Most of America's cities have not shared in the prosperity of recent decades. Almost all the economic gains were concentrated in a few metros, mostly on the Eastern seaboard or the Pacific coast. Many smaller cities, towns, and rural areas declined and decayed. Manufacturing was offshored, factories were shut down, people moved away, downtowns withered.

Thankfully, the heartland is at last getting full attention in Congress. Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Todd Young, R-Ind., have presented the United States Innovation and Competition Act to boost these overlooked areas as our economy recovers from the COVID pandemic.

Already approved by the Senate, this bipartisan legislation is awaiting action in the House of Representatives. Among its principal features is funding for the creation of innovation hubs across the country. Good-paying jobs, domestic manufacturing, and spin-off commercial activity are sure to follow.

Innovation is our nation's strong suit, our competitive advantage in today's global economy. Indeed, technology -- more advanced than anywhere else in the world -- has been our economic bedrock for a century. And if there is anything that the present supply chain crisis has taught us, it is that vital medicines and other strategic technology products, including computer chips, must be "Made in America."

Many policymakers, however, seem not to understand the critical role of technology start-ups, both in advancing U.S. technology and in spurring local economic growth. For decades, these and other small, emerging companies have generated many more new jobs than the corporate behemoths. These are the very companies the innovation hubs will incubate.

America's unique innovation ecosystem rests on a foundation of private capital investments. Venture firms and other investors fuel these start-ups and emerging companies, enabling their growth into tomorrow's successful industry leaders. Sometimes they expand on their own; at other times they are acquired by larger companies with established manufacturing and distribution capabilities. Either way, private capital is their fuel.

The Innovation and Competition Act would also increase federal funding for the basic science research that spawned new technologies, like the internet, in past times. That public investment has steadily eroded as a percentage of GDP in recent decades. The bill provides "catch up" funding that will help American industry keep pace with China and other competitors.

What the act does not do, alas, is to accompany the increase in public investment with encouragement of more private investment. Yes, more public funding for basic science is critical; but so is follow-on, privately funded commercialization. Studies show that for every public dollar provided, private companies invest many times more to develop and produce vital products and get them to consumers. For the new hubs to work well, incentives for the inherently risky private investments in tech innovation have to be attractive.

Until recently, the most effective incentives have come from the protection afforded by patents. Yet the unintended consequences of efforts to curb "patent trolls" have left America's patent system — previously the best in the world — in much-weakened condition.

That's why Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., the Senate's leading patent expert, introduced the STRONGER Patents Act to restore patent strength to what it was before some ill-fated "reforms" weakened the system last decade.

If and when the House of Representatives passes the Innovation and Competition Act and returns it to the Senate, it'd make sense to fold in the STRONGER Patents Act as an amendment. That'd stimulate more public-private partnerships, and ensure the economic growth is broadly shared across the country, and not just limited to coastal metros with a notable Big Tech presence.

Paul R. Michel served on the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from 1988 to his retirement in 2010, and as its chief judge from 2004 to 2010.