[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 29, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S600-S604]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Nelson):
S. 1970. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify
safe harbor requirements applicable to automatic contribution
arrangements, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Retirement
Security Act of 2014, legislation I am sponsoring with my good friend,
the senior Senator from Florida and the chairman of the Special
Committee on Aging. Our bill would encourage small employers to offer
retirement plans, encourage employees to save more for their
retirement, and ensure that low- and middle-income taxpayers are able
to claim tax benefits for retirement savings already authorized in law.
I thought it was interesting last night that the President, in his
speech, highlighted what is a growing problem in this country; that is,
that people who have not saved sufficiently to have a comfortable
retirement.
The legislation we are introducing today is an outgrowth of our work
together on the Special Committee on Aging. Last fall, the committee
conducted a hearing on retirement security, where we heard from
witnesses that far too many American seniors have real reason to fear
that they will outlive their savings. According to the nonpartisan
Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, there is an estimated
$6.6 trillion gap between the savings American households need to
maintain their standard of living in retirement and what they actually
have. That is an enormous gap that speaks to the fact that we need to
shine a light on this problem.
Nationally, one in four retired Americans has no source of income
beyond Social Security--in Maine, the number is one in three. Four in
ten seniors rely on that vital program for 90 percent of their
retirement income. Yet Social Security provides an average benefit of
just $1,294 per month--less than $16,000 per year. It is hard to
imagine stretching those dollars far enough to pay the bills--certainly
a ``comfortable retirement'' is out of the question.
According to a Gallup survey published in 2012, more than half of all
Americans are worried they will not be able to maintain their standard
of living in retirement, up sharply from 34 percent two decades ago.
They are right to be concerned: projections published in 2010 by the
Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) show that nearly half of
``Early Boomers''--those between the ages of 56 and 62 when the study
was conducted--are at risk of not having enough money to pay for basic
costs in retirement, including uninsured health care costs.
There are many reasons for the decline in retirement security facing
American seniors, including the severity of the recent financial
crisis, rising health care costs, the need for long-term care, and the
fact that Americans are simply living far longer than they did in the
past. The shift from employer-based ``defined benefit'' plans--
pensions--to ``defined contribution'' plans like 401(k)s, also has
played a role.
Another contributing factor we found is that employees of small
businesses are much less likely to participate in employer-based
retirement plans. According to a recent GAO study, more than half of
the 42 million Americans who work for businesses with fewer than 100
employees lack access to a work-based plan to save for retirement. Cost
and complexity are among the reasons plans are not more widely offered
by small businesses.
Chairman Nelson and I believe that making it easier for smaller
businesses to provide access to retirement plans for their workers
would make a significant difference in the financial security for many
Americans. That is why the bill we are introducing today focuses on
reducing the cost and complexity of retirement plans, especially for
small businesses, and on encouraging individuals to save more for their
retirement. Let me describe some of the provisions of our bill:
First, our bill would allow small businesses to enter into multiple
employer plans (MEPs) to jointly offer retirement programs to their
employees. This allows small companies to share the administrative
burden of a retirement plan, which helps to lower costs. Current law
discourages the use of MEPs because it requires a connection, or
``nexus,'' between unrelated businesses in order to join a MEP, such as
membership in the same trade association. Our bill would waive the
nexus requirement for businesses with fewer than 500 employees. So as
not to discourage growth, our bill provides a long phase-out, under
which businesses are not automatically disqualified from a MEP when
they hire their 500th employee.
Second, our bill makes joining a MEP a more attractive option for
small businesses. Under current law, if one employer in a MEP fails to
meet the minimum criteria necessary for retirement plans to obtain tax
benefits, all employers and their employees could lose their tax
benefits. These benefits are substantial. For employees, they include
delaying the taxation of income contributed to a plan until funds are
withdrawn. For employers, plan disqualification could result in limited
[[Page S601]]
deductions and a higher tax burden. Our bill directs Treasury to issue
regulations to address this uncertainty, and protect members of a MEP
from the failure of one bad apple to meet its obligations.
Third, our bill reduces the cost of maintaining a retirement plan.
Current law requires that participants in a retirement plan receive a
variety of notices. Our bill would direct Treasury to simplify,
clarify, and consolidate these required notices, which creates savings
that can be passed on to employers.
As ranking member of the Special Committee on Aging, I have heard
countless stories of retirees whose savings did not go as far as they
anticipated. Adequate savings reduce poverty among our seniors during
what should be their golden years. As the HELP Committee noted in a
July 2012 report, elder poverty also increases Medicare and Medicaid
costs and strains our social safety net. Giving those not yet at
retirement age more opportunities to save, and to save more, may help
to ease this additional burden on entitlement programs that already are
projected to be unsustainable.
The Retirement Security Act of 2014 encourages those still in the
workforce to save more for retirement. Retirement plans are often
designed to comply with existing safe harbors to prevent the IRS from
challenging the tax benefits that flow to employees and employers. The
existing safe harbor for so-called ``automatic enrollment'' plans
effectively caps employee contributions at 10 percent of annual pay,
with the employer contributing a ``matching'' amount on up to 6
percent. Our bill creates an additional safe harbor for these plans
that would allow employees to receive an employer match on
contributions of up to 10 percent of their pay. Employees would be able
to contribute more than 10 percent, albeit without an employer match
for contributions above 10 percent.
I recognize that businesses that choose to adopt a plan with this new
optional safe harbor may face additional costs due to the increased
employer match. That is why our bill helps the smallest businesses--
those with fewer than 100 employees--offset this cost by providing a
new tax credit equal to the increased match.
I wish to emphasize that the new retirement plan options for
businesses included in our bill are just that--options. No business,
large or small, would be required to offer a retirement plan under the
Retirement Security Act of 2014. Some firms, facing an uncertain
economy and rising health care costs, may choose to spend their limited
resources elsewhere. Accordingly, our bill ensures that current
measures to encourage savings are functioning as they were intended.
One such measure is the so-called ``saver's credit,'' which reduces the
tax burden on low- and middle-income individuals who contribute to
retirement plans, including IRAs and 401(k) plans. Yet this credit
cannot be claimed on a Form 1040EZ, which is used by individuals with
income under $100,000. A 2013 survey found that only 23 percent of
people with household incomes of less than $50,000 per year, the group
most likely to qualify, was even aware of the saver's credit. To
address this, our bill directs Treasury to make the credit available on
Form 1040EZ.
In light of the positive effects this bill would have in
strengthening retirement security for millions of Americans, I urge my
colleagues to join Chairman Nelson and me in supporting the Retirement
Security Act of 2014. I am very pleased we have a number of groups that
have endorsed our bill. I expect to have more to say about that next
week. But at this point I encourage my colleagues to take a look at the
hearing that Chairman Nelson and I held in the Special Committee on
Aging that focused the spotlight on this problem. We simply have too
many of our seniors who are in their retirement years without
sufficient funds for a comfortable retirement, and that can and should
change.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, first of all, I thank my coleader of the
committee, the great Senator from the State of Maine, who has been not
only a great leader but also a terrific copartner as we try to offer
leadership to the Special Committee on Aging.
We are literally trying to make bipartisanship work. It is only
because of folks such as Senator Collins that this is working and, as a
result, we have a terrific committee. The members participate, they
come, they are engaged, they ask the questions of the witnesses. As
Senator Collins said, as a result of one of these hearings, under her
leadership, she suggested putting together this important piece of
legislation.
Our committee held a hearing last fall called ``The State of the
American Senior.'' We wanted to look at the financial security of the
average senior in retirement. We didn't like what we heard. Fewer than
half of the workers even have access to a retirement plan, and those
numbers shrink when we talk about employees who work for small
businesses. One-third of the private sector employees work at small
businesses, and nearly 72 percent of businesses with under 100
employees offer no savings plan. I will repeat that: Of businesses
under 100 employees, 72 percent do not offer a savings plan.
So what do seniors then end up with? They rely on Social Security to
get by in retirement, and that is simply not enough money to pay for
housing and medical care and other expenses. Take, for example, my
State of Florida, where more than three in five people get half of
their retirement income from Social Security. Here is a shocker: One-
third of Floridians only receive Social Security income--one-third of
all of the 20 million people in Florida receive Social Security income.
That is all they receive is their Social Security.
So there is a problem that needs to be fixed. Too many people are
getting by with too little. So Senator Collins and I have come together
on this legislation aimed at increasing access to savings plans and
creating more opportunities for those in retirement, to put more money
aside ahead of their retirement.
Senator Collins explained it: We are going to try to pool all the
small businesses together with their resources to take advantage of the
economies of scale to create one plan, and it increases safe harbors
for things such as automatic enrollment and escalation contributions,
which have been shown as ways to get people to save more.
This is commonsense legislation. It is bipartisan. It is a great
privilege for me to work with Senator Collins on this legislation and
on our committee work.
______
By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Wyden):
S. 1971. A bill to establish an interagency coordination committee or
subcommittee with the leadership of the Department of Energy and the
Department of the Interior, focused on the nexus between energy and
water production, use, and efficiency, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, vast amounts of water are used every
day to produce vital fuels and to cool powerplants in the United
States. Without this water supply, most of our electricity would stop
flowing and our economy and other essential functions would come to a
complete stop. At the same time, a great deal of electricity is needed
to treat, transport, and convey water across the country not only to
support economic growth and well-being but also to sustain basic life.
These inseparable links of ``water for energy'' and ``energy for
water'' comprise the energy-water nexus.
I believe that the Federal agencies can and must do more to ensure
that we have the best possible data, technology, and know-how to ensure
that this nexus is well understood and continuously optimized to
sustain quality of life and promote economic growth. To that end, I am
introducing a bill today entitled ``The Nexus of Energy and Water for
Sustainability Act of 2014'' or the ``NEWS Act of 2014'' for short.
The NEWS Act instructs the Director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy to establish a committee or a subcommittee under the
National Science and Technology Council to coordinate and streamline
the activities of all Federal departments and agencies on energy-water
nexus issues. This new panel will be cochaired by the Secretaries of
Energy and Interior and will
[[Page S602]]
be tasked with identifying all relevant energy-water nexus activities
across the Federal Government; enhancing the coordination of effective
research and development activities, both ongoing and in the future;
working to gather and disseminate data to enable better practices; and
exploring relevant public-private collaboration. The bill also calls
for the Office of Management and Budget to submit to the relevant
congressional committees a so-called crosscut budget soon after
enactment of this act. The cross-cut budget will detail various
expenditures across the Federal Government related to energy-water
activities and will greatly assist in our coordination and streamlining
efforts.
I believe this is a strong bill that deserves to be considered and
passed in this Congress. I am grateful to Senator Wyden for sponsoring
it with me, and look forward to working with every member in this
Chamber to address these important issues.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1971
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Nexus of Energy and Water
for Sustainability Act of 2014'' or the ``NEWS Act of 2014''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
(2) Energy-water nexus.--The term ``energy-water nexus''
means the link between--
(A) energy efficiency and the quantity of water needed to
produce fuels and energy; and
(B) the quantity of energy needed to transport, reclaim,
and treat water .
(3) NSTC.--The term ``NSTC'' means the National Science and
Technology Council.
(4) Committee or subcommittee.--The term ``Committee or
Subcommittee'' means the Committee on Energy-Water Nexus for
Sustainability or the Subcommittee on Energy-Water Nexus for
Sustainability, whichever is established by section 3(a).
SEC. 3. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION COMMITTEE.
(a) Establishment.--The Director shall establish either a
committee or a subcommittee under the NSTC, to be known as
either the Committee on Energy-Water Nexus for Sustainability
or the Subcommittee on Energy-Water Nexus for Sustainability,
to carry out the duties described in subsection (c).
(b) Administration.--
(1) Chairs.--The Secretary of Energy and Secretary of the
Interior shall serve as co-chairs of the Committee or
Subcommittee.
(2) Membership; staffing.--Membership and staffing shall be
determined by the NSTC.
(c) Duties.--The Committee or Subcommittee shall--
(1) serve as a forum for developing common Federal goals
and plans on energy-water nexus issues;
(2) promote coordination of the activities of all Federal
departments and agencies on energy-water nexus issues,
including the activities of--
(A) the Department of Energy;
(B) the Department of the Interior;
(C) the Corps of Engineers;
(D) the Department of Agriculture;
(E) the Department of Defense;
(F) the Department of State;
(G) the Environmental Protection Agency;
(H) the Council on Environmental Quality;
(I) the National Institute of Standards and Technology;
(J) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
(K) the National Science Foundation;
(L) the Office of Management and Budget;
(M) the Office of Science and Technology Policy; and
(N) such other Federal departments and agencies as the
Director or the Committee or Subcommittee consider
appropriate; and
(3)(A) coordinate and develop capabilities for data
collection, categorization, and dissemination of data from
and to other Federal departments and agencies; and
(B) engage in information exchange between Federal
departments and agencies--
(i) to identify and document Federal and non-Federal
programs and funding opportunities that support basic and
applied research, development, and demonstration proposals to
advance the state of energy-water nexus related science and
technologies;
(ii) if practicable, to leverage existing programs by
encouraging joint solicitations, block grants, and matching
programs with non-Federal entities; and
(iii) to identify opportunities for public-private
partnerships, innovative financing mechanisms, and grant
challenges.
(d) Review; Termination.--At the end of the 10-year period
beginning on the date on which the Committee or Subcommittee
is established, the Director--
(1) shall review the activities of the Committee or
Subcommittee and determine the relevance and effectiveness of
the Committee or Subcommittee; and
(2) based on the determination made under paragraph (1),
may terminate the Committee or Subcommittee.
SEC. 4. CROSSCUT BUDGET.
Not later than 30 days after the President submits the
budget of the United States Government under section 1105 of
title 31, United States Code, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget shall submit to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on
Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Natural Resources of
the House of Representatives a report that contains--
(1) an interagency budget crosscut report that--
(A) displays the budget proposed, including any interagency
or intraagency transfer, for each of the Federal agencies
that carry out energy-water nexus projects for the upcoming
fiscal year, separately showing funding requested under both
preexisting authorities and under the new authorities granted
by this Act; and
(B) identifies all expenditures since 2011 by the Federal
and State governments on energy-water nexus projects;
(2) a detailed accounting of all funds received and
obligated by all Federal agencies and State agencies
responsible for implementing energy-water nexus projects
during the previous fiscal year;
(3) a budget for the proposed energy-water nexus projects
(including a description of the project, authorization level,
and project status) to be carried out in the upcoming fiscal
year with the Federal portion of funds for energy-water nexus
programs; and
(4) a listing of all energy-water nexus projects to be
undertaken in the upcoming fiscal year with the Federal
portion of funds for those projects.
______
By Mr. COONS (for himself and Mr. Rubio):
S. 1973. A bill to improve management of the National Laboratories,
enhance technology commercialization, facilitate public-private
partnerships, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a bill introduced
today--a bipartisan bill--a bill that will strengthen America's
innovation economy.
Over the last 60 years our national laboratories have served as
leading centers of research and discovery in America. Today we have 17
DOE labs charged with three broad research missions: science, energy,
and national security. Although they have grown and changed since their
founding to encompass much broader ranges of work and are successful in
carrying out their primary missions, labs are not fully optimized to
take part in today's innovation culture. That is a problem, because in
this century of rapid change, America's best competitive advantage
remains our capacity to innovate.
Over the coming months, I will be talking more about a few things
Congress can do to streamline and jumpstart our Nation's hubs of
discovery so that we can thrive as a 21st-century innovation economy.
At the top level, it will mean reauthorizing the America COMPETES Act
to reaffirm our commitment to the robust national strategy for science
and technology programs that will continue to be a critical
underpinning of American prosperity.
And one part of that is how our national labs operate, which is why
today Senator Rubio and I have introduced the America INNOVATES Act.
Already, our labs have incubated many groundbreaking innovations.
Their research has led to breakthroughs from new Melanoma and HIV/
AIDS treatments to IED detonators that can save the lives of our troops
in combat. And that research is critical because although the private
sector will continue to be a key source of innovation, the Federal
Government has and will continue to play a central role in advancing
innovation.
Why is that? Private markets, historically speaking, tend to
underinvest in R&D relative to the potential benefits to society. This
is especially true in the energy sector.
But, if there is a problem that I have heard since coming to
Congress, It is that too often, the great work of our scientists
doesn't translate to the marketplace.
Right now, too much groundbreaking science and too many innovative
ideas never leave the walls of our national labs, squandering enormous
potential in the commercial market.
Now, in our bill, we continue to support our labs' core mission. We
are
[[Page S603]]
not proposing anything drastic. What we are doing is modernizing the
labs for the 21st century--so ideas in the lab can more effectively
become innovations in the market. Luckily, we need only look to the
labs themselves for inspiration on how to do this.
We make two broad proposals.
First we are integrating the management of the Department of Energy's
science and energy programs to improve the linkages between basic and
applied sciences. This will allow the early stages of research and
development to be translated more efficiently, and it is something that
Secretary Moniz has signaled he supports and is moving forward on.
Second we are giving the national labs more power to work with the
private sector to ensure that more scientific discoveries can turn into
commercial breakthroughs.
Together, these steps would allow us to streamline the labs' work so
it can more quickly and effectively translate into the transformative
innovations that can create jobs and grow our economy.
Now, to explain what our proposals intend to achieve, I will walk
through what is known as the innovation pipeline, which shows how basic
science research can become a world-changing innovation.
First, I will use the example of the great work that scientists at
the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, CO, are doing to advance
cellulosic ethanol technologies.
One of our country's big challenges today is reducing our dependence
on foreign oil, and to do that we need new fuel options that we can
create here in America.
Cellulosic ethanol is an advanced biofuel with a lot of promise
because it is produced from abundant materials like grasses and wood
chips as well as other types of biomass and waste. And because these
materials are so abundant, cellulosic ethanol has the potential to
replace a significant portion of our Nation's petroleum consumption.
The challenge comes, however, because, unlike corn, these cellulosic
materials are made of complex starches that are harder to break down
into ethanol.
To make the promise of cellulosic ethanol a reality, we needed to
develop the enzymes and micro-organisms that could break down and then
ferment those complex starches.
That is where the innovation pipeline comes in. At the NREL in
Colorado, scientists started at this first step here--basic science.
Basic science is very fundamental, it is the study of the elementary
principles of the universe--really discovery level science.
Enzymes are large biological molecules that are nature's catalysts--
accelerating metabolic processes that sustain life.
To develop enzymes and micro-organisms capable of converting starchy
biomass into cellulosic ethanol, you need to start at the fundamentals
of biology and biochemistry. This includes studying the intricate
details of the relevant biochemical processes, as well as probing the
proteins and amino-acids that form the building blocks of enzymes down
to the submolecular level.
At this point, scientists can move into the applied science stage of
the pipeline. Applied research generally concerns translating those
basic, fundamental principles into an application.
In this example, scientists apply the insights gained from the
fundamental basic science stage to develop new enzymes with desired
performance traits such as high selectivity, specificity, and stability
to enable effective and efficient conversion of the complex starches
into ethanol.
Applied research can also include controlled lab-scale demonstrations
to test how effectively these newly developed enzymes and micro-
organisms can turrijsay, wood chips, into fuel.
Still in the lab and far from full commercial scale production, the
kinds of small discoveries that happen at the applied science level act
as an early demonstration that something new is possible.
At the applied research stage, we are still far away from creating
something ready for the market, but between these two stages our
scientists have gone from the basic science of how an idea may work to
actually demonstrating that it could work in practice.
At this point now, the private sector is more likely to see its
potential value. Our scientists have shown that the technology is
possible, and next we move to the commercialization and scaling and
deployment phases, where private investors and companies take the
technology our lab scientists have developed and make it a product that
can succeed in the market.
During the applied research stage at NREL, scientists were hard at
work showing that they really could produce cellulosic ethanol
efficiently and cheaply--eventually meeting their goal to make it price
competitive with conventional fuels in today's commercial market.
That is where we are right now with cellulosic ethanol. Companies
across the country, such as DuPont, Poet, and others, are currently
building plants to produce cellulosic ethanol at large scale and at
competitive prices.
So that is one model of public-private partnerships for innovation--
where the basic and applied science research can begin in the lab and
then be transferred to private sector companies who can create a
commercial product.
I had the opportunity last year to witness another model of public-
private partnerships for innovation at the Lawrence Berkeley National
Lab, which is home to the Advanced Light Source, or ALS. The ALS serves
thousands of researchers--from private sector scientists to university
researchers--who use light sources such as soft xrays, ultraviolet
light, and infrared light to conduct a wide range of scientific
experiments. Experiments at the ALS are performed at nearly 40 beam
lines that can operate simultaneously around the clock and year-round.
The facility's resources would be too expensive for any one company
to invest in alone, but by building a public facility that then is
partly sustained by fees and targeted infrastructure investments by
users, the ALS becomes a place where many different partners can come
to test new ideas and approaches.
In terms of the innovation pipeline, what the Berkeley Lab and its
ALS do is allow a diverse range of researchers to engage in various
stages of research under one roof. The unique capabilities offered at
the ALS also attract many industry partners and encourages productive
public-private collaboration.
A good example of this is the partnership between the lab and the
semiconductor industry.
Semiconductor technology is one of the most transformative scientific
breakthroughs of the 20th century. Semiconductors are at the heart of
what makes a computer work. Their constant advancement is what allows
us today to hold the computing power of last generation's supercomputer
in our pockets.
However, the manufacturing techniques previously used to produce new,
smaller, and more powerful semiconductor products aren't adequate to
build the next generation of nano-electronic devices.
So what has happened is a consortium of companies including Intel,
IBM, HP, and Dow Chemical--called SEMATECH--came together to leverage
the unique capabilities at the lab to advance semiconductor
manufacturing technology for next-generation electronics.
As the lab reports, ``[By] tapping into the Center's long term
expertise in short wavelength optics and the unique properties of the
ALS Synchotron facility, SEMATECH funded the development of the world's
highest resolution projection lithography tool and highest performance
[extreme-ultraviolet] microscope''--developments that were only
possible because of the facilities and expertise at the lab.
Having then developed new tools capable of manufacturing the next
generation of semiconductor devices, a company like Intel can take the
new technology and scale it up in their own plants.
Of course, there are many variations of public private partnerships
that our labs can and have utilized to take ideas from the lab to the
market. These two examples--cellulosic ethanol and the advancement of
semiconductor manufacturing technology--show us what is really possible
by working in partnership with our national labs.
[[Page S604]]
In our bill Senator Rubio and I are trying to expand the flexibility
and freedom of all our labs to innovate and build productive
partnerships so that every research project has the potential and
opportunity to eventually enter the market.
As we see here on the innovation pipeline, the payoff for all this
work doesn't come until the very end, so one of the best things we can
do is focus our policies to make the movement of ideas through the
pipeline as efficient as possible.
While there are plenty of areas where Senator Rubio and I disagree,
we have come together on the America INNOVATES Act because we both
agree that government has a role to play investing in the early
scientific research that can lead to innovations that change our world.
In this bill, we aren't talking about expanding government or calling
for new spending or regulation, we are talking about the early science
work that only government can fund because there isn't yet a clear
payoff for the private sector and finding out how to connect the
national labs and the private sector along this innovation pipeline in
a better and stronger way to deliver more products to the American
marketplace and the world markets.
Once again, I thank my Republican colleague Senator Marco Rubio. I
urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in supporting
this bipartisan innovation jobs bill.
____________________