[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2236-2240]
[From the U.S. 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.

[[Page 2237]]

  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 
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.

[[Page 2238]]


  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 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

[[Page 2239]]

       (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 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.

[[Page 2240]]

  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.
  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.

                          ____________________