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

76–468 2012

LARGE AND SMALL BUSINESSES: HOW 

PARTNERSHIPS CAN PROMOTE JOB GROWTH 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

UNITED STATES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

MARCH 28, 2012 

Small Business Committee Document Number 112–061 

Available via the GPO Website: www.fdsys.gov 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD 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 Director 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Hon. Sam Graves ..................................................................................................... 1 

Hon. Nydia Vela ́zquez ............................................................................................. 1 

WITNESSES 

Matthew Slaughter, Ph.D., Associate Dean for the MBA Program, Signal 

Companies Professor of Management, Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth 

College, Hanover, NH .......................................................................................... 3 

William C. McDowell, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Management, College of Business, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC ............ 5 

Robert E. Bruck, Corporate Vice President, Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, 

CA .......................................................................................................................... 7 

Paul Blackborow, Chief Executive Officer, Energetiq Technology, Inc., 

Woburn, MA ......................................................................................................... 9 

APPENDIX 

Prepared Statements: 

Matthew Slaughter, Ph.D., Associate Dean for the MBA Program, Signal 

Companies Professor of Management, Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH ....................................................................... 19 

William C. McDowell, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Management, College of Business, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC ..... 26 

Robert E. Bruck, Corporate Vice President, Intel Corporation, Santa 

Clara, CA ....................................................................................................... 30 

Paul Blackborow, Chief Executive Officer, Energetiq Technology, Inc., 

Woburn, MA .................................................................................................. 44 

Questions for the Record: 

Rep. Owens Questions for the Record ............................................................. 49 

Answers for the Record: 

Answers to Rep. Owens for the Record ........................................................... 50 

Additional Materials for the Record: 

Glaxo Smith Kline Statements for the Record ............................................... 51 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

LARGE AND SMALL BUSINESSES: HOW 

PARTNERSHIPS CAN PROMOTE JOB GROWTH 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 1 p.m., in room 2360, 

Rayburn House Office Building. Hon. Sam Graves (chairman of the 

Committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Graves, Mulvaney, West, Owens, Schilling, Vela ́zquez, Schrader. 

Chairman GRAVES. Good afternoon, everyone. We will call this 

hearing to order. And I want to thank all of you for joining us 

today as we examine the practice of large and small business 

partnering to create added-value jobs and economic growth. 

For many years, businesses have entered into agreements with 

other companies to supply a part for a larger product or provide a 

good and service. Increasingly, large companies create alliances 

with small firms to access their innovative ideas. These partnerships allow the larger companies to expand their current market or 

product offerings, enter into new markets, or simply gain a competitive advantage in a challenging economy. Small companies also 

benefit from these alliances by tapping into larger distribution networks, financing opportunities, and mentoring programs that larger businesses cannot supply. 

It should be noted that both large and small businesses can be 

very dependent on each other. A study produced for the Business 

Round Table by Dr. Matthew Slaughter, one of our panelists today, 

noticed that each type of company is deeply embedded in the overall U.S. economy with extensive connections to each other. 

Last week, the Committee held a hearing on the state of entrepreneurship. Heath Hall, co-founder of Pork Barrel BBQ here in 

Washington, D.C., testified that large businesses, such as Harris 

Teeter, Costco, and Safeway, took chances on stocking their unknown BBQ sauce and rubs, helping it to be stocked today in 3,000 

stores in 40 states. This is an excellent example of the interdependence of small and large firms. 

And again, I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here 

today. And before I yield to the ranking member I want to note 

that it is her birthday today and I hope everybody will join me in 

wishing her a happy birthday. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is 

very kind. And good afternoon to all the witnesses. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

America’s nearly 30 million small businesses are central to the 

economy, representing 99.7 percent of all employers and pay nearly 

50 percent of total private payroll. It is clear that as small businesses go, so goes the country. For many, this success is at least 

in part due to the symbiotic relationship that is enjoyed with their 

larger counterparts. During today’s hearing we will examine this 

and seek to better understand the effect firm size has on the competitive landscape. Together, large and small businesses form a collaborative ecosystem that enables our economy to thrive. Small 

firms make up the vast supplier network that multinational companies rely on for goods and services. In fact, these corporations 

buy an estimated 1.52 trillion annually from small firms which is 

about 12.3 percent of their total sales. 

Perhaps nowhere is this interdependence more evident than in 

the federal procurement marketplace. Total subcontracting dollars 

now eclipse $200 billion with small businesses receiving more than 

one-third of these dollars. Over the last 15 years, several initiatives 

have supported this, including mentor prodigy programs. As a result, large companies are able to develop their supplier base, while 

small businesses obtain key experience that will enable them to 

grow stronger in the future. 

While there are real benefits to this cooperation, the truth is that 

large companies often enjoy many advantages that small businesses do not. This is due to the many structural benefits that 

come with having greater market power, including more influence 

over pricing and advantages in the capital and labor markets. 

Larger companies are often able to control the relationship with 

small firms, leaving small suppliers to provide accommodations. 

This absence of negotiating influence makes it more expensive for 

small companies to purchase the goods and services they need to 

remain competitive. 

Beyond their lack of equal bargaining power, small businesses 

face other obstacles in their quest for success. Even as the economy 

recovers, insufficient access to capital remains the number one 

challenge. Since peaking at $712 billion in the second quarter of 

2008, small business lending has declined by $113 billion. Conversely, large businesses have actually seen an expansion in lending since the middle of 2010. It is clear that small businesses have 

been disproportionately affected by credit tightening, while large 

firms have emerged relatively unscathed. 

Tax policy is another area creating disparity between small and 

large businesses as corporations often have dedicated tax teams for 

this purpose. Small firms, on the other hand, spend more time and 

money simply preparing tax returns. According to a report issued 

by the SBA Office of Advocacy, the cost of tax compliance is 67 percent higher in small firms than in large firms. Finally, it is also 

important to note that large companies are illegally taking federal 

contracting opportunities away from their smaller counterparts. In 

several cases, large businesses have used a small business front to 

win contracts through small business set asides. Such abuses not 

only impair the integrity of the procurement system overall, but divert money away from true small companies. 

All of these issues, from tax treatment to access to capital to government contracts are critical to the relationship between large and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

small businesses. While there is little doubt that these companies 

can and do work in a collaborative manner, the reality is that it 

is often due to the costly concessions made by small businesses. 

During today’s hearing we will explore this complex relationship 

and the many benefits and challenges that come with it. Ensuring 

that small businesses can continue to flourish without the seemingly inescapable exploitation that comes with it is critical. Doing 

so will not only result in a more robust small business sector, but 

a brighter economic recovery for the nation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back. 

STATEMENTS OF MATTHEW SLAUGHTER, PH.D., ASSOCIATE 

DEAN FOR THE MBA PROGRAM, SIGNAL COMPANIES PROFESSOR OF MANAGEMENT, TUCK SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, 

DARTMOUTH COLLEGE; WILLIAM C. MCDOWELL, PH.D., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT, COLLEGE OF BUSINESS, EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY; ROBERT 

E. BRUCK, CORPORATE VICE PRESIDENT, INTEL CORPORATION; PAUL BLACKBOROW, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

ENERGETIQ TECHNOLOGY, INC. 

Chairman GRAVES. Our first witness today is Professor Matthew 

Slaughter, who is the associate dean for the MBA program and the 

Signal Companies Professor of Management at Tuck School of 

Business at Dartmouth College. In 2010, Professor Slaughter authored a key study for the Business Round Table on small and 

large businesses working together, and we look forward to hearing 

more about your study today. And welcome, Professor. 

STATEMENT OF MATTHEW SLAUGHTER 

Mr. SLAUGHTER. Committee Chairman Graves, Ranking Member 

Vela ́zquez, and fellow members, thank you very much for inviting 

me to testify. 

The topic of today’s hearing is extremely important. Although the 

news for American workers has improved somewhat in recent 

months, America’s labor market remains quite damaged. Today 

America has 110.7 million private sector payroll jobs. The first time 

the U.S. economy reached that number was in March of 2000. 

America has created no new private sector jobs in 12 years, during 

which time its civilian labor force has expanded by about 15 million 

people. 

In my remarks I will stress that to address this jobs challenge 

one of the most effective ways to support job growth in small businesses is to support job growth in big businesses. This is because 

of extensive connections between large and small businesses, especially through the supply change, selling to each other the goods 

and services used as inputs in product. 

Small and big businesses have long helped strengthen the U.S. 

economy and each other. Let me here emphasize the rule of multinational companies which, like Intel, tend to be among America’s 

biggest. Both the U.S. parents of U.S.-based multinationals and 

also the U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-based multinationals enhance 

the American economy by the capital investment, exports, research 

and development, and good paying jobs. Though far less than one 

percent of all American businesses, multinationals in 2009 acVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:14 Nov 13, 2012 Jkt 076468 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A468.XXX A468

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

counted for in the U.S. private sector 24 percent of jobs, 41 percent 

of investment, 71 percent of goods exports, and a remarkable 84 

percent of research and development. 

Neither small business nor large business operates in a vacuum; 

rather, each is deeply connected to the other in product markets, 

capital markets, and labor markets. One important connection is 

time. Small businesses of today can grow to become the big businesses of tomorrow. Many of America’s largest and most successful 

companies started small. Indeed, as the quintessential person pursuing a dream from a garage or a dorm room. And many of those 

small start-ups were born and thrived because of having a big business as a major, if not the only customer. 

Another important connection is the supply chain partnership. 

Companies selling to others the goods and services used as inputs 

in production. To make their own goods and services, large companies buy many important inputs from small companies and vice 

versa. Input suppliers and their customers strengthen each other, 

not just by generating sales but through many other channels, such 

as sharing information and performance standards. Of particular 

note here are small companies selling inputs to U.S.-based multinational companies. 

In 2008, the U.S. parent operations of U.S.-based multinationals purchased over $6 trillion in inputs, of which almost 89 percent 

was bought from other companies in the United States, not from 

companies abroad. But of these trillions of dollars in domestic input 

purchases by U.S. multinationals, how much is bought from small 

businesses in America? Surprisingly, this question cannot be answered by any data collected by the various statistical agencies of 

the U.S. government. 

Given the statistical gap, in 2010, I worked with the Business 

Roundtable, an association of chief executive officers of leading U.S. 

companies to conduct an original survey of its members to learn 

about the role of small businesses and their supplier base. Taking 

these survey results as representative of all U.S. multinationals, I 

found that the U.S. parent operations of the typical U.S. multinational buys goods and services from over 6,000 American small 

businesses, buys a total of over $3 billion in inputs from these 

small business suppliers, and relies on these small business suppliers for over 24 percent of its total input purchases. Extrapolating 

from these surveys, I further calculated that U.S. multinationals 

collectively purchase about $1.5 trillion in inputs from U.S. small 

businesses, which is about 12 percent of the total sales of these 

small businesses. The bottom-line of this survey is that the supply 

chain partnership between U.S. small and big business is deep and 

essential to each other’s economic success. 

Let me close by offering three policy implications of the supply 

chain partnership. One important implication is that government 

efforts targeted at just small businesses or just big business affect 

all firms, not just firms of a particular size. Think of exporting. Because of the supply chain partnership, there are lots of small U.S. 

businesses engaged in the global economy by supplying large U.S. 

exporters, even if these small businesses themselves do no exporting on their own. A second important policy implication is that the 

supply chain partnership between large and small businesses will 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

almost surely become more important in the future. Large companies increasingly operate in large global networks in which final 

products are made in many stages that span many countries. As 

the global economy continues to grow in size and diversity, so too 

will the supply chain partnership between large and small businesses. And a final important policy implication is that to better 

support the partnerships between large and small businesses, U.S. 

government data need improving in various ways. 

Let me thank you again for your time and interest in my testimony and I look forward to answering any questions that you may 

have. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to introduce 

our next witness, Dr. William McDowell. He is a Management Professor of Entrepreneurship and Family Business at East Carolina 

University. He received his Ph.D. from the University of North 

Texas in Management in 2006, and his research specializes in the 

area of small and medium-size enterprises and their relationship 

within larger organizations within the supply chain. Dr. McDowell 

is also vice president of the National Small Business Institute, an 

organization dedicated to field-based student consulting and outreach to small businesses. As a co-editor of the Institute Journal, 

Dr. McDowell has written scholarly research articles in the fields 

of small business management, entrepreneurship, and field-based 

learning. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. MCDOWELL 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Good afternoon, Chairman Graves, Ranking 

Member Vela ́zquez, and members of the Committee. Thank you for 

the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss this very important topic. The views and research that I will present today are 

my own and not necessarily those of East Carolina University or 

its Small Business Institute. 

Examining the potential benefits for large and small business 

collaboration is a very great thing but there are four key hurdles 

that small businesses face when trying to do business, especially 

with a large business. To be an effective partner, small businesses 

must be able to overcome these hurdles and obstacles in order to 

be effective. 

Access to capital compared to large businesses is the first area. 

Small business basically means fewer assets, which does translate 

into less capital and less money for operations for equipment and 

expansion. In addition, because of being a small business, oftentimes they have a smaller product and market scope which does 

translate to fewer revenue streams from which to be able to access 

capital. And of course in this rough economy that we have just 

come through, many of these small firms have completely depleted 

their cash and inventory levels creating much more difficulties. 

Thus, the difficulty in obtaining capital, especially for women, minority, and socially disadvantaged businesses can be a very serious 

issue when they are trying to work with larger businesses. 

In addition, small businesses, because of their size, are usually 

at the dependent stage when we look at the power dependency levels. Small businesses are often a niche supplier, sometimes supplying to only one business, and research shows that being a niche 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

supplier actually works against these small businesses in retaining 

contracts with larger businesses and especially in retaining contracts with the federal government. These smaller businesses, because of their niche status, can be simply eliminated when the 

larger businesses find cheaper alternatives or other ways of reducing margins, and so in this case being a niche-market producer 

does create a problem for them. However, research does show that 

information quality, continued quality improvement programs, 

trust, communication, these all do aid the small business in being 

able to be effective in these supply chain relationships; however, 

most of these organizations, because of their size, do not take advantage of things such as continuous quality improvement programs. Flexibility, because of their size, can be a very key competitive advantage, but again, oftentimes they do not realize that that 

is their advantage and they do not go out and try to seek ways to 

emphasize that. 

Another disadvantage that they have is tax disadvantages. It is 

not necessarily the tax rate that is the problem but the difficulty 

in computing taxes for these small businesses. One major issue 

that has come up in a recent conference was that many small businesses do not have the experts on staff to find or take advantage 

of the tax credits that are available to them; therefore, they are 

missing out on those advantages. Large firms have large staff, 

large groups of individuals who are working to help them find 

these advantages and build on those, so that can be a problem. Recently, the National Federation of Independent Businesses indicated that the number one problem for small businesses is sales; 

however, this has come down to almost equal with taxes within the 

past few years. And right now the percentage point is only one percent between those two. But historically, taxes have been cited as 

the number one problem for small businesses over the last 25 

years. 

And the final area is basically the access to qualified business experts for advice and direction. Large businesses have experts on 

staff to help maximize profits, reduce the cost, and streamline their 

processes, whereas, small businesses often do not have these resources on staff to be able to do these for them. Unfortunately, too 

many small businesses, and this is from experience, are not familiar with programs by the SBA from local SBDCs, which is literally 

to their detriment because these can be excellent programs for 

them to help. Thus, they begin to narrow their focus because of not 

being able to take an outsider’s view of the situation. And this is 

often to their detriment. Really, the crisis of today that they are 

facing prevents them from positioning for tomorrow. A problem 

with this is that they can overestimate sales. Again, if we look at 

the NFIB’s recent paper it shows that small businesses continually 

overestimate what their sales are going to be only to be disappointed when they have their actual sales numbers come in. 

Larger firms, they are amenable to stakeholders; therefore, they 

are able to have individuals to help them estimate those sales. 

So what are my recommendations? I think we need to continue 

to create a favorable lending environment for small businesses. We 

need to give better information for small firms to broaden their 

scope. We need to streamline the tax system so that all firms can 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

take advantage of all the advantages that are available to them, 

but most importantly, we need to give small firms access to information and experts through the SBA, the SBDCs, SBCs, and even 

the organization I am familiar with, the SBI. 

I would like to thank you, Committee, for the opportunity to 

present my views of the current struggle of small business, and I 

welcome your questions. 

Chairman GRAVES. Thank you very much. Our next witness is 

Robert Bruck, who is Intel Corporation’s corporate vice president 

and general manager of its Technology Manufacturing Engineering 

Division. Mr. Bruck is responsible for managing Intel’s global capital expenditures, as well as government and industry relations related to technology and manufacturing. Intel, which is the world’s 

leader in silicon innovation, was founded in 1968 to build semiconductor memory products. Intel introduced the world’s first microprocessor in 1971. Welcome. Thanks for being here. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. BRUCK 

Mr. BRUCK. Chairman Graves, members of the Committee, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss with you the significant mutual 

benefits that result from collaborations between large and small 

businesses in our industry. Like nearly all large firms, Intel began 

as a very small entity. We were founded in 1968 by two scientists 

with only $2.5 million in venture capital to manufacture semiconductor memory products. Our growth began to accelerate in the 

early ’80s when a large firm, IBM, adopted Intel’s microprocessor 

for its personal computers. IBM helped provide additional investment and enabled Intel to expand our capital and R&D investments. Today, Intel is a Fortune 50 company with 100,000 employees and annual revenues in 2011 of $54 billion. In the last decade 

we spent $68 billion on our U.S. operations, research and development, and manufacturing capacity. 

A 2008 study found between 2001 and 2007, Intel contributed $758 billion to the U.S. GDP with $458 billion from direct operations and about $300 billion from companies that used our products. Intel has over 5,000 suppliers in the U.S. with more than 

2,200 of them classified as small businesses. In 2011, Intel spent 

more than $3 billion on goods and services purchased from small 

businesses in sectors that range from the supply of chemicals and 

gases to construction services. All of these economic benefits are dependent upon the continuous development and innovation of semiconductor technology. 

I would like to make three points to illustrate how Intel partners 

with small businesses to meet competitive challenges in the global 

marketplace. First, small businesses play a critical role and benefit 

from basic university research as well as participating in Intel’s 

own research and development programs. Due to the technical 

challenges involved in semiconductor product design, materials research, and development of advanced process technologies, upstream research must begin as much as 10 or more years before 

products enter the market. Semiconductor companies have a rich 

history of pooling their resources to form research consortia to address long-term technical challenges in a pretty competitive environment. These consortia, such as the Semiconductor Research 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

Corporation are partially funded by various federal agencies, including NIST, DARPA, and NSF. 

Continued and expanded federal support for what Intel CEO 

emeritus Craig Barrett calls ‘‘the greatest wealth creation machine 

in the world,’’ the U.S. university research system, is critical to the 

U.S. maintaining our global lead in science and technology and 

gaining the related job creation benefits for both large and small 

businesses. Intel builds on the results of pretty competitive research with its own proprietary research in the technology development phase. Intel spends between 13 and 15 percent of annual revenue on research and development, which in 2011 alone exceeded 

$8.3 billion, making Intel the third largest company in the world 

for R&D expenditures. 

Small businesses play a critical role in the research and development stage through their willingness to collaborate at the frontier 

of technology development to help commercialize new technologies. 

For example, Energetic Technologies, whom you will hear from 

next, receives significant technical assistance from Intel to develop 

specific light sources necessary for EUV lithography, a critical technology enabler. Energetic also received research grants from NSF, 

which were used to explore the potential for commercializing laserdriven light source technology in the life sciences areas. That same 

technology is also used to detect defects in semiconductor chip fabrication. 

My second point is that large companies like Intel can assist 

small businesses through direct investment. Intel’s venture arm, 

Intel Capital, invests in small businesses to fill technology and supply chain gaps. In 2011, Intel Capital invested over $500 million 

in more than 80 small businesses to cover a broad range of industry from consumer Internet to clean tech to health sciences. As an 

example, between 2005 and 2008, Intel Capital and Tallwood Ventures invested $15 million into small business crossing automation. 

In 2009, another of our suppliers, Assist Technologies, went into 

bankruptcy. Intel and Tallwood invested another $7 million for 

crossing to finance the purchase of certain assets from Assist, saving crucial U.S.-based capability. The result was a very successful 

new product and about 180 high-tech jobs in California were saved. 

The last point I would like to make is Intel helps small businesses with educational, training, and quality programs that help 

make them stronger businesses with increased potential for job creation. For example, the president of a woman-owned, 19-employee 

visual communications company recently noted the following: ‘‘We 

have worked for Intel for more than 25 years. When the Intel supplier diversity and small business program took shape over a decade ago, we immediately experienced the value of its initiatives. 

Since then, we have significantly expanded our services and capabilities, made new business connections, and more importantly, 

have learned how to build a better company.’’ 

Our written submission contains more detail on the three points 

I have made. Thank you. 

Chairman GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Bruck. 

Our next witness is Paul Blackborow, who is the chief executive 

officer of Energetiq Technology, Inc. Founded in March of 2004, the 

company is a developer and manufacturer of advanced light sources 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

that enable the manufacture of nanoscale structures. These light 

sources are used in application for life science instruments and 

leading edge semiconductor manufacturing. Thanks for being here. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL BLACKBOROW 

Mr. BLACKBOROW. Chairman Graves and members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to 

discuss various ways Energetiq technology, a small Massachusettsbased company and Intel, a large multinational corporation, collaborate. Our vibrant partnership has resulted in job creation and 

financial growth at Energetiq and technical solutions to pressing 

manufacturing challenges at Intel. Energetiq is a small, high-tech 

company based in Woburn, Massachusetts. We employ 20 people 

full-time, most of whom are engineers and scientists with advanced 

degrees. Energetiq specializes in developing advanced light sources 

for scientific and technical applications in the semiconductor, life 

sciences, and material science markets. Our staff focuses on research and development related to these technologies and to the assembly, testing, and marketing and sale of the products. The subassemblies of our products are manufactured by specialized companies primarily in Massachusetts and in New England. In 2002 [sic], 

we expected a majority of our manufactured products to be exported from the United States. 

Our core competence lies in plasma physics. We manufacture two 

product lines based on patented technologies that we developed. 

The Extreme Ultraviolet Light Source product line is an enabling 

light source technology for next generation lithographic processes 

in the semiconductor industry. EUV lithography will allow the 

manufacture of chips with extremely small dimensions. 

The Laser-Driven Light Source, or LDLS product line, is used for 

advanced measurement and inspection applications in the semiconductor chip fabrication and a diverse array of applications in the 

life sciences and material sciences. Our EUV and LDLS products 

are all part of Intel’s supply chain. The EUV light source products 

are bought by many companies which in turn sell EUV lithography 

tools and materials to Intel for its manufacturing plants. 

Energetiq’s LDLS technology and products are used by Intel to detect defects on silicon wafers as they pass through the chip manufacturing process. We have licensed one of Intel’s largest capital 

equipment suppliers to incorporate the LDLS technology into its inspection and measurement tools. 

Prior to the establishment of Energetiq, our founding team 

worked in high-level marketing and technical roles at a large supplier of process control products to Intel and to other semiconductor 

companies. In those roles we learned of Intel’s technology road 

maps along with the EUV technical challenges that needed to be 

met by the supplier community. We were impressed with Intel’s vision for EUV lithography, and even more by Intel’s well publicized 

financial support of that vision through research funding and equity investments in its supplier companies. Intel made it clear that 

existing sources of EUV lights were lacking in performance. We 

were planning to start a new enterprise and Intel’s public commitment to EUV lithography guided in large part the choice of our 

first product. Intel’s lithography team leaders agreed to fund some 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

research at Energetiq to better prove the technology we developed. 

In addition, they introduced us to Intel’s venture capital arm and 

provided two rounds of financing and valuable coaching on the investment process. 

Financing from our investors, including Intel, allowed the further 

development of the EUV source technology and the development 

and introduction of the LDLS technology. Intel Capital has held an 

observer seat on our board of directors since 2006. This person has 

provided significant advice and resources to Energetiq, including 

assistance on resolving a complex legal and intellectual property 

issue. Our Intel Capital investment manager provides business development suggestions to Energetiq, and each year we are invited 

to attend the Intel Capital CEOs Summit. That event brings together the CEOs of the Intel Capital portfolio companies with senior executives from large public companies from around the world. 

We have been able to make many useful connections at that summit. 

On the technical side, the senior lithography staff at Intel have 

monitored our technical progress on our two technologies and guided us toward certain business opportunities. We have been able to 

showcase our technologies to Intel’s engineers and scientists at 

events held at Intel’s development operations in Portland, Oregon. 

We regularly attend Intel Supplier Days where we can continue to 

learn the technical needs and challenges of Intel’s manufacturing 

operations. 

As a result of the technical and investment relationship in a 

small company, two technologies critical to the manufacture of 

Intel’s present generation and future-generation semiconductor 

chips have been developed and commercialized. These particular 

technologies were not developed by Intel’s large capital equipment 

suppliers, whose focus on making supremely reliable and productive chip manufacturing equipment has, perhaps, made them less 

capable to aggressively pursue new technology. Small companies 

like us can rapidly develop such technologies if we have a technical 

problem clearly defined. 

In summary, Intel provided the inspiration for the first product 

for Energetiq followed by R&D funding and equity financing. Our 

relationship with Intel provides us significant credibility to our customers, suppliers, and our investors. We have continued to receive 

valuable technical and commercial guidance and support from 

Intel, and Intel’s adoption of our EUV and LDLS technologies has 

helped drive our revenues from product sales. Our biggest customer 

is a large U.S. semiconductor capital equipment company, a major 

supplier to Intel, which represented about a quarter of our sales in 

2011. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman GRAVES. We will now start with our questions. We will 

start with Mr. West from Florida. 

Mr. WEST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Also, ranking member 

thank you. And thanks for the panel for being here. 

First question I would like to go to Dr. Slaughter and Dr. 

McDowell. As I was listening to you speak and read your testimony 

I was writing down what seems to be some negative factors that 

you listed which are driving our small firms to go into partnerships 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

with larger firms, such as capital access, sales, taxes, favorable 

lending environments, streamline tax code, access to business experts on staff, and access to research assistance. So if I could get 

your insights, where are the places where legislators such as ourselves have added to these negative factors and how can we alleviate some of these negative factors as we move forward? 

Mr. SLAUGHTER. That is a great question, Congressman West. 

Mr. WEST. Thank you. 

Mr. SLAUGHTER. So a couple thoughts come to mind. One is 

clearly on the tax code. I mean, I think folks on both sides of the 

aisle here in Washington and in the business community acknowledge America has one of the most complex, high-burden effectively 

tax codes around the world. It is a challenge for the Intels, but as 

Dr. McDowell and others know from their scholarship and others, 

the order of magnitude and the degree of the complexity for the 

small business community is massive. So it is not just for C corporations. I think one of the things to keep in mind then with tax 

reform is a lot of these small businesses, especially when they 

start, they are S corporations, they are partnerships, they have got 

a lot of different legal entities where a lot of taxable events flow 

through on the personal side. 

So one is mindset. When you are thinking about business tax reform, corporate tax is important but it has to be linked up with a 

lot of individual tax issues. And then again, the broad issues that 

a lot of economists from all parts of the political spectrum will acknowledge, broadening the base, reducing the complexity, lowering 

the rates. That is one. 

I think the other thing, I am not sure what the policy implication 

is but I will just point out on the issue of capital access, clearly in 

the wake of the world financial crisis there is an issue about how 

the banking system is working. Some people will look at large corporations in America and they wonder to complain about the large 

amount of near-cash assets that large corporations have on their 

balance sheets. But as we just heard in the testimony, a great advantage of that actually is as our financial system struggles to 

heal, paradoxically it can be the business sector that provides a lot 

of the key financing needs for small businesses. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. I would agree that when we look at the tax 

issues over the past 25 years, that has been the number one issue. 

So I think just the complexity of it, all the new taxes, the green 

credits, different things like that, they only add to the burden of 

the small business in comparison. I mean, it is a burden to the 

large business as well but they have the resources to take care of 

those things. Small businesses do not have those resources. So that 

is one major issue that we have to look at. 

But also when we think about the legislation, what they have 

done to help or hurt with the access to capital, you know, recently 

there was just so much uncertainty out there. Banks make their 

money by lending money. I mean, that is how they want to make 

money. They want to do that. But yet with all the regulations and 

the changes that occurred there is just a lot of uncertainty. And 

some of the bankers that I work with in my regular work with 

small businesses, you know, they want to lend. They want to do 

things that will help them make money. But of course, the regulaVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:14 Nov 13, 2012 Jkt 076468 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A468.XXX A468

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

tions are very difficult for them and for small businesses, of course, 

with the less access to capital or assets. I mean, to utilize as collateral, more guarantees, more things like that from the SBA can be 

very helpful and beneficial in those situations. 

Mr. WEST. Thank you. Mr. Bruck and Mr. Blackborow, you know, 

as I was listening it seems like this is like the second and third 

generations of a great thing about small firms partnering with bigger firms. You talked about Intel with IBM and now Energetiq 

with Intel. So if you could, just briefly talk about what you saw as 

the lessons learned, the best practices in that relationship that you 

all experienced over these couple machinations. 

Mr. BRUCK. Well, I suppose I could begin with the alignment on 

very long-term programs, and I want to commend the Committee 

for looking at research and development in particular and the partnerships between large and small companies because unlike many 

short-term issues that work with intellection cycles, these issues 

may take many, many years. And if you look at NASA’s investments in the ’60s and they have reported many times to Congress 

on the spinoff of businesses from health care and telecommunications and energy that have come out of that program, these 

things have to survive multiple administrations and have bipartisan support. So when we see that, like we have seen in Congressman Vela ́zquez’s state with the Center for Nanoscale Science and 

Engineering, you can attract global companies. Some of the best 

companies in the world have come there now for the GE450C development and are matching the state funds that come in and they 

are working to try to get some federal matching as well. And the 

members that participate are committed to small and minorityowned businesses getting a big part of the participation there. So 

you can see this kind of synchronization and cooperation is really 

critical to yield long-term success. 

Mr. BLACKBOROW. I would just echo the long-term aspect of it. 

I think one of the things that has helped us really with working 

with Intel is Intel’s long-term vision. This differs actually from the 

vision of venture capitalists who are the main source of funding for 

people like us. Intel can take a much longer view partly because 

it is a corporation. And so the relationship we have, we can go 

through peaks and troughs and Intel will stick with us because 

they value the technology over the long term. So it is really longterm investment for us, patient investment which we perhaps we 

would not get from the venture capital community, and we will not 

get a look from the banking community. At this point in our company’s development, sources of loan capital are simply not available 

at all and that is something, of course, that would be helpful to us 

as we want to grow. 

Mr. WEST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman GRAVES. Ranking Member Vela ́zquez. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. McDowell, due to the recession, demand for both products 

and services dropped dramatically, and for the small business that 

weathered the storm and survived, how can they prove to lenders 

that they are creditworthy after a prolonged period of below average cash flow? 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

Mr. MCDOWELL. This is a major issue because, again, they depleted their cash and inventory levels and now we are trying to 

help them to work with larger businesses and that can be a major 

problem and hurdle for them to overcome. One thing that we can 

do is to help them to better plan for their future. Business planning 

is a very difficult thing and sometimes overlooked by small businesses. If we can have a greater business plan in place on the part 

of these small businesses then they will be able to better show 

where their revenue streams are going to come from, how they are 

going to help pass the cash that will enable them to be able to get 

credit. So that can be a very major plus and bonus for them. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. How can we help, you know, you mentioned that 

we have technical assistance through SBA, and in putting together 

a business plan or helping them prepare for the future in terms of 

having a business plan in place, how can—what can we do to get 

information that is available through SBA get to small businesses? 

Do you have any idea? 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Well, I do believe this is a situation where really 

they need to be aware of what is available. And so therefore, the 

SBA and other organizations have not been doing a good job of 

marketing their own services to these small businesses. I think 

that the more education that we can give to small businesses and 

even to small business owners starting at the university level when 

they go through their training at a university if they are at a university or college, if we have more entrepreneurship programs such 

as, you know, interdisciplinary entrepreneurship programs or small 

business programs, so no matter what industry they are going 

into—arts, science, anything else—the more education they can 

have up front will help. But of course, at a later state we need to 

get them as much help as possible, and that is where I think universities can help if we will continue to push university systems 

and other aspects like that to help create an awareness of what is 

out there. Even things such as a lot of small businesses utilize social media as a marketing tool. You know, maybe the SBA and 

other resources need to look at where the small businesses are 

going for marketing to market their brands as well. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. Dr. Slaughter, the report that you 

made reference to that you prepared was done in 2010. Right? 

Since then a lot of things have happened. We have an economy 

that is creating jobs and consumer spending is up. Given those indicators would you revisit your report and will it be different if you 

have those counter into your analysis those factors? 

Mr. SLAUGHTER. I think two things come to mind. One is sort of 

at the company level of the surveys, in informal conversations with 

some of the companies that were involved in the survey in the first 

wave a couple of years ago, their sense is things have not changed 

very much. You know, I think that speaks to a couple things. One 

is the size of the companies that were involved in the survey. They 

were the Intels of the world and a lot of larger corporations. And 

again, on average when they have established over 6,000 small 

business supplier relationships, even amidst the financial crisis 

and the turmoil that created, a lot of those relationships still persist. And I think that some of the earlier testimony we heard 

speaks to that. The long-term nature of those relationships, both 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 

the large companies and the suppliers try to maintain those. The 

one thing the numbers would be different is thanks to some modest, though still fragile economic recovery, the overall magnitude 

that one would infer from the survey that we conducted of the 

amount of input to purchase it, for example, would hopefully be a 

bit larger today than it was two years ago. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Okay. According to the Bureau of Labor statistics, large multinational companies have cut their workforces in the 

U.S. by 2.9 million since 2000, while increasing overseas employment by 2.4 million over the same time period. By contrast, small 

firms created and net 14.5 million jobs in the 15-year period from 

1993 to 2008. Why do we see such a disparity in the contributions 

of large and small firms in creating jobs here in the U.S.? 

Mr. SLAUGHTER. So the broader answer is much faster economic 

growth abroad. There is a lot of academic research by me and others that have shown when U.S.-based multinationals expand 

abroad, that expansion in hiring and capital investment tends to 

support more hiring and more capital investment in America. So 

there is sometimes a presumption that more abroad means less in 

America, but when that growth abroad, as it has been with the tremendous growth in the BRIC and beyond countries is driven by 

really fast economic growth, a lot of that tends to be down to America. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. So you do not agree that the data for suggests 

that the outsourcing of jobs contributed to a higher unemployment 

in America? 

Mr. SLAUGHTER. The outsourcing played some role but the prevailing scholarship to date shows that it is a very modest role. And 

if I may, the numbers that you cited, the more revised numbers 

from the BEA show U.S. employment declines that are not quite 

as large in the U.S. paired operations of U.S. multinationals. And 

it was entirely concentrated in a handful of manufacturing industries. Services, for example, in the U.S. over the 2000s, U.S. parent 

employment growth was several hundred thousand in conjunction 

with fast employment growth in services companies abroad. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. Mr. Blackborow, when small businesses are awarded contracts through the small business contracting programs, they are allowed to subcontract a certain percentage of their work. However, there have been numerous reports 

that have detailed the abuses with these limitations on subcontracting. In your experience, what part of the contacting process 

makes it susceptible to contracting abuse? 

Mr. BLACKBOROW. Honestly, I could not say. We have been the 

recipient of SBIR grants and we have been very happy with that. 

The comment I would make with regard to SBIR grants is not with 

regard to any elicit practices; simply that it takes too long to get 

between phases in the SBIR programs. So if you have a phase one 

program, getting to phase two where there is more money is often 

a big gap. And so shortening the timeline for SBIR programs for 

small companies like us would make the program much more supportive of our business goals. We have done very little subcontracting and only to universities, and I do not believe they are corrupt. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. We are not implying that. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
15 

Mr. BLACKBOROW. Okay. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Bruck, the semiconductor industry is among 

the most capital-intensive in the world. By the way, we have asked 

GAO to do investigations. Those reports have been released right 

here and it shows that a lot of large companies that do not qualify 

and violate the eligibility requirement to apply for contracts that 

are awarded to small businesses have been awarded to large businesses and that is my question. What is that about? 

The semiconductor industry is among the most capital-intensive 

in the world, both with research and manufacturing costs running 

well into the hundreds of millions of dollars. If these costs continue 

to escalate, how will small and medium-sized companies manage to 

secure adequate investment to allow them to innovate and keep 

pace with large companies like Intel? 

Mr. BRUCK. Yes. It is a challenge and it is one of the reasons 

that we have developed such a closely integrated relationship with 

our small business partners. And this extends not only to our direct 

supplier but to the suppliers of our suppliers of our suppliers. We 

find that, you know, many of the issues around innovation or quality breakthrough or cost breakthrough happen many levels down in 

the supply chain, and that is where the big opportunity is for small 

businesses. And I think as the testimony here has shown, those 

companies are more agile in many ways and can move to invest 

first before markets are mature. 

The other point I would like to make is with that investment, it 

does help us keep high paying jobs here in the U.S. The more capital intensive our industry, the more the labor cost, which is a relative cost to the total product, diminishes, which is why we have 

75 percent of our revenue is exported to the rest of the world. Sixty 

percent of our jobs are here in the U.S. and they all average well 

over $100,000 at all sites. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. The R&D tax credit is of great importance to the technology and manufacturing industries. It provides businesses of all sizes the ability to invest and innovate research. How in your view could this credit be simplified to make 

it more business friendly, and why should it be made permanent? 

Mr. BRUCK. Yes. A great point. And I think our view is making 

it permanent would be wise and helpful for U.S. job creation. In 

terms of its usefulness, I think expanding on the discussions we 

are having today to understand how R&D investment creates a 

broader impact in the U.S. job market and in U.S. GDP growth 

would be helpful I think to the overall narrative of why the R&D 

tax credits should be made permanent. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GRAVES. Mr. Schilling. 

Mr. SCHILLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome, fellows. 

One of the things that—I own a small business in Moline, Illinois. It is just a small S corporation. One of the things that right 

now we are really hurting because, of course, the disposable cash 

with the high gas prices, of course, which we are trying to get 

under control, but one of the questions I have is do you believe that 

more regulation and higher taxes will help hold American companies here or will that be an incentive for them to move outside the 

United States? 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
16 

Mr. BRUCK. To me? 

Mr. SCHILLING. Yes. 

Mr. BRUCK. Okay. Well, obviously it is a disincentive for investment here. Our view, and let me contrast between large and small 

companies because on both the tax issue and the regulatory issue, 

but we have a global economic competition that is going on. The 

main thing that we would look at as a large company is a level 

playing field. So I think trying to look for ways that, as I mentioned, 75 percent of our revenues is exported into other markets. 

So our competition is coming largely from Taiwan or Korea or 

Japan or places like that that may have more favorable tax treatment. But it is even more important for the small business. And 

if you look at the amount of money they can reinvest into research 

and development, reinvest into hiring and expanding operations, 

that really will have a very long-term return on investment. And 

so providing that assistance is critical. 

The regulatory question, if you look at something like SarbanesOxley, I certainly understand why we need to protect investors especially with companies as large as Intel. But as a percentage of 

overall revenue, the administrative cost for small business to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley is a crippling cost and again, takes away 

from investment and innovation and job creation. So looking at the 

regulatory framework and maybe contrasting the difference for 

large versus small businesses would be helpful. 

Mr. SCHILLING. Very good. Mr. McDowell, this is kind of tied into 

the same thing. In your written testimony you say that lack of 

awareness of available tax credits rather than high tax rates may 

be the problem for small firms. According to the NFIB, high tax 

rates are a problem because they siphon capital that entrepreneurs 

need to invest back into their companies to create jobs. And I can 

relate to this firsthand because right now our taxes in our city, in 

Moline, Illinois, continue to go up and then the business is constantly dropping. And one of the problems is we have some equipment that needs to be replaced and instead of being able to replace 

the equipment we cannot and we are having to let people go. So 

it is kind of a tough situation here. Basically, how do you respond 

to something like that, sir? 

Mr. MCDOWELL. I am not saying that tax rates are not high for 

small business. I am saying that oftentimes, if we look at the 

trends over years, the taxes, you know, whether they have been up 

or down it always seems to be the number one problem for small 

business. I am not trying to deviate from that. But I am saying 

that what we are seeing today is that as more and more tax credits 

or different ways of even organizing your business are developed, 

too many small businesses are not taking advantage of the credits 

that are available to them. So I am not trying to imply that the 

taxes are not high and burdensome for businesses at all; it is just 

oftentimes there are too many things that are missed. And there 

are actually firms now that go out and specialize and go into small 

businesses such as yours and saying, look, we will do what we can 

to save your business and we will charge you a percentage of those 

tax savings as our fee. But again, the uncertainty for most businesses, whether or not it is going to be beneficial to them to explore 

different advantages or disadvantages can be difficult. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
17 

Mr. SCHILLING. Okay. Very good. I appreciate that. I yield back 

my time, sir. 

Chairman GRAVES. Mr. Mulvaney. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Very briefly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Blackborow, you mentioned access to capital and you said 

you are participating in the SBIR program. Have you ever had occasion to try and get any other SBA financing, more traditional 

SBA lending, that type of thing? 

Mr. BLACKBOROW. No, we have not. We have approached various 

banks from time to time to sense whether they would lend money 

to a company like us and they have not been very interested. Honestly, they do not feel that we are at a point in our growth that 

makes them feel comfortable enough. And thank goodness that we 

have people like Intel around. 

The biggest challenges we have are really not around financing, 

honestly. Or taxes at this point in our growth. Our biggest issue 

is access to good, talented people. And so the things that I would 

point out to the Committee, our focus on STEM education in this 

country needs to be really emphasized. We have trouble finding 

good, qualified scientists and engineers now that are born in this 

country or educated in this country. And when we advertise for a 

job we often get applicants from China, from Russia, from India, 

and many of them require visas which we cannot always get. And 

so I would say—and equally we have grad students at MIT down 

the street from us who when they get a Ph.D. have to go home 

when we just educated them in this country. This does not make 

any sense to me at all. So I would say the things that we need to 

do is to keep the talent here in this country and then it will fuel 

the creativity of companies like ours. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Thank you. I appreciate that comment. You 

mentioned also about the SBIR program and shortening the time 

between the phases. I am trying to keep the topic of conversation 

to the jurisdiction of this Committee. Is there anything else that 

the Small Business Committee, the Small Business Administration 

can do to help any of you gentlemen? I am trying to figure out 

what it is that we should be specifically focusing on in this room. 

Mr. BLACKBOROW. Let me just answer as a small business to say 

that I believe I am not very aware of what the Small Business Administration does and I think that in itself is a challenge. We have 

not been reached out to. I probably could go find it if I dug into 

it but it has not been something that has been obvious to me that 

I should go chasing after because I am not sure what I would get 

when I would get there. 

Mr. MULVANEY. You would be surprised, by the way, at the number of times we hear that, which is frustrating, us serving on the 

Committee. And recognizing the time, I am curious. I seriously 

have a question that is just of interest to me, probably not to the 

rest of the Committee, how do you all handle intellectual property? 

How do you handle proprietary information? When you do these 

partnerships between these big businesses and these small businesses, are you relying heavily on legal documents or is there 

something else that allows you to function but still allows you to 

sort of trust each other not to steal each other’s ideas? 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 

Mr. BRUCK. Well, no, it is very carefully controlled. And again, 

one of the points I would like to make about investment in small 

businesses and technology fields is that we can create high value 

products in this country that we can export to the rest of the world, 

but you need that intellectual property protection to be able to do 

that. And so what we will tend to do in a relationship like we have 

with Energetiq is to find what we want is the process technology, 

the technology related to building chips. We are not in the equipment business per se and so they should expect to own the IP 

around the hardware. And we bring in what is all of our background IP so we are not mixing that up. And then there is a very 

careful chain of custody as we create new technology together. But 

that allows them to go off and build products and serve an equipment market and us to go off and serve the chip market. 

Mr. BLACKBOROW. Yes, I would say it is quite sophisticated, the 

relationship we have both with Intel and our other large customer 

in this business. We have very good intellectual property lawyers 

on our side and theirs, and we carefully carve it out. We both want 

to own what we need and we do not want to jointly own things that 

we do not need because it gets cumbersome. So it is easier if we 

own our intellectual property, they own theirs, and we carefully 

spell it out in the contractual arrangements that we have between 

the companies. 

I would also say that Intel and the other companies are very respectful of our intellectual property and they need it, which is why 

they do not want to be seen to be taking it generally. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Gentleman, thank you very much. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to share with 

the panel that SBA not only offers a series of different economic 

development programs through technical assistance to helping put 

a business plan together to matching borrowers with lenders. But 

last year when large financial institutions were not lending to 

small businesses, the SBA stepped up and we injected—the federal 

government injected close to $30 billion into the economy. Where 

would this economy be today if it was not because of the role that 

we played in helping small businesses access affordable capital. So 

you have been lucky that you did not need their service, but a lot 

of businesses in this country, small businesses depend on the kind 

of services that the Small Business Administration provides. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GRAVES. Thank you all very much for participating 

today. We appreciate it. 

I would ask unanimous consent that members have five legislative days to submit statements and supporting materials for the 

record. Without objection, so ordered. And we appreciate it again. 

Thank you. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:01 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
19 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here 76468A.001
20 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 76468A.002
21 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 76468A.003
22 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 76468A.004
23 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 76468A.005
24 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 59 here 76468A.006
25 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 76468A.007
26 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 76468A.008
27 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 76468A.009
28 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 76468A.010
29 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 76468A.011
30 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here 76468A.012
31 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 66 here 76468A.013
32 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 here 76468A.014
33 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 68 here 76468A.015
34 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 69 here 76468A.016
35 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 70 here 76468A.017
36 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 71 here 76468A.018
37 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 72 here 76468A.019
38 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 73 here 76468A.020
39 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 74 here 76468A.021
40 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 75 here 76468A.022
41 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 here 76468A.023
42 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 here 76468A.024
43 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 78 here 76468A.025
44 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 79 here 76468A.026
45 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 80 here 76468A.027
46 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 81 here 76468A.028
47 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 82 here 76468A.029
48 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 83 here 76468A.030
49 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 84 here 76468A.031
50 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 85 here 76468A.032
51 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 86 here 76468A.033
52 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 87 here 76468A.034
53 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 88 here 76468A.035
54 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 89 here 76468A.036
55 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 90 here 76468A.037