This email is being addressed to every currently interested NM SBIR Resource Center inquiry or participant. That's a lot of people, but, at this critical juncture, YOURS is the most important voice that your Congressional Member needs to hear. As you read below, you'll find there is a real need to hear from small business as the aggressive opposition has avoided small business input ... and somewhat succeeded in recent hearings. The changes afoot, as mentioned in the following message from InKNOWvation, would radically change the flavor of the current SBIR/STTR Program that has helped so many technology companies grow and thrive in NM.

I urge you to take a minute to respond. I tried to make it easy.
You can use the short, succinct letter template to format your own version, cut and paste to then email it to your Congressman. You can use the same format to phone your representative's staff, more direct and effective. Or do both! Freshman representatives are especially vulnerable at this time, and NM has several freshman in Washington.

Here are the NM Congressional contacts:

I.   HOUSE
Ben Ray Lujan: (sits on the important House Science and Technology Committee)
Chief of Staff is Angela Ramirez. angela.ramirez@mail.house.gov  202-225-6190
Tech legislative Assistant: Terri Nikole Baca: terrinikole.baca@mail.house.gov

Martin Heinrich: Chief of Staff is Steve Haro. steve.haro@mail.house.gov

202-225-6316

Harry Teague: Chief of Staff is Adrian Saenz. adrian.saenz@mail.house.gov 202-225-2365

II.  SENATE
Jeff Bingaman: senator_bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov   202-224-5521
Chief of Staff is Stephen Ward. stephen_ward@bingaman.senate.gov.

Tom Udall: Chief of Staff is Tom Nagle.  tom_nagle@tomudall.senate.gov 202-224-5521

If you want the real scoop, read the following letter from InKnowVation with the on-the-scene details of the competing bills.

Barbara Stoller

Director, SBIR Outreach Programs 

Letter Template

As the owner of a small technology business in NM, I wish to express my opposition to HR. 2965, the SBIR Reauthorization bill which, if adopted by Congress, will destroy the SBIR Program as we know it.

I urge that Congressman ___ consider the provisions of S.1233 and seek to get a bill through the House more in line with the Senate's bill.

My primary objections to HR. 2965 are as follows:

• It will allow venture capitalist (VC) firms, including those owned by large businesses to control/own "small businesses" and thus participate directly in the SBIR Program. This provision will severely penalize true small businesses.
• It proposes a dramatic increase in the size of SBIR awards, again to the benefit of VC-owned/controlled "small businesses" at the expense of reducing the total number of awards which will be available to true small businesses.
• It eliminates the requirement of earning a Phase I award before becoming eligible for a Phase II award, again a benefit which will only accrue to VC-controlled/owned "small businesses".

Please bring this e-mail to the attention of Congressman ___.

Thanks,

InKNOWvation Letter:

Background: SBIR has seen much activity recently with hearings, mark-ups, lots of constituency input and interaction, media coverage, behind the scenes maneuvering and negotiations. However, given the extent of opposition to to the House version of SBIR Reauthorization, remarkably little progress has been made towards finding common ground. In the judgment of many SBIR advocates, the program as you have all known it over 27 years is in serious trouble. There probably will be an SBIR program but -without the common ground achievement we have been seeking - any resemblance to the diversity of small company type participation, scope of projects tackled in every field of endeavor, and major economic impact particularly in areas of the country that needs it most will be only passing. Backed by major VC lobbying support, Congressional action on reauthorization is moving into high gear. Decisions one way or the other could happen in the next few days or, more likely, following the Independence Day holiday period beginning June 29, 2009.

As someone who works for an SBIR involved firm, your input now is more important than at any other time.

• If you've already contacted your Member - do it again.
• If you have been a passive observer - now is the time to step up.
• If you can - make arrangements to meet with your Member(s) and/or their staffs next week. 

Perhaps you might even consider getting together with other local awardees to schedule an SBIR focused town meeting.   

The House Small Business Committee (SBC) consolidated their FOUR separate bills into a single bill HR 2965 and brought HR 2965 before the full committee on Thursday, June 25. The House Science and Technology Committee is addressing markup of that same bill as we prepare this email. All indications are that the Committee will follow the SBC lead and that a majority of the Science Committee will also back HR 2965. Copies of these bills are accessible from: Bills.  

Deja vu all over again: Let it be made very clear: In major part, HR 2965 is simply a rework of the bill brought to the floor (as HR 5819) during the 110th Congress. That bill and the current reprise in the guise of HR 2965 radically refocuses what SBIR is about. Consistent with the closed system approach that has characterized SBIR reauthorization, last week the House Small Business Committee held a very selective hearing excluding almost everyone who would have offered alternative views to those in the leadership. However, unlike last year when so many Members were unaware of the extent of the damage the bill would do, this time those opposed to this radical restructuring have been very vocal. Those true SBIR Supporters need your help to encourage your Member to join them in tackling this issue head-on.

We must be prepared for a floor fight when HR 2965 is presented to the full House for a vote. The consensus among those trying to get to resolution is that the Senate bill (S 1223) is far preferable to the House bill. So if you want simply to encourage your Member to look at S 1223 provisions, that would be very useful.

There are House Members who have been taking a serious look at their SBIR options and may be willing to introduce, and drive very useful and different elements to help this process. If your Member is one of those - urge them seriously to consider helping to break this log-jam, to seek common ground that will enable effective SBIR participation by as broad a range of qualified firms as possible - and that means both a cross-section of growth oriented small firms having (or seeking) VC involvement AND that overwhelming percentage of small firms for which VC is never an option.

Critical structural concerns to discuss with your Congressman:

• Emphasize the importance of funding awardees doing work in the full gamut of technology space and across all stages from very risky early-stage to the more mature efforts that have near-term commercial potential. Far too much of the SBIR dollar is now being spent primarily on later-stage work...effectively emptying the pipeline of the longer term development work that so many of you are effectively doing. 
• SBIR focus on commercialization is NOT about funding only work with the potential for near-term application with substantial financial return. That incorrect assumption has been feeding the drive towards using VC investment as a surrogate to determine whether or not a project (and a firm) is commercially viable. That is a financial return decision that may be useful but which cannot be the primary determinant for SBIR selection, for expenditure of federal/public dollars. That funding criteria must remain the technical competence and importance of problem issue.  
• Funding selection IS about supporting earlier-stage, often higher risk work that others are not yet ready to fund - if at all - but has potential application and addresses a real need.
• Redesign the program on issues like increasing the levels of award funding that are clearly less than adequate to many of the tasks addressed, but restrict very high-cost SBIR/STTR awards - especially at Phase II - for what really are Phase III projects. Very large awards both at Phase I and II have already had the crippling effect of limiting the number and type of incoming new projects. When the number of Phase I's are reduced, the impact is felt most profoundly among those firms with few other options. When fewer Phase I are being funded, those not getting the awards are typically the younger, smaller, earlier-stage firms, commonly in states with a less robust SBIR track record and usually with limited VC access.
• Address directly the continuing problem of the gap at the end of Phase II; you're not ready for prime time. Funding Phase III work (demonstration, engineering scale-up, clinical trials) out of the SBIR R&D pool is NOT an appropriate solution. Far more effective means exist to move SBIR projects forward and to draw down the value of what has been created.

Where are we now? 

   The House Committees of Small Business and of Science have both thrown their weight behind the seriously flawed HR 2965. This bill will certainly be brought for full House consideration and vote. In the meantime, the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship marked up their SBIR Reauthorization bill (S 1223) on June 18, 2009 and held a related Field Hearing in Maryland on the NIH/SBIR Exclusion in the Recovery Act on June 22, 2009. There is scattered but important opposition in the Senate to the SBIR bill (S 1223) and it is not clear when the full Senate will vote on S 1223.  

• These two bills are quite different in approach, underlying assumptions and content.
• They are also almost exactly the same as the SBIR bills before the Congress last year.

It is critical that the deadlock of the 110th Congress is avoided when the House and Senate bills addressing reauthorization were totally incompatible as they still are - and when a Conference Committee was not even convened. Continued operations of SBIR required some political fast footwork and, more recently, a Continuing Resolution provision set to run out on July 31, 2009. If necessary, there will be another CR - but enough is enough! 

In these challenging economic  times, SBIR must be part of our country getting back on its feet. Continued functioning of the program in this limbo condition is disruptive. Getting back to business - by as broad a segment of technology-based small business community as possible - is vital and must be achieved soon. 

Congress has an agenda already chock full of critical issues. An appropriate SBIR reauthorization should not be one of them. 

You live/work in the District of a Member who will have a vote on this issue. That puts you now in the front line of being able to affect finding that common ground and getting to an appropriate vote. Please let us encourage you to contact your Member and tell them what you want: the following link will enable you to identify your Member, contact information and the committees of which they serve - Member info. 

Making contact: "Are You For Main Street or For Wall Street?"

1. Call to find out who is handling the Member's SBIR related issuues.
2. Talk to that person about why you're calling.
3. Follow-up with email addressing what you want them to remember and act upon.

A House staffer's email will be their name: first.last@mail.house.gov. 

Tell them the importance of SBIR/STTR to your firm. Your story may be the most important thing you will likely say. All politics are local. You are bringing in money and creating jobs in the state. You and all the other SBIR firms are a major factor in the recovery of our struggling economy. Just tell it as you see it and stick to what you know. 

Urge your Representative to consider the SBIR Reauthorization compromise being discussed among many other Members that would maintain the integrity and diversity of the SBIR program with evaluation criteria solidly grounded in the technical competency of the applicant, relevance and importance of the problem they address regardless of the scale of the down-stream, market potential. Keeping SBIR diverse and open to firms at all stages of their development the strength and importance of the SBIR endeavor. A compromise would accommodate the effective program participation of those applicants with major growth potential who have been successful in attracting relevant levels of equity financing. Both VC and SBIR dollars have a critical role to play in the development of many small firms - but not to the exclusion of everyone else. 

Do not allow you Member's staff to shortchange what you have to say by sending you a form letter telling you how much they appreciate your input and that you should be assured that they are strong SBIR supporters. You need to know how they see the provisions of HR 2965 being changed. Ask them: "Are you for Main Street or Wall Street?"

If they're solidly in the 2965 camp, that's good to know. You'll not change their mind. It is the guys who are open to discussion that we need to know about.

·  What is different this year:

Many Members who voted in favor on HR 5819 in the 110th Congress subsequently have made it clear that EITHER they did not like the HR 5819 provisions but thought this was the only available slot on the legislative calendar that year to address continuing this very important program. Some actually had no idea that they were not voting for a straight reauthorization of the SBIR program - a very popular, long-functioning federal program which they knew to have been working well.

These Members are now indicating that they want a better and more appropriate SBIR bill this time around. Advocates on both extremes are being asked to accept a compromise which gives full SBIR access to all technically competent small firms.

Please do your bit to encourage compromise. Much time and energy have already been spent...the program still hangs by a thread.

Ann Eskesen

Innovation Development Institute