local 
economies when it comes to these issues?
     Ms. Pollard. Absolutely. I do believe it is creating 
technology pillars outside of urban centers, and looking at 
States and regional areas that have the capability to exploit 
what they already have in an urban center out to those rural 
communities. I think that also expands to tribal communities as 
well, which are really important, and sometimes overlooked, and 
I think it's one of the reasons Oklahoma is a very unique area 
for this kind of expansion that we're going through right now 
and at this time. So, you know, thinking about how you can 
leverage setting up clusters, technology hubs, in those urban 
and rural communities so that they're linked together through 
partnership.
     Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Secretary. Thank you, Madam Chair.
     Ms. Pollard. Um-hum.
     Chairwoman Stevens. All right, thank you. And with that, 
the Chair will recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Dr. 
Foster.
     Mr. Foster. Thank you. Audible and visible here?
     Chairwoman Stevens. Yeah, yeah. You're great.
     Mr. Foster. OK, great. All right. Well, first off, thank 
you for having this really important hearing. You know, this is 
something that I've personally struggled with for years. I 
guess I'm best known around here as being the, you know, the 
Ph.D. physicist in Congress, but I'm also a businessman who's 
actually accomplished pretty much exactly what we're all 
struggling to mass produce here. When I was 19 my little 
brother and I started this company in our basement with 500 
bucks from my parents, and it now manufactures about 70 percent 
of the theatre lighting equipment. Our company was born at the 
birth of the microprocessor era, so we had the bright idea of 
using that to control theatre lights.
     And so our company now, you know, employs about 1,500 
people, and manufactures in suburban Madison, Wisconsin. And 
the location of our company is an interesting--well, it's 
something that we've been thinking about since its very birth. 
It was born--our company was born because of the University of 
Wisconsin, where a lot of the intellectual property came from, 
and my brother and I got heavily subsidized educations from the 
State of Wisconsin, that they've collected on many times. But a 
lot of the touch labor for our manufacturing comes from the 
nearby rural areas. And so, for example, our--one of our 
biggest assembly factories is in Mazomanie, Wisconsin, which I 
would bet I'm the only person who's heard of, but is a very 
nearby rural town.
     And so it strikes me, as we've thought of where to locate 
things, that the natural scale of this is commuting distance. 
You know, our--most of our R&D happens in the near suburb of 
Madison, where you can really get recent graduates. We've, you 
know, prospered with a chain of recent graduates who, you know, 
they had a spouse who was--had a high-tech job, and had to stay 
in Madison, or near Madison. And then the--when you're talking 
about, you know, the touch labor, you know, the good middle 
class jobs that everyone loves so much, those, you know, those 
happen and work best for people who can live in low-cost areas, 
with low-cost housing and so on, in nearby rural areas. But 
that's a very limited thing. When we think of the possibility 
of relocating our company to Northern Wisconsin, where you're 
many commuting distances away, it just stops working. When we 
think of, you know, it won't work because of, you know, all the 
reasons I just went through.
     So how do you think about what's realistically possible 
physically, in terms of how geographically dispersed we can 
really accomplish this when we're trying to combine, you know, 
a range of skills in this? Or what's the history of trying 
this? You know, Mr. Berglund, I thought you looked like you 
have the battle scars from, you know, a generation of efforts 
at this, and where--you know, what does--really works, and, you 
know, what should we be hoping for? What does success look 
like?
     Mr. Berglund. I think, Representative Foster, you 
described it very well. It's a very challenging issue, and I 
think the best connections--and maybe some of the other 
panelists will have more specific suggestions, but I think some 
of the research indicates that where we can make manufacturing 
connections between research hubs and rural areas, that is the 
opportunity for best connection in all rural--in rural areas. 
Manufacturing just plays such an important part in rural 
counties that being able to strengthen those rural 
manufacturers is critically important.
     Mr. Foster. Yeah--sort of divide rural into rural areas 
that are within--two commuting distances of, you know, a city, 
and those that are truly rural. You know, I represented, for 
years, extremely rural areas, and it was--you know, it's just 
tough sledding trying to get companies with tech needs to move 
into those extremely rural areas.
     Mr. Berglund. If I could--I would just say there are good 
examples of small companies in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 
in the central part of Pennsylvania, that maybe are $20 million 
in sales, which doesn't sound significant to people on the 
coast, but in terms of employment, is a significant employer in 
that region. So it's also keeping in mind what size company 
actually makes a difference in a region.
     Mr. Foster. And, Madam Chair, could I ask for 30 seconds 
for Dr. Fuchs to say what she had intended to?
     Chairwoman Stevens. Absolute----
     Dr. Fuchs. This is one of the reasons I believe we need to 
use procurement. We need to build to build, and procurement of 
futuristic infrastructure. If we did that in all rural areas, I 
believe that we start to create the jobs to rebuild skills. And 
I'm happy to talk about--I've been studying the offshoring of 
manufacturing for the majority of my career in shop floors, 
first here and then overseas, and--delighted to talk about that 
further. But I've become--come to believe that's essential.
     Mr. Foster. Thank you. Yield back.
     Chairwoman Stevens. Great. And, with that, Dr. Baird is 
recognized for 5 minutes of questioning, from the very nice 
State of Indiana.
     Mr. Baird. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens, appreciate that. 
And, Ranking Member Waltz, I really appreciate the opportunity 
to be a part of this important hearing, and I appreciate the 
witnesses all being here. And I appreciate the emphasis that 
many of our witnesses have expressed about the rural areas, and 
how significant their growth and development is, because I come 
and represent a large rural area in West Central Indiana, so I 
appreciate those comments. I guess my question will be directed 
to Secretary Pollard to start with.
     You know, I have Purdue University in my district. I have 
had the opportunity to see firsthand just how the regional 
innovation efforts benefit the Hoosier State, and directly 
affect the rest of the country. So just yesterday I met with a 
startup company. They were wishing to potentially set up a 
learning center associated with Purdue, and when I think about 
building regional innovation economies, companies like this and 
partnerships like this come to mind. They really wanted to have 
the access to students, faculties, laboratories, and 
researchers, and in order to start a pipeline, as their company 
grows, to have employees to continue that continued growth of 
that company.
     So I guess my question comes down, Secretary Pollard--what 
do you think Congress should take into consideration to come up 
with realistic and sustainable proposals to support the 
development of these new regional innovation economies, 
particularly in these rural areas?
     Ms. Pollard. Certainly. I think it is investing in 
technology infrastructure outside of urban areas. We tend to 
look solely at urban areas, or the large population areas 
where, you know, technology has already been developed. One of 
the examples we have here in Oklahoma is now this new Pandemic 
Center, where we chose to move our Public Health Lab and that 
Pandemic Center's establishment outside of Oklahoma City, about 
an hour and 15 minutes away to Stillwater, where there's still 
infrastructure from a higher ed perspective, but it begins to 
leverage the broader rural locations within the State, and 
fosters a center of collaboration. This facility is unique in 
that it is meant to be a shared resource facility not only for 
technology, but also for research and development and 
education. And so working on broader public health education 
programs for both degrees, as well as for continuing education. 
And so in this way, as we establish more of those across our 
State, whether that be in health tech, or whether that's in, 
you know, aerospace and autonomous, we create this opportunity 
to meet a broader group.
     I would also then add that I think that COVID-19 has 
taught us a lot. One of those is the opportunity for virtual 
learning and virtual collaboration, as we are doing today, and 
so ensuring that broadband infrastructure is across all of our 
rural regions to enable that kind of learning and collaboration 
is critical.
     Mr. Baird. Well, thank you for that. And you know, one 
other thing that you mentioned here today is the fact that 
animal agriculture and animal research can be an important 
aspect of contributing to the kind of technology that we need 
in other areas, so I really appreciated you mentioning that. I 
think I have about 1 minute left, Madam Chair, and I'd like to 
go to Dr. Berglund, because he mentioned the rural areas as 
well, and the emphasis there. So I just give you the 
opportunity to stress the points that you made in that area.
     Mr. Berglund. Yeah. I think one point that I haven't made 
yet, but I should mention, is the original proposal on those 
regional technology hubs was for maybe eight to ten hubs 
located in the U.S. And I have to say, we endorsed the original 
legislation, but we did it somewhat unenthusiastically because 
of that. We like this version of the legislation because it 
doesn't put a limit on the number of hubs, so rural areas 
should be able to benefit from it, smaller metro areas should 
be able to benefit from it, as long as they're focused on the 
activity areas outlined in the legislation.
     Mr. Baird. Thank you. And I apologize for not being able 
to get to the other two witnesses, but, Madam Chair, I yield 
back.
     Chairwoman Stevens. Yeah. Well, this is absolutely one of 
the instances where 5 minutes for questions with this fabulous 
group just does not seem like enough. And, with that, allow me 
to recognize Congresswoman Ross from the wonderful State of 
North Carolina for 5 minutes of questioning.
     Ms. Ross. Thank you very much Madam Chair, and I agree. I 
have seven questions, and somehow I don't think we're going to 
get to all of them. But thank you, and thank you to the Ranking 
Member for holding this very important hearing today. I 
represent a district that includes much of the Research 
Triangle Park (RTP) in North Carolina, the largest research 
park in the United States, and a premiere global innovation 
center, but it wasn't always that way. The Triangle now is an 
ecosystem of hundreds of companies, government agencies, 
academic institutions, startups, and nonprofits that work in 
concert to attract talent, bolster the local economy, provide 
research, and lead on clean energy.
     Last week I held a roundtable in my district on regional 
innovation, and the beginning of the park, when really the 
people from our institutions of higher education were going to 
other States, and so it was created to avoid the brain drain 
from our institutions of higher education, including our HBCUs 
(historically Black colleges and universities), because we have 
a very strong HBCU network. And, as a matter of fact, the 
former mayor of Durham, who came back to North Carolina 
entirely because IBM was in RTP, talked about how our African-
American scholars left the South in the 1950's and 1960's, and 
it was only things like the Research Triangle Park that brought 
them back.
     The success is due to the combination, though, of the 
universities, local government, just giving land, unused land, 
setting up the infrastructure for that, and then, of course, 
our business community. And one of the things they pointed out 
is that, in order to succeed in the future, there were two 
things they emphasized, and one was from a former mayor of 
Raleigh, that people no longer want to drive to a big office 
park where there's not even anywhere to have lunch, and they--
what they want is a live, work, play environment. It does not 
have to be in the center city, but the center city will draw 
the people because it has the stuff there. So now Research 
Triangle is reinventing itself by adding housing, places to 
eat, places to exercise. So that was one thing. The second 
thing is having that talent pipeline that comes from our people 
starting K through 12. So not just the universities, but having 
kids get interested in things like robotics, and particularly 
reaching out to communities of color and women to create that 
pipeline. Those were the two big things that were identified.
     And we know it's a success now, but it wasn't initially a 
success, so I'd like any of the folks to respond to this. We 
would love for people to learn from what happened in the 
Research Triangle Park, but, make no mistake, we're still 
needing to reinvent ourselves, and attract that indigenous 
pipeline of talent. So any of you to respond to this and how it 
can help others?
     Ms. Nas. I'd be happy to take that one, Representative 
Ross. Thank you for the question, and thank you for 
acknowledging that we have to create that foundation at a very 
young age. I mean, to use a sports analogy, you don't expect 
somebody to become an NFL football player having touched a 
football for the first time when they're 25 years old, right? 
So how is it that we're going to expect our youth, when they 
grow up, to be able to become innovators and commercialize 
technology if they haven't been exposed to it at an early age? 
And that's exactly why we developed the curriculum we did, 
knowing the importance of exposure to STEM curriculum, of 
innovation and entrepreneurship curriculum, at a young age. But 
the gap there was really thinking about the economics and the 
business that goes with STEM education, because you can be an 
innovator, but you may not know the business aspect of 
innovation, so that's part of reasons to develop that.
     Ms. Ross. And it--yeah, it looked like Secretary Pollard 
had something to say.
     Ms. Pollard. Yeah. I would just like to add that I think 
there's a huge opportunity for K through 12 educators to 
partner with, you know, the private sector to really develop, 
you know, boot camps, science and technology boot camps, where 
students can get immersed in what is happening out in the 
commercial world, and understand how they can apply learning to 
that, and also help set the stage for them making their choices 
as they move to, you know, that next degree that they're 
interested in pursuing post-K through 12.
     Ms. Ross. Thank you, Madam Chair, I yield back, but I look 
forward to getting to ask my other six questions at some other 
time.
     Chairwoman Stevens. Yes, well said, Ms. Ross. And, with 
that, allow me to recognize fellow Michigander Mr. Peter Meijer 
for 5 minutes of questions.
     Mr. Meijer. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Ranking Member 
Waltz, and to all of our experts here today for joining us. I 
am excited on this topic. Just yesterday oversaw, and was there 
for the delivery of two world class cyclotrons to the Michigan 
State University College of Human Medicine in downtown Grand 
Rapids, so--I will not bore you with the details of the 
theragnostics cancer tracing and remediation technology that's 
being pioneered, but when we start to talk about some of these 
regional innovation efforts taking place outside of those 15 
counties that were mentioned in the beginning remarks.
     You know, coming from a place that can be derided 
frequently as flyover country, it's very important that, you 
know, we don't have that sense of failure to recognize how 
smaller companies, you know, the $20 million company in the 
Upper Peninsula that Mr. Berglund mentioned, that can be vital 
to that economy, but also can create really positive network 
effects, where you can have that intermixing of research and 
technology, of applied and basic efforts, and figuring out how 
to better--not just commercialize, but hopefully lead to some 
really impressive innovation as well. So I'm excited to boast 
and brag about the great things happening in Michigan's Third 
District out here, but I also wanted to ask Ms. Nas, again, a 
fellow Michigander on this panel, and--wanted to get your 
perspective from Flint. You know, would love to have these be 
questions we go over in a Committee hearing room in D.C., but I 
think we're both in Michigan for this, but on other sides of 
the State.
     You know, in this Committee we're very focused on the 
importance of STEM education, obviously, and this has come up 
in conversations before. You know, one of the key elements that 
we've been missing, and this comes up time and again in my 
conversations with employers who are in these more research-
oriented fields, is how to build out that pipeline of students, 
how to get that interest at an early age. Some are already 
going into, you know, middle schools to try to encourage 
students to be thinking about pursuing a career in science, 
showing them graduate students, you know, professionals who 
look like them, who have gone through that same experience to 
show them what is possible, and show them how they can kind of 
get to that point. But how do we, from an EDA standpoint, or 
from a Federal Government standpoint, continue to support and 
create that culture of encouraging innovation just from those 
earliest years on, and from all corners of the community as 
well?
     Ms. Nas. Thank you, Representative Meijer. I applaud what 
you're doing in your district as well. You have a lot of really 
creative innovation programs in your district. It's a good 
point. I think we need more support of the K-12 level to 
provide curriculum, to provide opportunities for our K-12 
educators, particularly in elementary schools, to create 
curriculum, to implement curriculum, during their school day 
that allows students to learn the innovation mindset, to 
establish that foundation at a very, very young age. Similar to 
learning a foreign language, let's start early. Let's do the 
same thing with innovation, and I would say economics as well, 
and entrepreneurship. Because, again, with those skills the 
kids learn about critical decisionmaking. They learn to think 
as entrepreneurs, as businesspeople. They learn how to build 
teams. They learn how to pivot, if their business idea doesn't 
work. Those are skills that will carry with them throughout 
their entire life, even if they don't wind up starting a 
business--I think teachers need that.
     We developed our curriculum so that it would correspond 
with what teachers already need to teach during the school day, 
because we realize that teachers are already overburdened with 
all the content they have to teach, so I integrated very 
carefully State of Michigan content standards within that Young 
Sharks curriculum. We need to do that. We need to bridge that 
gap in between STEM education, and then that business/economic/
entrepreneurship part of it. We need to put those two together, 
and encourage teachers to do the same thing.
     Mr. Meijer. And then you touched on half of what was going 
to be my follow-up question, but just the other half--I mean, 
what are the best practices to leverage, you know, the 
involvement of the private sector in that as well, as one of 
those likely career path opportunities?
     Ms. Nas. So one thing we like to do is we like to bring 
entrepreneurs, business owners, industry right into the 
classroom, whether that's our K-12 students, students on campus 
here, or with the business boot camp that we do out in the 
community. We always try to have a local innovator serve as a 
mentor to whatever age group we're working with. I think it's 
key for people to be able to see people doing that work that 
they could be doing in the future, or that they're already 
doing. So if you can see somebody like you doing it, you know 
that you can do it.
     Mr. Meijer. Yeah. And the mentorship aspect is critically 
important, and I appreciate that. And, with that, Madam Chair, 
I yield back. Thank you.
     Chairwoman Stevens. Fabulous. With that, I want to 
recognize a Member of the Committee for 5 minutes of questions 
who I brag about being on this Committee, and that is Ms. Gwen 
Moore from the other Great Lakes State of Wisconsin.
     Ms. Moore. Well, thank you so much, Madam Chair and 
Ranking Member, and I just--and other Members of the Committee, 
who have asked such excellent questions. It's been really a 
treat there--here this morning. I'm going to try to get in as 
many questions as I can. And, Mr. Berglund, you mentioned in 
your written testimony that the Water Council in Milwaukee, 
Wisconsin was an example of these research technology regional 
hubs, and I would like you to lean into--and, you know, these 
are huge corporations that have formed this, but talk about the 
importance of the involvement of the EDA, the involvement--and, 
you know, bursting the myth somehow that the private sector can 
just do this on its own without government support. And, 
Professor Fuchs, I also--you know, you were--you lacked in 
enthusiasm in your testimony, but I did get you wanted to 
collaborate, collaborate, invest in infrastructure, invest in 
intelligentsia, invest in technology, invest in economic 
development. What do you say to people who say that we are in a 
deficit situation, and we can't afford to invest? And, Ms. Nas, 
I want you to close us out by talking about those who are left 
behind. And you don't have to mention Dan Kildee, we already 
know he's left behind. And I would yield for those responses.
     Mr. Berglund. I--you've given three questions. I will try 
and take no more than a minute so that the other panelists can 
respond. I think the Water Council's a great example of the 
private sector coming together initially and saying, ``We have 
common problems, we need to work on those'', but recognizing 
that they needed to bring in government partners as well. And 
so, for the Water Council specifically, they benefited from 
funding from SBA in the Regional Innovation Clusters Program. 
Part of the strength of that program is that it was a 5-year 
worth funding commitment that gives more of a ramp to be able 
to spend the money. One of the disadvantages of current EDA 
projects is they tend to be shorter term projects, and so can't 
have the sustained impact. With that, I will yield to the other 
panelists.
     Dr. Fuchs. If we don't invest, we're not going to have the 
revenues to get out of the deficit. That would be my answer, 
very, very short. And then I'm going to give two short 
examples. The one is, in advanced semiconductors, our research 
looked at Beyond CMOS (complementary metal-oxide-
semiconductor), the ability to continue computing. That led to 
50 percent of growth in the United States and worldwide in the 
1990's, the--Moore's Law. We are spending an order of magnitude 
less today on solving that problem, which is a sort of basic 
physics level challenge that needs to make its way rapidly to 
commercialization, than we were spending on 1 to 3 year 
equipment upgrading under--so we're, like, not spending the 
right orders of magnitude, and that was an--we had access to 
the archives. That was an industry internal dialog.
     But the second is on infrastructure. Our infrastructure is 
getting a grade of D, right? So when I travelled just now 
through Pennsylvania, up north, there are houses there that 
don't have broadband, there are houses--I mean, our electric 
grid is not at its latest--it's not ready for--our 
infrastructure is not ready for climate disaster. We have a 
road that's lower than the river here in Pittsburgh. We need to 
invest to have the platform and the worker skills to innovate 
off of.
     Ms. Nas. Thank you for the question, Representative. I 
think it's really important that we remember that if we keep 
leaving people out, we can't have sustainable economic growth. 
We can fund programs, sure, but if we leave people out, it's 
not sustainable. That could be a neighborhood entrepreneur who 
enters, but gets lost in the system. Or it might be a high 
school student in Flint who isn't aware of the full menu of 
opportunities that are available. Maybe that person doesn't 
know about cybersecurity programs, for example. And if we don't 
continue to train and to provide opportunities, then there's no 
way that we can continue the economic growth that we're all 
hoping to attain.
     Ms. Moore. Our legislation needs to reflect those values. 
We can't just trust that people are going to give people the 
opportunity. We've got to be really intentional about it.
     Ms. Nas. Yeah, I agree with you on that, and it's 
difficult, and it takes time. Many of you have mentioned it 
today that, you know, first of all, it's not one-size-fits-all. 
We need the very large investments, and then sometimes we need 
some of the smaller investments. And we know that the payoff 
might not be today, but if we can establish that foundation for 
innovation, I do believe the payoff will come in 20 years.
     Ms. Moore. Thank you, and I yield back, Madam Chair.
     Chairwoman Stevens. Great. We're through with questions. 
I'd be open to doing another round, if anybody on the other 
side of the aisle wants to do it, or we can close, and just, 
you know, maybe, you know, kind of wrap it up in conversation. 
You know, we were supposed to go to noon, so we've got about 22 
minutes left, but I don't know if Rep. Baird or Rep. Meijer 
would want to do another--you're going to--Dr. Baird, are you 
OK with questions?
     Mr. Baird. I'm OK.
     Chairwoman Stevens. OK, good. Great. Well--and we've made 
a bunch of new friends, which is wonderful, so--and, you know, 
this is just the start of our process in the house, and we want 
to thank Mr. Berglund for bringing up what's cooked out of the 
Endless Frontiers Act in this regard because, you know, for 
maybe the first time ever, the Senate's, you know, taken lead 
and doing the work on this, and that's, you know, nice to see. 
We've been at this for years, and we'll see what they kick over 
to us, and this hearing's going to be very, very instrumental, 
not only in terms of how we think through addressing and 
answering some of these incredible challenges that we are 
facing as a nation, responding to a chip shortage, turbulence 
coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic, and our supply chain writ 
large, but also how we continue to harness the capabilities of 
American innovation across the board. Not overlooking any 
region or any population, but harnessing the talent writ large, 
and then also determining, from our Federal perch, making the 
recommendation as authorizers, what we should invest as a 
nation into these innovation ecosystems.
     It came up certainly in Dr. Fuchs's statement about the 
competition that we are in with China. Mr. Berglund also 
touched on this. It's been a sincere privilege to have an area 
that is incredibly diversified, that has overcome some of the, 
you know, effects of deindustrialization, while also remaining 
committed to industrialization, with Ms. Nas being here from 
Flint. And then, certainly, very profound to hear from 
Secretary Pollard, who, from her perch in Oklahoma, is 
connected to Silicon Valley, and playing the game with Silicon 
Valley while she continues to harness the full capabilities of 
a State with incredible assets like Oklahoma.
     And so what we're going to do is we're going to have the 
record remain open for 2 weeks for additional statements from 
Members, and I really encourage the Members to include these 
statements, and ask additional questions, because we're going 
to go back to this record. I know, as Chair, I go back to the 
record, particularly when we're stitching up in amendments and 
passage of bills through our Subcommittee into the Full 
Committee, and, you know, we're continuing to encourage the 
public engagement with what we are doing in this Committee, 
because certainly it feels as though we are so polarized and 
stuck as a Federal lawmaking body, that--all folks need to do 
is look at what we are accomplishing, and achieving, and 
deliberating on here on the Science Committee, as we have great 
representation throughout this country, and certainly the Great 
Lakes region, as we answer these questions, and make the 
proposals of the day about how America will continue to 
innovate.
     Certainly that has been a part of our 21st century plight, 
and it has been one whopper of a start to this century, with 9/
11, a Great Recession, and this pandemic. But coming out of all 
of these things, our plight of innovation has not only doubled 
down through, you know, the principles of Moore's Law, but has 
continued to transform the global economy. So we are dedicated 
and committed to continuing to ensure the success of regions 
across this country. We thank you all for being here. I'm going 
to excuse the witnesses; I'm going to gavel us out. The hearing 
is now adjourned. Thank you all so much.
     [Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the Subcommittee was 
adjourned.]

                                Appendix

                              ----------                              


                   Answers to Post-Hearing Questions




                   Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Mr. Dan Berglund


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


Responses by Professor Erica R.H. Fuchs

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


Responses by Ms. Paula Nas

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


Responses by Hon. Elizabeth Hutt Pollard

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                              [all]