U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

66–202 2011

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HEALTHCARE & TECHNOLOGY 

THE CREATING JOBS THROUGH SMALL BUSINESS 

INNOVATION ACT OF 2011 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

UNITED STATES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

APRIL 7, 2011 

Small Business Committee Document Number 112–009 

Available via the GPO Website: http//www.fdsys.gov 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri, Chairman 

ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado 

CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee 

JEFF LANDRY, Louisiana 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

ALLEN WEST, Florida 

RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina 

JOE WALSH, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD HANNA, New York 

NYDIA VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York, Ranking Member 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

MARK CRITZ, Pennsylvania 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

YVETTE CLARKE, New York 

JUDY CHU, California 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

BILL OWENS, New York 

BILL KEATING, Massachusetts 

LORI SALLEY, Staff Director 

PAUL SASS, Deputy Staff Director 

BARRY PINELES, General Counsel 

MICHAEL DAY, Minority Staff Directory 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Ellmers, Hon. Renee ................................................................................................ 1 

Richmond, Hon. Cedric ............................................................................................ 2 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Glenn Norem, Executive Chairman, Totus Lighting Solutions, Inc., 

Lakeway, TX ......................................................................................................... 4 

Dr. Terry Brewer, President, Brewer Science, Inc., Rolla, MO ........................... 11 

Dr. Albert Link, Professor, Department of Economics, Bryan School of Business and Economics, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC ................................................................................................................ 16 

Dr. Scott Koenig, M.D., Ph.D., Chairman of the Board of Applied Genetics 

Technology Corporation & President and CEO of MacroGenics, Inc., Rockville, MD ............................................................................................................... 24 

APPENDIX 

Prepared Statements: 

Mr. Glenn Norem, Executive Chairman, Totus Lighting Solutions, Inc., 

Lakeway, TX ......................................................................................................... 7 

Dr. Terry Brewer, President, Brewer Science, Inc., Rolla, MO ........................... 13 

Dr. Albert Link, Professor, Department of Economics, Bryan School of Business and Economics, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC ................................................................................................................ 18 

Dr. Scott Koenig, M.D., Ph.D., Chairman of the Board of Applied Genetics 

Technology Corporation & President and CEO of MacroGenics, Inc., Rockville, MD ............................................................................................................... 27 

Statement for the Record: 

The Small Biotechnology Business Coalition ........................................................ 39 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

HEARING ON THE CREATING JOBS THROUGH 

SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION ACT OF 2011 

THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTHCARE AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2360, Rayburn House Office Building. Hon. Renee Ellmers [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Ellmers, Richmond and Peters. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Thank you all for being here with us this 

morning as we discuss legislative legislation to reauthorize the 

Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs. 

I would especially like to express my gratitude to each of the witnesses who have taken time out of their busy schedules to be with 

us today. And on a personal note I would also like to thank Chairman Graves for giving me the opportunity as a freshman to chair 

this Subcommittee. That was very generous of him and the staff as 

well. They are so incredibly helpful and it is an honor to be sitting 

in this position, especially since this is my very first Subcommittee. 

So thank you all. And I will remember you always very fondly. 

STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN ELLMERS 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Small businesses are a major driver of 

high technology innovation and economic growth in the United 

States generating significant new jobs, new markets, and high 

growth industries. In this era of globalization, optimizing the ability of small businesses to develop and commercialize new, highly 

innovative products is essential for U.S. competitiveness and national security. This is why programs like SBIR and STTR are so 

important. 

Created in 1982, the SBIR program was designed to increase the 

participation of small, high tech businesses in federal R&D endeavors. The driving force behind its creation was predicated upon the 

belief that while technology-based companies under 500 employees 

tended to be highly innovative, and innovation being essential to 

the economic well-being of the United States, these businesses 

were, excuse me, underrepresented in government R&D activities. 

By including qualified small businesses in the nation’s R&D effort, 

SBIR grants and contracts stimulate innovative new technologies 

to help agencies meet the specific research and development needs 

of the nation in a wide variety of areas, including health, energy 

solutions, and defense. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
2 

It has been said that nobody has a patent in good, new ideas. 

While that is true, it can be difficult for an innovator or a small 

company with limited resources to take that idea and manufacture 

it into a new product or process. Programs like SBIR provide a 

bridge between product conception and marketability, a step of 

vital importance for innovative ideas to become reality. The new 

technologies and discoveries that come out of this program go a 

long way to keep the United States competitive edge in the world 

marketplace. And the SBIR program is the kind of public-private 

partnership that is essential to the continued growth of our economy. 

In 2007, the National Research Council (NRC) of the National 

Academies of Science completed one of the most comprehensive examinations of the SBIR program. The study found that the SBIR 

program provides substantial benefits for participating small businesses at all agencies in a number of different ways. According to 

the NRC’s study, the SBIR program is a significant job creation engine and considerable factor in the founding of new companies, 

helps to provide partnering and networking opportunities for small 

businesses, and provides the impetus to start projects that otherwise would not have gotten off the ground. 

There is a very strong case for reauthorization of the SBIR and 

STTR programs. The discussion draft of legislation to reauthorize 

these programs that we have before us goes a long way toward 

modernizing and improving the SBIR and STTR programs. They 

have a proven track record of creating jobs, advancing innovative 

science in the marketplace, and solving federal agency problems. 

Our legislative goal is to strengthen these programs to ensure efficient use of taxpayer dollars that help create more jobs by targeting the best science. Moreover, the bill does not cost anything 

but rather sets aside 2.5 percent of all federal extramural research 

dollars for small businesses to compete for. Among other things, 

the draft would reauthorize the SBIR and STTR programs for three 

years, increase Phase I and Phase II award sizes for both programs, allow for greater participation of small companies regardless of their financial structure, and enhance data collection for the 

programs to help us provide accurate and consistent oversight. 

Again, thank you all for being here today. I am eager to hear the 

testimony of our witnesses and I look forward to working with you, 

Ranking Member Richmond and Chairman Graves and Ranking 

Member Vela ́zquez of the full Committee to reauthorize these important programs. 

I now yield to Ranking Member Richmond for his opening statement. 

[The information follows:] 

STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER RICHMOND 

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you, Chairwoman Ellmers. 

First, let me thank all of the witnesses for being here—Dr. 

Koenig, Dr. Link, Dr. Brewer, and Mr. Norem—for taking time out 

and coming to testify today on an issue that is very important and 

has the ability to continue to move this country forward not just 

in terms of innovation but the products that are created and the 

technology that is developed, make this country a better place, 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
3 

saves lives, and all of those things that are very important to us, 

not only that but it also creates jobs. So thank you for doing that. 

And Madam Chairwoman, small businesses have always been 

our nation’s greatest innovators, developing new products and technologies. Whether it is new computer software or lifesaving medicine, small firms are vital to the technological breakthroughs that 

keep America competitive. The Small Business Innovation Research program has been an important mechanism for enlisting 

small firms to meet the U.S. government’s research needs. 

In my home state of Louisiana, entrepreneurs are receiving SBIR 

grants from NASA to work on geographic mapping technologies 

from Homeland Security to improve disaster response and from the 

National Science Foundation to improve online distribution of video 

content. Just yesterday I met with the president of Tulane University, Dr. Scott Cowen, who is also in my district, that informed me 

that their commercialization efforts are currently underway at 

Tulane thanks to SBIR. 

In addition to Tulane in my district, the New Orleans Bio Innovation Center acts as a business incubator helping budding entrepreneurs turn ideas into products. The Bio Innovation Center is a 

cornerstone of Louisiana’s commitment to nurturing biotechnology 

within the state. It is a component entity of a larger leadership of 

the Greater New Orleans Biosciences Economic Development District, now referred to simply as the Bio District New Orleans. 

Beneficiaries of the work done in New Orleans’ Bio District have 

made it clear that a sustained, longer term of reauthorization of 

SBIR is a priority for their membership. It is also a priority for me. 

The discussion draft before the Committee represents an important first step in moving forward to reauthorize this initiative. How 

we go about modernizing SBIR will determine whether small firms 

continue making these kinds of valuable contributions to the American economy. As we develop this legislation and begin working 

with our Senate counterparts, we should keep a number of goals 

in mind for the program. 

I have a central focus when it comes to SBIR. It is vitally important to reach an agreement that prioritizes a long-term reauthorization. The frequent short-term reauthorizations are disruptive to 

the planning efforts of SBIR stakeholders. The program is a proven 

job creator and a growth engine for small business. It is time to 

move forward. 

I am satisfied that the draft bill, which we will be discussing 

today, mostly addresses my priorities with the SBIR program. I 

have identified other areas where I believe the bill could be 

strengthened. As the legislative process moves forward I warmly 

embrace the opportunity to work with my colleagues and our chairwomen on both sides to make sure that this piece of legislation can 

be one that the SBIR stakeholders are proud of. 

Madam Chairwoman, risk-taking and innovation are prized values in America’s entrepreneurial culture. Some of the most significant technological advancements that forever changed how we live 

our lives were developed not in the laboratories of big corporations 

but in the backyards and garages of entrepreneurs. The SBIR program is an important tool for fueling this creativity and in the 

process creating new jobs. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
4 

During the recession, while big companies were laying off its employees, it is estimated that the SBIR program helped spark the 

creation of more than 1,300 new enterprises. As the U.S. economy 

regains its footing, innovation will be crucial and SBIR grants can 

be a key ingredient in that equation. For all those reasons, it is important that while we are taking the painstaking care to reauthorize this program in a manner that works for our nation’s small 

businesses. 

I look forward to a thorough discussion today of the draft legislation and I want to thank the witnesses again for testifying. And 

with that, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back. 

[The information follows:] 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member. And it 

is going to be a pleasure serving on this Subcommittee with you. 

Thank you so much. 

If additional members have an opening statement prepared, I 

ask that they be submitted for the record. I would also like to take 

a moment to explain to you the timing light system. You will each 

have five minutes to deliver your testimony. The light will start out 

as green. When you have one minute remaining the light will turn 

yellow. Finally, it will turn red at the end of your five minutes. I 

ask that you try to keep to this time limit but I will be lenient if 

you are close to finishing. So, thank you. 

STATEMENTS OF GLENN NOREM, EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN, 

TOTUS LIGHTING SOLUTIONS, INC., ON BEHALF OF THE AUSTIN, TEXAS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; DR. TERRY BREWER, 

PRESIDENT, BREWER SCIENCE, INC.; DR. ALBERT LINK, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS, BRYAN SCHOOL OF 

BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, GREENSBORO; DR. SCOTT KOENIG, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT GREENSBORO, ON BEHALF OF THE BIOTECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY ORGANIZATION. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Okay. At this moment I would like to 

start off with Mr. Glenn Norem. He serves as executive chairman 

and cofounder of Totus Solutions. I am hoping I said that correctly. 

Okay. Incorporated. His company provides advanced lighting and 

security solutions for safety, security, and surveillance applications 

primarily to government agencies. Mr. Norem has also served as 

executive chairman of eeParts, Incorporated. He received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Sciences and System Engineering from Southern Illinois University and an M.B.A. from University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business. Thank you for being 

here today. 

STATEMENT OF GLENN NOREM 

Mr. NOREM. Thank you. Good morning, Chairwoman Ellmers 

and Ranking Member Richmond, members of the Subcommittee 

and ladies and gentlemen. It is an honor to be up here before you, 

and I commend your Committee for the contributions that you have 

had to the growth of our economy, the creation of new jobs, and the 

fostering of innovation in the United States. Thank you for the introduction. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
5 

Totus was founded in April of 2009. We manufacture intelligent 

lighting-based security platforms that are deployed and establish 

electronic security grids to protect the citizens of our country, 

strengthen our defenses, and to improve the response to incidents 

in their jurisdictions. I am also the founder of eeParts, a supply 

chain services company with operations in Texas and in China. I 

cofounded ViewCast prior to that, a provider of streaming and 

media technologies. Prior to ViewCast, I was general partner of two 

successful venture capital firms focused on early stage and startup investments. 

Totus was started by two serial entrepreneurs, again, to build 

these security platforms. It is an integration of secure wireless 

communications, video surveillance, and sensor monitoring arrays. 

The surveillance and sensor grids enable customers to provide an 

advanced level of physical security to their installations and superior response to incidents that occur in their jurisdictions. I am also 

here representing the Austin Chamber of Commerce. The Austin 

Chamber represents a five county region in central Texas and more 

than 2,400 businesses with a wide range of industries and sizes. 

Entrepreneurs, innovation, and access to capital. Certainly not 

all small businesses require investment capital from third party resources to be successful, and many successful firms have been built 

solely with money from friends and family and from individual investors. However, many emerging growth companies require significantly more capital and will receive that from one or more venture capital funds. It has been my professional experience that the 

relationship between entrepreneurs and the venture capital professionals has contributed to unparalleled success of innovation and 

jobs for our nation in the last 30 years. 

The seeds of our nation’s venture capital industry actually began 

with the Small Business Administration and their SBIC programs 

in the 1970s. Venture-backed companies generally benefit from 

both the venture capital’s money, their investment, and the business development expertise of their professionals as the entrepreneurs strive to grow our businesses in today’s fast paced, globally competitive environment. 

The SBIR program has fostered innovation and new job creation, 

and it is important to Totus as it is with many other small businesses in this country because it keeps us and enables us to stay 

close to our federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense, 

Department of Homeland Security, to create solutions to meet the 

critical needs of their organizations and the missions to protect our 

citizens. 

The SBIR program is a powerful catalyzer for innovation and a 

driver of the American economy. As an example of that, my cofounder and colleague, Steven Chen previously founded 3eTI and 

was a recipient of Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III SBIR grants 

which led to the invention and commercialization of the first FIPS– 

140 secure wireless technologies, products that were used by the 

Department of Defense and other U.S. agencies. Historically, our 

country has benefitted greatly from the successes of our entrepreneurs as they grew in new businesses, high tech businesses 

with innovative products creating new companies, new industries, 

and new jobs that have been proven to be vital to our economy. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
6 

New company formation and access to capital has been difficult 

in the last few years. To fulfill our ambitious goals, new companies 

like Totus require both talent and investment capital. In the formative stages, the investments need to be secured before the firm recruits talent. Unfortunately for Texas, the current SBIR rules 

handicap our access to investment capital by prohibiting our participation in the SBIR program if we accept venture capital investment. 

While we have been successful in raising debt and equity capital 

from individuals, the high visible stock market crashes of the last 

decade have had a negative effect on individual investors that have 

historically provided angel capital. What that means for Totus, like 

many other small businesses hindered by the current situation, is 

that we spend more executive time and resources raising capital 

which translates to slower growth for our businesses and limits the 

creation of new jobs. 

In conclusion, it is most confounding to me that the venture capital-supported companies have been barred from participating in 

the SBIR program because the entrepreneurs, the SBIR program, 

and the venture capital community at-large have been solidly 

aligned in their interest in commercializing technology, in their 

missions with spurring innovation, and in the growth of new, commercially successful businesses. It is well understood that entrepreneurs and their companies are dependent on access to capital, 

and no other single factor more thoroughly determines whether a 

business will be successful. 

I trust that my comments have both reaffirmed both the value 

of the SBIR program and the need to remove barriers or obstacles 

to access to capital for entrepreneurs as we seek to secure capital 

from all available sources. 

Thank you for this opportunity to appear before the Committee. 

[The statement of Glenn Norem follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
7 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 66202A.001
8 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 66202A.002
9 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here 66202A.003
10 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23 here 66202A.004
11 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Thank you, Mr. Norem. 

Next we have Dr. Terry Brewer, who is president and founder of 

Brewer Science headquartered in Rolla, Missouri. Founded in 1981, 

Brewer Science, excuse me, is the discoverer of original solutions 

for the world’s leading manufacturers of computer chips, sensors, 

LEDs, displays, and other microelectronics devices. Under his leadership, Brewer Science has grown from only three to 300 employees. Dr. Brewer has served on many boards and committees, particularly related to the area of innovation. He is one of the founders 

of Jordan Valley Innovation Center and serves on the Board of 

Springfield Innovation, Incorporated. Thank you for your testimony, Dr. Brewer. 

STATEMENT OF TERRY BREWER 

Dr. BREWER. Good morning, Chairwoman Ellmers, Ranking 

Member Richmond, and the members of the Subcommittee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today to discuss 

the impact and the value of the SBIR program. I am Terry Brewer. 

I am president of Brewer Science, Incorporated in Rolla, Missouri, 

and I am appearing here today as a founder and owner of a small 

business that sustains high technology innovation. 

I founded Brewer Science in 1981 and based it in Rolla, Missouri. 

Brewer Science is a major innovator of high technology processes 

used to create ultra small circuits that enable devices, such as tablet computers from which I am talking, smartphones, digital cameras, flat panel devices, and LEDs. The stringent requirements of 

these products provide Brewer Science with opportunities to leverage the company’s knowledge and creative capabilities to provide 

the needed advanced technologies for both government and private 

sectors. Our product line encompasses unique chemicals, processes, 

and equipment that are used to give devices more capability in less 

space at a lower cost. 

Like many entrepreneurs, I started the company with a novel 

concept, but with little cash. By using another company’s extra lab 

space, creating a unique business approach, and accessing the support of programs like SBIR, Brewer Science has grown to nearly 

300 employees. We are now the largest private employer in Phelps 

and the surrounding counties, Missouri, with sales offices all across 

Asia and Europe to access worldwide markets with our U.S. manufactured products. 

Additionally, we are making significant headway in the development of next generation semiconductors using breakthrough processes and materials, such as carbon nanotubes in our facilities in 

Rolla and Springfield, Missouri. Over the past three years, this 

small, privately held high tech company located in rural Missouri 

has grown into a strong innovator and exporter of products used 

by every major integrated circuit manufacturer in the world. We 

have participated in the SBIR program with a high degree of success, including the commercialization of multiple disruptive technologies. The global competitors from countries that provide large 

government subsidies for the research and development programs 

require us to utilize programs such as SBIR which is needed now 

more than ever. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
12 

The founders of the SBIR program had a great vision to support 

and grow a true national treasure, innovation generated and sustained by American small business. In fact, American small businesses have become the most powerful innovating force on earth 

and it is this ability to not only invent but to provide sustained innovation that is the hallmark of this effort. 

Since receiving our first SBIR award in 1984, the microelectronics industry has benefitted from many Brewer Science technologies facilitated by the program. It has helped us create and 

sustain high value jobs en route to influencing the development of 

modern electronic devices as we know them today. 

So how do you calculate the impact of Brewer Science and its effect on the microelectronics industry? It is really not possible. From 

local jobs to advances in global microelectronics, Brewer Science innovations have made a difference in the way we live. But we are 

only one example of how funded innovation drives this kind of 

change. There are many more stories like ours that also confirm 

the value of the SBIR program. 

In driving this change, it is important to distinguish between 

science and innovation. While appropriate science contributes to 

meaningful innovation, the value of the SBIR program is more 

than just finding the best science. Science does not create jobs. 

Businesses focused on sustainable innovation and development do 

create jobs. The SBIR founders were right. Small business innovation research empowers government funding to move great innovations forward to solve technical challenges through commercialization and manufacturing thereby achieving economic growth. 

The founders of the SBIR program intended for American small 

business to generate jobs and technical growth. However, investment firms driven strictly for financial gain are not always aligned 

with this focus. I recognize that monetary support is critical for 

small business growth, but while investment firms can provide support for small businesses, their driving purpose may not always 

align with SBIR objectives. Any changes in the SBIR legislation 

should be sensitive to these concerns. 

In conclusion, the visionaries of the SBIR program anticipated 

the increasing need for sustained innovation from the U.S. small 

businesses. As our nation struggles with challenging economic 

times there is no better vehicle to get us through than American 

small business innovation. No better vehicle. 

While there are differences and distractions associated with the 

passage of this bill, I encourage the Subcommittee to remember the 

essence of what this program supports and how valuable SBIR is 

to supporting these efforts. That essence is the creation of technology-based jobs in the United States. 

[The statement of Terry Brewer follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
13 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 66202A.005
14 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 66202A.006
15 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 66202A.007
16 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Thank you, Dr. Brewer. Thank you for 

your testimony. 

I now yield to Ranking Member Richmond who will introduce our 

next witness. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Madam Chairwoman, it is my pleasure to introduce Dr. Albert Link. 

Dr. Link is a professor of Economics at the University of North 

Carolina at Greensboro with a focus on science and technology policy. He received his Ph.D. in Economics from Tulane University 

and is currently the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Technology 

Transfer. He has written many articles on the SBIR program, and 

Dr. Link is a member of the research team for the National Research Council’s Committee for Capitalizing on Science, Technology, and Innovation, an assessment of the Small Business Innovation Research program. 

As a Tulane graduate, it is my pleasure to introduce Dr. Link. 

Dr. Link. 

Mr. LINK. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF ALBERT LINK 

Mr. LINK. Good morning, Chairwoman Ellmers, Ranking Member 

Richmond, and members of the Subcommittee. 

The pollen season has arrived in North Carolina. So if you would 

excuse me. 

It is a privilege to be here and I thank you for the opportunity. 

The observations that I offer to you this morning are more general 

than those from Mr. Norem and Dr. Brewer. The insight that they 

offer from a company perspective is enlightening and extremely important. 

If I may speak at a more general level, the SBIR program has 

had, and I expect it to continue to have, a significant impact on the 

technological foundation of our economy, thus reinforcing the 

economy’s potential for continued and sustained growth. 

Defending this statement is not difficult at an aggregate level. 

The evidence is clear that the benefits to society outweigh the costs 

of the program. In other words, a benefit cost analysis calculated 

under very conservative assumptions shows that the ratio of social 

benefits to SBIR funding costs far exceeds one. 

Turning to two specifics, employment growth and commercialized 

new technologies, both of which are of economic importance and 

both of which are directly linked to SBIR funding. After I briefly 

remark on each I will comment on the common thread between 

them, namely Phase III funding. Employment growth is not an explicit objective of the SBIR program, but it is definitely an important issue, especially in the current economic environment. 

The average annual rate of employment growth in SBIR-funded 

companies over the past decade has far exceeded the growth rate 

of the economy as a whole. The average rate of employment growth 

among, for example, NIH-funded companies has been about 11 percent per year. And this estimate does not take into account employment growth associated with those companies that purchase innovations created by the funded companies. 

Also, across agencies employment growth has increased by about 

30 persons per million dollars of SBIR funding. Employment 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
17 

growth varies among companies, and it is greatest among those 

that have patented their intellectual property and have acquired 

Phase III funding. Controlling for these effects, there do not appear 

to be differences in employment growth among companies that are 

owned by women and/or minorities compared to other companies. 

But women and/or minority companies tend to patent their intellectual property less often. 

Commercializing new technology funded by SBIR is an explicit 

objective of the program, and about 50 percent of the funded 

projects reach the commercialization stage. The probability of commercializing a new technology also varies among companies and it 

is greatest among those that have acquired Phase III funding and 

who have partnered with the university. And I suspect that 

partnering with a national laboratory would bring about the same 

result. 

And controlling for these effects on the likelihood of commercialization, again, there do not appear to be differences among 

women and minority-owned companies compared to other companies. 

The magnitude of the effect of Phase III funding on the probability of commercializing a new technology is noteworthy. Again, 

if I may draw from NIH as an example, the probability of commercialization nearly doubles when Phase III funding is available. 

Phase III funding thus has an economic importance to SBIR-funded 

companies. It is correlated with employment growth and commercialization, and the two are related. 

In conclusion, thank you again, Chairwoman Ellmers, Ranking 

Member Richmond, and members of the Committee for the opportunity to offer these observations on the overall economic importance of the program. I strongly encourage the Committee to move 

toward a reauthorization of the program and to include in that reauthorization continued evaluation studies of the program within 

an emphasis on any economic consequences associated with 

changes in the economic environment or in the composition of applicant and recipient companies. Thank you. 

[The statement of Albert Link follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
18 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 37 66202A.008
19 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 38 66202A.009
20 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 39 66202A.010
21 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 40 66202A.011
22 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 41 66202A.012
23 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 42 66202A.013
24 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Thank you, Dr. Link, for your testimony. 

Our last distinguished panel member is Dr. Scott Koenig, who is 

the chairman of the Board of Directors at Applied Genetic Therapy 

Corporation, a private biotechnology company. Dr. Koenig is a 

board member of the Biotechnology Industry Association, as well as 

a member of its emerging company section. Dr. Koenig is also a 

board member of the Children’s Research Institute at the Children’s National Medical Center. He received his A.B. and Ph.D. 

from Cornell University and his M.D. from University of Texas, 

Health Science Center in Houston. He completed his residency in 

international medicine at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and is board certified in internal medicine and allergy and 

immunology. 

Dr. Link, you could probably discuss this with Dr. Koenig to suffer as a fellow North Carolinian. 

Welcome to the Subcommittee, Dr. Koenig. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT KOENIG 

Mr. KOENIG. Thank you very much. Good morning, Chairwoman 

Ellmers, Ranking Member Richmond, members of the Committee, 

ladies and gentlemen. I am president and CEO of MacroGenics and 

chairman of the board of Applied Genetics Technology Corporation. 

I am appearing before the Committee on behalf of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, which represents more than 

1,200 companies, academic institutions, state biotechnology centers, 

and related organizations in all 50 states. 

I am a scientist, physician, and entrepreneur, and I have worked 

at the NIH and in the biotechnology industry for the past 27 years. 

During my career I have held positions, including senior vice president of research at MedImmune, cofounder and CEO of 

MacroGenics, and board director of AGTC. 

During this time, I have been involved in the development of 

multiple biological product, such as a therapy to prevent a fatal 

viral illness in premature infants, a vaccine to prevent cervical cancer, and a number of other promising therapeutics still in development to treat juvenile diabetes, West Nile virus infections, and 

many types of cancers. 

I have seen the importance and impact of the SBIR program in 

the biotechnology industry, but sadly, from my perspective, current 

rules have inhibited the growth and survival of small private biotechnology companies and the development of promising technologies and products due to the inability of the venture-backed 

companies to participate in the SBIR program. 

Let me illustrate examples of each with two quite different outcomes for treatments for children. In the 1990s, MedImmune was 

a small, biotechnology company in Gaithersburg, Maryland, funded 

by venture capitalists and became a publicly traded company in 

1991. At that time, one of the lead programs was a monoclonal 

antibody to prevent respiratory syncytial virus infection in neonates. The research and development of this program was funded 

by SBIR Phase I and II grants. Today this product is called 

Synagis, the first and only FDA-approved product to prevent an infectious disease and has been used now in over 600,000 children. 

MedImmune employs thousands of highly skilled professionals. If 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
25 

current SBIR rules prevailed at the time when MedImmune scientists first were working on and applied for these grants, 

MedImmune would have been illegible to receive those SBIR funds 

and it would have significantly impacted the development of the 

program and the company. 

Contrast this with the outcome at AGTC. Today AGTC is a 

small, private, biotechnology company in Alachua, Florida. It is developing cutting edge product candidates to treat and cure different 

generic diseases using adeno-associated viral vectors produced by 

their proprietary manufacturing process. The company by all parameters is a small company. They have seven employees, no product revenues, and large capital requirements to advance their programs through early stage pre-clinical and clinical development. 

Currently, all their venture capital money is being used to fund 

two early clinical trials and they have no other capital support to 

support other avenues of research. 

Prior to 2003, AGTC received several SBIR grants for three different projects to advance treatments of rare diseases, but in 2003 

the company applied for a Phase I and II grant and was initially 

awarded the grant but the application had to be withdrawn due to 

the circumstances of VC ownership. This grant would have advanced the treatment for Pompe disease, a fatal genetic disorder 

which results in the death of many infants by one year of age. No 

investors were willing to fund this early stage work for Pompe and 

no further work has been done in the last eight years. 

Currently, the company is working on one of the most promising 

programs to treat blindness in children caused by genetic disorders. 

An initial clinical study using their technology to treat Leber’s congenital amaurosis (LCA), a rare retinal disease affecting a few 

thousand patients in the U.S., resulted in the first restoration of 

partial sight in legally blind patients with this inherited, defective 

gene. The company desires to use their technology to treat three 

other genetic eye diseases but is unable to do so because they have 

no resources available and they cannot participate in the SBIR 

funding. In fact, AGTC did apply for a grant for one of these eye 

diseases called achromatopsia in anticipation of congressional resolution of matters of SBIR funding related to VC ownership. The 

grant was scored and awarded, but AGTC is unable to accept the 

funds due to the prevailing rules. 

As developers of the next generation of treatments for diseases 

that would have been unapproachable just a decade ago, we need 

to find ways to support these risky transformational therapies that 

could improve the lives of children and adults suffering from genetic disorders, infectious diseases, cancer and autoimmune diseases among others. This has personal and economic benefits to the 

individuals affected, the organizations and companies working on 

these initiatives and society in general. We should update the SBIR 

program to reflect today’s realities and this has never been more 

important. The impact of the economic downturn is still being felt 

by the industry. The amount of venture capital dollars decreased 

by 27 percent between 2009 and 2010 and finding funding for 

promising early stage projects is still difficult as it has ever been. 

There is an opportunity to strengthen and restore the SBIR program. First, allow small U.S. biotechnology companies that are maVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 18, 2011 Jkt 066202 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A202.XXX A202

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
26 

jority owned by venture capitalists to once again compete for the 

SBIR awards based on scientific merit. This will ensure that the 

most competitive pool of applicants and grants will be awarded for 

projects that show the most promise in bringing breakthrough 

therapies to the public. Second, clarify SBIR eligibility rules to 

make the application process more straightforward and user friendly. It is equally important that the reauthorization clarifies SBIR 

affiliation regulations. 

[The statement of Scott Koenig follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
27 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 49 66202A.014
28 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 50 66202A.015
29 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 51 66202A.016
30 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 52 66202A.017
31 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 53 66202A.018
32 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Thank you for your testimony, Dr. 

Koenig. 

I would like to begin questioning with Mr. Norem. Technologies 

such as yours, and really technologies in general, tend to advance 

exponentially. Where could you see your technology going? Where 

else could it be adapted? 

Mr. NOREM. Thank you for the question, Chairwoman Ellmers. 

We believe, and our investors believe, that we have a very rare 

opportunity to expand the physical security levels of our nation, not 

only at the Department of Defense military bases, the State Department and embassies worldwide, both here and abroad, but also 

for our communities as they want to deploy this in universities for 

increased security on campuses, hospitals and local jurisdictions, 

police departments, K–12 education. So it is a very open market at 

both state, local, and federal here in the United States, not to mention the growth of the surveillance and sensor grid arrays that are 

being built in Europe and other places in the world. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Thank you. 

To Dr. Brewer, we have been really focusing on job creation. 

That is the main focus of the 112th Congress. Could you put your 

SBIR award into jobs? Upon receipt of a Phase I or a Phase II, does 

that directly impact your hiring practices? 

Dr. BREWER. Of course we can put SBIR directly into jobs. We 

have. And yes, the Phase I and Phase II awards do affect our hiring practices and make a major contribution to just how far we can 

extend our own technology. So very significant to that, and very 

significant to job creation. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Great. Thank you. 

And Dr. Link, agency flexibility is often cited as a value to the 

SBIR program. Can you explain how this flexibility is beneficial to 

the program across agencies? 

Mr. LINK. If one talked to a group of entrepreneurs, each would 

probably have a different definition of what an entrepreneur is. 

The same if you talk to those in the academic community who 

study it. The common thread among those definitions would be the 

ability to be creative and the ability to bring that creativity into 

action. In this case the marketplace. And I think the flexibility of 

the SBIR program embraces both of those. It embraces both creativity and embraces both action. It allows for two phases. It allows 

for firms to attempt to try out new ideas, and if successful then follow them forward into a Phase II. It also allows for other support, 

whether it be federal or federal non-SBIR money or other forms of 

private investment. And there is not a formula that is presupposed 

on how those other forms of financing will have an effect. The market is playing itself out, as it should, and the success, I think, has 

been well documented by the members of this Committee. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Thank you, Dr. Link. 

And lastly, Dr. Koenig, have you seen businesses increasingly 

seeking out more opportunities in the SBIR program because of the 

general lack of availability of capital nationwide at this time? 

Mr. KOENIG. I think the effect of the economic downturn has had 

a dramatic effect on the biotechnology industry. The lack of funds 

available from other sources, particularly venture capitalists, has 

ended up forcing the companies to seek other ways to obtain new 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
33 

sources of capital. I have seen a lot of effort in trying to get SBIR 

funding, but because of the current rules, and since most of the 

companies within the Bio organization are majority owned by venture capitalists, they have been prohibited from participating. That 

has been a great frustration, as you can imagine, for the member 

companies. And I think that in the interest of both the companies 

creating new jobs and getting the most innovative technologies developed, if the rules can be changed to allow the majority funded 

VC companies to participate, it will have a huge impact on our 

country and the public. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Thank you, Dr. Koenig. 

I now yield to Ranking Member Richmond for his questions. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Madam Chairwoman, if I could, I yield to Congressman Peters to do his before me. 

Mr. PETERS. Thank you, Ranking Member Richmond. I appreciate that. Thank you, panelists, for your comments here. 

Dr. Link, I just want to flush out some of the things that you 

had mentioned in your analysis of the SBIR program. One, you 

talked about how the average annual rate of employment growth 

varies across funding agencies, and I think you quoted the NIH as 

about 11 percent growth. I do not know if that correlated to jobs. 

What sort of variation do you see in these agencies? Is there a wide 

variation? 

Mr. LINK. The NIH was the largest and that is the agency I studied the most. The Defense Department is about five percent and 

the Department of Energy is about six percent. NASA and the National Science Foundation are in between. 

Mr. PETERS. And what do you account for that difference? Anything in particular? 

Mr. LINK. First of all, NIH and Department of Defense are the 

two—projects funded from those two agencies have received the 

most amount of Phase III money, and I think that has a dramatic 

effect on the probability of commercialization. 

When one talks about commercialization, it is not a dichotomous 

event. You either commercialize or do not commercialize. If you do 

commercialize, how successful are you in reaching the market? And 

in those two agencies, which, of course, are the largest in terms of 

allocations, they have been most successful in terms of the magnitude of sales. And I attribute that primarily to Phase III funding 

in those two agencies more so than in the others. 

Mr. PETERS. And to pick up on that, you quoted about per one 

million dollars of investment is 30 jobs. Now, is that folks that are 

just getting Phase I and II or is that looking at Phase III as well? 

Does that skew the job number because the Phase III funding is 

really, and in some respects, most important when it comes to job 

creation? 

Mr. LINK. Those numbers take into account Phase III money. 

And I do not think it skews the numbers because I am talking first 

about an average and the variance around that 30 is relatively 

small. It is a point estimate but I think it is a very good approximation across funding agencies. And we have looked at the data 

from the early 1990s to the present, and so I feel very comfortable 

with that as a sound bite. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
34 

Mr. PETERS. Right. Yeah. But the Phase III, obviously, is critical, 

not being done by all agencies. Are there recommendations that 

you have to this Committee as to maybe looking at structuring it 

to ensure that other agencies are engaged in Phase III funding? 

And I will open this up to all the panelists, too, because commercialization is the key thing when it comes to jobs. And the bottom 

line, we want to create jobs and small businesses are the engine 

of growth. I serve on the Financial Services Committee and deal 

with financing issues all the time, which is very difficult right now 

if you are a small business person to get the loans you need. Do 

we need to have a focus on Phase III to get our best bang for our 

dollar? And how do we do it? And just some ideas that any of the 

panelists have would be appreciated. 

Mr. LINK. Let me just finish. I think it is open across agencies. 

We just do not see much venture capital among DOD and NASA 

projects compared to the others. An issue tied to Phase III is trying 

to shorten the time period between Phase I and Phase II. Shortening that time period helps companies retain employees, and I 

think that is very important. 

Another issue associated with Phase III funding across all agencies is consistency in the funding of the SBIR program, not going 

through the temporary period from 2008 to the present time. And 

the reason for that is venture capital firms, as well as other private 

equity and investment firms, they span companies that have received SBIR awards. The SBIR award is in a sense a seal of Good 

Housekeeping approval. It does send a positive signal to the marketplace, and companies are willing to—I am sorry, venture capital 

companies in particular are willing to invest in the time and effort 

to study those projects that have been funded and to approach 

those that appear to be the most successful. 

Mr. KOENIG. So I have a sort of mixed view with regard to the 

requirements for SBIR Phase III funding, per se. I have found historically, and in my own experiences with getting funds for SBIR 

one and two, that this has a huge impact. I think the validation 

is very important to the VC community, but beyond that, it is the 

ability to have these funds to fund very early stage programs and 

move them far enough along that you can actually have results 

that can be endorsed. They become attractive not only to the venture capitalists, but to other, larger biotechnology companies or 

pharmaceutical companies that will engage these companies. 

There is an amplifying effect that once you have actually conducted the research that has been funded by Phase I and II, it 

helps to mature the early stage work to a point where it has some 

validation to be more attractive to larger sources of capital, both 

in the venture community, as well as the biotech and pharmaceutical industries. 

Mr. PETERS. Good. Thank you. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Thank you. That was very good. 

I now recognize Mr. Mulvaney. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Thank you, Mrs. Chairwoman. 

Gentlemen, before I come back to the venture capital question 

that I want to follow up on, I want to ask a general question. I am 

a small businessman. I participated in a SBA program before. It is 

not the one we are talking about here today. And I would classify 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
35 

my experience as fair. It could have been better. I have heard some 

really good stories about some things the SBA does well. I have 

heard some stories about things that are not administered as well 

as they might, could be. Tell me, how hard is it to use this program? Is this a relatively easy program to use? I mean, you all are 

in small business. Does it make sense to you or is it one of those 

things you have got to fill out 15 different forms and it is a complete disaster? Tell me about the experience of actually using the 

SBIR process and whether or not we can improve it. Anybody. Dr. 

Koenig. 

Mr. KOENIG. I have to say I have been involved with SBIR funding since the early 1990s so I have a very long view of this. I remember telling one of my colleagues back in 1994 musing that this 

was the jewel of the government. There is always criticism about 

government-supported programs, but when I saw the impact of 

that program and the ease in terms of applications and getting the 

funding, it made this a wonderful resource. 

Move forward to 2003 when the rules changed and I was actually 

very depressed about it because I saw tinkering in a program that 

was so successful. The actual application process is quite easy. I 

mean, we mostly dealt with the SBIRs through the NIH and this 

is not any more difficult, and in fact, less difficult than most grant 

submissions. The actual administration of that funding, getting the 

awards, has been quite easy. So I have not heard any issues in regards to the administrative aspects of the granting process. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Gentlemen? Yes, sir. 

Mr. NOREM. We work primarily with the Department of Defense 

and I have to say, and I would speak for my colleague, that it has 

been a great agency to work with. Sometimes they are short of administrative help themselves, but for the recipient it is a very helpful process, very encouraging with their support, and it has been, 

I think, a very solid program for our company. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Dr. Brewer, do you want to check in on this, or 

is it pretty much the same? 

Dr. BREWER. Yes, I want to echo pretty much the same. We have 

worked with a broad range of agencies, and have also found that 

kind of experience across the board. We also do non-SBIR government contracts and if you compare the two I would say SBIR is certainly a jewel in the crown I think. It is very good. 

Mr. MULVANEY. That is good to know then. Let us come to the 

issue that Dr. Koenig has talked about at length and I know each 

of you touched on it a little bit. If we wanted to fix it, do you just 

get rid of section 107? Do you get rid of the 34, 35 percent caps 

or, is there another way? Do you throw all the 200 rule changes 

out and go back to the way it was before? I mean, if we decide that 

we would like to try and take this up, what are your recommendations about the best, most efficient way to proceed? 

Mr. KOENIG. Well, I would personally love to throw the rules 

back and go pre-2003. Obviously, I know that this has been a very 

difficult process to change. I mean, we have been discussing this 

since 2003. I have actually appeared before the Committee several 

years ago and we are now eight years beyond and have not resolved the issue. What I believe and what Bio believes is let us find 

a pathway forward that allows as much participation as we can for 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
36 

majority VC-owned companies. If the Senate and the House could 

come to a solution that removes the caps, of course, we would endorse it, but any ability to have VC majority owned companies participate at this point would be very favorable. 

Mr. MULVANEY. And I have got only about half a minute left so 

let me ask this. Are there any other changes to the 2003 rules that 

we should be looking at primarily or is this VC rule the one that 

seems to be the sticking point for most folks in your industry? Mr. 

Norem. 

Mr. NOREM. I would encourage you to look at the definition of 

venture capital firms themselves. When we call on family offices, 

wealthy individuals who have a propensity to do this and angel 

capital, they form LLCs to protect themselves legally. They hire 

professional managers. They make more than one investment and 

so many of the angel capital investors are now deemed venture 

capital. So it is just another barrier for us to raise capital and participate in the SBIR program if that definition is too loosely interpreted. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Dr. Brewer, I am out of time so I am going to 

let the Chairwoman take it from here. So. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. I am going to yield some time to Mr. 

Richmond for some questions that he has as well. 

Mr. RICHMOND. I guess I would start with have you all had a 

chance to review the draft legislation that would come out of this 

Committee? And in that legislation, if you have some ideas of 

changes, please go ahead and offer it. 

But one of the things that I notice that is different in this legislation than the previous legislation was a 90-day window that they 

would have to respond. Do you think that will expedite things or 

do you think that could have some potential negatives to it? Dr. 

Brewer. 

Dr. BREWER. Yes. I think it is a good idea. Shortening the time 

of response will be a real advantage. 

Mr. RICHMOND. And Dr. Link, I think, oh, did you want to respond, Dr. Koenig? 

Mr. KOENIG. I have nothing to respond to the 90 but you asked 

about other changes. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Yes. 

Mr. KOENIG. This is actually not an opinion endorsed by BIO, but 

is my personal opinion. I remember in the mark-up of last year’s 

legislation there was a limitation of VC companies that were affiliated with large corporations and there had to be less than a 20 percent ownership of the small companies by these large affiliated 

VCs. I think this is just a very arbitrary rule and my personal 

opinion, it should be excluded. In fact, AGTC, which I described before, would not be able to now participate because there is one VC, 

a large corporation associated entity, that owns a little more than 

20 percent. And so again, the arbitrary nature of this does not 

seem very useful for such companies. 

Mr. RICHMOND. The other thing that I noticed in the bill, and I 

would assume you all are going to say it is a very good thing but 

I want to make sure, is the increase in the Phase I and Phase II 

grant amounts, do you think it is a sufficient increase? Do you 

think it was a necessary increase? 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
37 

Mr. KOENIG. The costs of doing research have escalated and I 

think, I wholly endorse the amounts here. Knowing where we are 

in terms of the economy and issues with regards to funding new 

programs, I think there will be limitations and pushbacks. So any 

additional funding is well deserved in supporting this program, but 

obviously you have to deal with the realities of funding such programs. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Go ahead, Dr. Link. 

Mr. LINK. Yes, I agree with the increase in the limits. I also 

agree with the inflation escalation that is suggested for funding. 

If I may have a little breadth in my answer here. There is another part of the proposed bill that gives directors discretion for a 

50 percent increase in those amounts. I did not see in the bill, perhaps it is there, information with regard to oversight on how that 

50 percent may be monitored, what kind of accountability may take 

place there. An alternative idea may be in the spirit of accountability to allow those companies that are invited for Phase II 

awards that look very promising and perhaps in the spirit of the 

purpose of the agency need additional funding, be invited to propose two Phase II awards, one for the maximum amount and one 

for 50 percent greater than the maximum amount, and then have 

both of them scored rather than have the discretion for the agency 

to go above the amount without any oversight associated with that. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you for that. 

Mr. Norem. 

Mr. NOREM. If I could respond to that. I think, and speaking for 

the DOD programs and SBIR, the administrators themselves have 

oversight, and as long as they have the discretion on the size of 

award, they do a very good job, we find, at managing the amount, 

an appropriate amount of money that gets assigned to each program. So the discretion of the administrator would be my recommendation. 

Mr. RICHMOND. The last question I will ask. Because we keep 

talking about venture capital a lot and it is very clear that VCs 

play an important role in helping these companies start up. One 

of the other shining stars, at least in my experience through federal programs, is the New Market Tax Credit. And I was wondering how large of a role New Market Tax Credit allocations play 

in this area. 

And two, and you do not necessarily have to answer this now, 

but do you see a way in the future we could link or make some provisions in New Market Tax Credit allocations for this area of technology or in this area? Because I think that when you talk about 

job growth and benefit to the country, this is very significant. The 

rules on New Market are very open in what you can invest in is 

a large area. Would it make sense to direct or incentivize New 

Market Tax Credit companies to look at this area. And just, Dr. 

Koenig. 

Mr. KOENIG. I think that tax credits are a great incentive in general but in the context of the companies we are talking about, they 

cannot get to use these tax credits because it takes over a decade 

for most of these companies to actually realize any revenue if they 

are successful. So unless there is an ability to take those tax credits and assign them or sell them or some way of actually helping 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
38 

the company indirectly to bring in more resources, I do not see an 

immediate impact on the company. 

Mr. RICHMOND. No, what the New Market program does is allow 

venture capital companies to raise—— 

Mr. KOENIG. Oh, I see. Yes. 

Mr. RICHMOND. So the VCs raise money through New Market 

but those VCs are allowed to invest that capital that they raise in 

a number of things, from housing to loans to clothing stores. And 

I guess I am asking if this is such a jewel should we try to find 

a way to incentivize those VCs to look in this area in terms of investing their money? And after you all answer the question, 

Madam Chair, I will now yield back. 

Mr. NOREM. Ranking Member Richmond, I can only comment 

that as an entrepreneur and living in the state of Texas, we have 

got a lot of state programs that encourage and foster innovation 

and encourage entrepreneurs like ourselves in Texas. We have 

found that encouraging and linking those programs, providing additional access to capital for the entrepreneurs had been very helpful across the board and we are in a very severe time to raise— 

it is very tough to raise capital today in this economy. And I think 

all of those programs help a great deal. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Thank you. Thank you. I have one follow 

up question for Dr. Brewer. 

In regard to commercialization there has been a lot of debate 

about so-called SBIR mills, companies that simply win multiple 

Phase I awards, very few Phase II awards, but do not commercialize much. I have heard both sides of this argument, but as a 

participant in the SBIR program do you view this as a problem? 

Dr. BREWER. Thank you. It is a good question. Yes, we recognize 

the problem exists, but I think it is a very poor business model, so 

I believe the mills will not be around for long anyway. The mills 

are there, but I do not see this as a significant problem. However, 

additional metrics will help us better determine the severity of the 

problem and whether or not a more comprehensive solution is warranted in the future. 

Chairwoman ELLMERS. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Well, in conclusion, I thank all of you for participating today. The 

SBIR and STTR programs are widely supported and recognized as 

one of the country’s most important engines of innovation. Today 

was the second step in our Committee’s effort to fully reauthorize 

these important initiatives. As Chairman Graves said at our previous hearing, we plan to work quickly, yet thoroughly, over the 

next several weeks to get this legislation on the House floor in 

May, and ultimately to get a bill to the President’s desk as soon 

as possible. 

Thank you all again, and I ask unanimous consent that the 

members have five legislative days to submit statements and supporting materials for the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. This hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:08 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
39 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 71 here 66202A.019
40 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 72 here 66202A.020
41 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 73 here 66202A.021
42 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 74 here 66202A.022
43 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 75 here 66202A.023
44 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 here 66202A.024
45 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 here 66202A.025
46 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 78 here 66202A.026
47 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 79 here 66202A.027
48 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 80 here 66202A.028
49 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 81 here 66202A.029
50 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 82 here 66202A.030
51 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 83 here 66202A.031
52 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 84 here 66202A.032
53 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 85/300 here 66202A.033