The Innovation Pipeline: From Universities to Small Businesses (House Small Business subcommittee hearing, February 11, 2020)
Summary
Printed record of a hearing of the House Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee on Innovation and Workforce Development, held February 11, 2020, titled The Innovation Pipeline: From Universities to Small Businesses, Small Business Committee Document Number 116–071, published in 2021. Opening statements came from Hon. Jason Crow and Hon. Troy Balderson. Witnesses were Dr. John Younger, vice president of science and technology at the University City Science Center; Dr. Sheila Martin of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities; Dr. Ethan Mann of Sharklet Technologies, Inc.; and Dr. Gregory P. Crawford, president of Miami University. The appendix prints their prepared statements and additional material from the Association of Public & Land-Grant Universities, Engine, Hon. Abby Finkenauer and a letter from Janeya Griffin, CEO of The Commercializer, LLC.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“The Innovation Pipeline: From Universities to Small Businesses (House Small Business subcommittee hearing, February 11, 2020).”
Original at www.govinfo.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/the-innovation-pipeline-from-universities-to-small-businesses-house-sm-72054132ad/
, SHA-256 2acbc3ab82301c761c2c4823084100b3b810fc22b5ff255c94bbea7c546cb3c5.Full text
THE INNOVATION PIPELINE: FROM UNIVERSITIES
TO SMALL BUSINESSES
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INNOVATION AND
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
UNITED STATES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
HEARING HELD
FEBRUARY 11, 2020
Small Business Committee Document Number 116–071
Available via the GPO Website: www.govinfo.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
39–605 WASHINGTON : 2021
SBD026 with DISTILLER
Congress.#13
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
NYDIA VELÁZQUEZ, New York, Chairwoman
ABBY FINKENAUER, Iowa
JARED GOLDEN, Maine
ANDY KIM, New Jersey
JASON CROW, Colorado
SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
JUDY CHU, California
MARC VEASEY, Texas
DWIGHT EVANS, Pennsylvania
BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio, Ranking Member
AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, American Samoa, Vice Ranking Member
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
KEVIN HERN, Oklahoma
JIM HAGEDORN, Minnesota
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
ROSS SPANO, Florida
JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina
MELISSA JUNG, Majority Staff Director
JUSTIN PELLETIER, Majority Deputy Staff Director
KEVIN FITZPATRICK, Staff Director
(II)
SBD026 with DISTILLER
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
CONTENTS
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Hon. Jason Crow ...................................................................................................... 1
Hon. Troy Balderson ................................................................................................ 2
WITNESSES
Dr. John Younger, Vice President of Science and Technology, University
City Science Center, Philadelphia, PA ............................................................... 5
Dr. Sheila Martin, Vice President of Economic Development and Community
Engagement, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, Wash-
ington, DC ............................................................................................................. 7
Dr. Ethan Mann, Vice President of Marketing and Business Development,
Sharklet Technologies, Inc., Aurora, CO ............................................................ 9
Dr. Gregory P. Crawford, President, Miami University, Oxford, OH ................. 10
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Dr. John Younger, Vice President of Science and Technology, University
City Science Center, Philadelphia, PA ........................................................ 24
Dr. Sheila Martin, Vice President of Economic Development and Commu-
nity Engagement, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities,
Washington, DC ............................................................................................ 30
Dr. Ethan Mann, Vice President of Marketing and Business Develop-
ment, Sharklet Technologies, Inc., Aurora, CO .......................................... 40
Dr. Gregory P. Crawford, President, Miami University, Oxford, OH .......... 42
Questions for the Record:
None.
Answers for the Record:
None.
Additional Material for the Record:
Association of Public & Land-Grant Univeresities ........................................ 48
Engine ............................................................................................................... 53
Hon. Abby Finkenauer, Member of Congress ................................................ 57
Letter from Janeya Griffin, CEO, The Commercializer, LLC ....................... 59
(III)
SBD026 with DISTILLER
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 0486 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
SBD026 with DISTILLER
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 0486 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
THE INNOVATION PIPELINE: FROM
UNIVERSITIES TO SMALL BUSINESSES
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2020
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INNOVATION AND WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room
2360, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jason Crow [chairman
of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Crow, Finkenauer, Kim, Davids,
Houlahan, Balderson, Chabot, Hern, Burchett, and Joyce.
Chairman CROW. Good morning. The Committee will come to
order.
We want to thank everyone for joining us this morning, and es-
pecially to the witnesses here today. For those of you who have not
testified before a Committee, the way that these Subcommittees
usually work is members sometimes have overlapping Subcommit-
tees and obligations, so people will come and go throughout the
Committee and ask questions during the time that we have allotted
today.
So that that, I wanted to make an opening statement before I
turn it over to Mr. Balderson, the Ranking Member.
This past year, this Subcommittee has seen a lot of inspiring ex-
amples of the value of innovation and entrepreneurship. For dec-
ades, the U.S. has led the world as the best place to innovate and
start a small business. A large driver behind this innovation, how-
ever, is our commitment to publicly funding research and develop-
ment in health care, science, and technology. And as a result of
that, hundreds of patents are developed on our Nation’ s college
campuses every year. Products like lifesaving drugs,
groundbreaking medical devices and advances in agriculture are
the result of collaboration among faculty, students and the business
community.
These innovations, made possible in some part by public invest-
ment, are needed now more than ever as technology rapidly
changes every sector of our economy. However, as more states cut
funding for research-based universities, the Federal Government’ s
role in supporting innovation is more important than ever.
For an economy as large and diverse as ours, the only way for
sustained economic growth is through innovation that results in
new solutions or improvements in products or services. The U.S.
Government made Federal R&D funding a priority starting in
(1)
SBD026 with DISTILLER
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
2
World War II, and those investments have paid off. Federal fund-
ing is responsible now for approximately 30 percent of all new U.S.
patents every year.
The story is different now and the U.S. is one of the only OECD
countries that has decreased public investment in R&D over the
past 25 years. I believe we should be working together to support
increased investment in research and development, particularly at
our colleges and universities where our next generation of
innovators are being developed.
But research and development funding is only one part of the
equation. Bringing an idea from a university lab to consumers is
no easy process as we have heard from a lot of businesses and
innovators over the past year. There are numerous steps involved,
from developing a business plan to doing market research to licens-
ing the technology and security venture capital funding. Fortu-
nately, universities and organizations are working all around the
country to make this process easier. By providing space in incuba-
tors and accelerators, universities can cultivate emerging tech-
nologies and leverage their vast networks for fundraising and
mentorship.
The knowledge available to entrepreneurs in these environments
can help them through the so-called ‘‘valley of death,’’ another
thing that we have heard a lot about from entrepeneurs directly.
And that is where the technology is not yet perfected, and investors
are hesitant, and many startups fail to get off the ground and get
through the ‘‘valley of death.’’
In my district, the Fitzsimmons Innovation Community, in part-
nership with CU Anschutz, the Children’ s Hospital of Colorado
and UC Health is providing vital support for bioscience research,
innovation, and commercialization. Another example of the success
of the intersection of small business and Federal R&D are the
SBIR and STTR programs, which work to commercialize cutting-
edge technology. Over the last 3 decades the SBIR program has
boasted significant return on investment and has generated billions
in tax revenue.
A priority for me as the Chair of this Subcommittee is to identify
how policymakers can help rebuild and develop the Main Streets
of our country. Whether it is a tax startup in Kansas, a medical
device company in Colorado, a pharmaceutical research firm in
Philadelphia, or any small business in any city or town across the
country, we know these public-private partnerships accelerate inno-
vation, provide jobs, and support our communities.
So, I hope that today’ s discussion will shed light on the many
benefits of the innovation pipeline taking place at our Nation’ s
universities. And I look forward to working with my colleagues in
Congress so more small businesses can bring their ideas to market.
So now I would like to yield to our Ranking Member, Mr.
Balderson, for his opening statement.
Mr. BALDERSON. Thank you, Chairman Crow. Thank you, wit-
nesses, for being here today.
Studies show that when universities and firms both have close
personal and geographical links, these connections help produce
greater innovation outcomes. Ohio colleges and universities spent
nearly $2.4 billion in fiscal year 2018 on research and development
SBD026 with DISTILLER
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
3
activities, landing the 12th District on the R&D state ranking.
Ohio State University, which has campuses in my district, led the
state with $875 million in R&D expenditures and is ranked 25th
of American research universities.
So how can close ties between universities and local firms help
business innovation? Just last week I participated in a hearing
about the SBIR/STTR programs held by the Research and Tech-
nology Subcommittee of the Space, Science, and Technology Com-
mittee. I asked the panel about the biggest burdens faced by small
businesses in the R&D space and learned that they need help in
two major ways—risk assessment of their technologies and general
startup resources for business planning and management.
This is where the ties between universities and local firms come
in. Institutions that take advantage of both personal and geo-
graphical links between R&D and entrepreneurship are able to ef-
fectively transform potential into product and scientists into busi-
nessmen, or women.
A recently published book, Jumpstarting America, illustrates
how two MIT professors developed an index system of metro statis-
tical areas or MSAs—very challenging words to put all together
there—to rank each one’ s potential to becoming the Nation’ s next
great tech hub. MSAs were ranked by workforce size, four edu-
cation measures, and three lifestyle measures. The education meas-
ures qualify workforce and production elements required to support
research and development systems. I am proud to say that six Ohio
cities made the list, including Columbus in my district, which was
ranked number 4 out of 102 metropolitan areas. Columbus and its
surrounding communities offer a great quality of life and have un-
limited potential for high-tech industries thanks to our local col-
leges and universities.
Jumpstarting America and similar economic development studies
are limited in scope for various reasons to urban areas. But, what
about our rural areas? Surely, there are great innovations coming
from the heartland universities.
Last month, the Subcommittee discussed ag tech entrepreneur-
ship as a catalyst for rural revitalization efforts. Our witness for
the hearing, Dr. Douglas Jackson-Smith represented Ohio State
University’ s Innovation for Food and Agricultural Transformation,
a project that embodies many of the themes we will be discussing
today. At this hearing, we will examine the local impact of univer-
sities as centers of innovation. While some excel at technology
transfer and commercialization, others act as a keystone of entre-
preneurial ecosystems.
I appreciate the witnesses’ work in this space and look forward
to hearing your success stories.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman CROW. Thank you, Mr. Balderson. The gentleman
yields back.
And if Committee members have an opening statement, I would
just ask that they be submitted for the record.
I want to take just take a few minutes to explain the timing
rules for those of you who have not testified before. Each witness
gets 5 minutes to testify at the beginning, and then member get
5 minutes for questioning. There is a lighting system to assist you
SBD026 with DISTILLER
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
4
right in front of you. So, the green light comes on when you begin.
The yellow light will come on when you have 1 minute. And then
the red light comes on when your time is completed. And we do ask
that you try to stick with those timing limits so that the members
can get questions in and we can move the questions around be-
tween the witnesses as well.
So, I would now like to begin by introducing our first witness,
Dr. John Younger. Dr. Younger is the vice president of Science and
Technology at the University City Science Center. With extensive
clinical research and extraimperial experience, Dr. Younger is
working on the Science Center’ s Commercialization Startup In-
vestment and Business Acceleration Program. Dr. Younger also
founded Akadeum—did I get that right, Dr. Younger? Close
enough. Akadeum Life Sciences, a venture-backed life science com-
pany out of his lab at the University of Michigan and serves on the
National Advisory Council of the National Institute of General
Medical Sciences. Welcome, Dr. Younger.
Our second witness is Dr. Sheila Martin. Dr. Martin is vice presi-
dent for Economic Development and Community Engagement at
the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities. Dr. Martin
leads and engages with senior university leaders and stakeholders
on talent and workforce development, innovation and entrepreneur-
ship, and social, cultural, and community engagement. She also di-
rects APLU’ s Commission on Economic and Community Engage-
ment. Dr. Martin earned a B.A. from Southern Illinois University,
an M.A. from the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International
Commerce at the University of Kentucky, and a Ph.D. from Iowa
State University. Welcome, Dr. Martin.
Our third witness today is Dr. Ethan Mann. Dr. Mann is a vice
president of Sharklet Technologies, an innovative surface tech-
nology company based in Aurora, Colorado. Dr. Mann has led many
of Sharklet’ s translational scientific studies aimed at dem-
onstrating the use of microtextures for biological control. Dr. Mann
holds a Bachelor of Science from Chadron State College, and a
Ph.D. from the University of Nebraska. He trained as a post-doc-
toral fellow in infections disease at The Ohio State University,
which I am sure Congressman Balderson is happy to hear. Do not
let it go to your head, Troy. Dr. Mann currently serves on NIH re-
view panels to evaluate small business innovation research grants
which support commercialization of innovative technologies. Thank
you, Dr. Mann, for being here today.
I would like to now yield to our Ranking Member, Mr. Balderson,
to introduce our final witness.
Mr. BALDERSON. And just so you know, my deputy chief of
staff is a graduate of Miami.
I am turning the reins over. I did not see him come in yet, so
I am turning it over to the Ranking Member Chabot for the intro-
duction.
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. Just trying to be part of the woodwork
over here, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member, Mr.
Balderson, for allowing me to introduce our fourth and final wit-
ness here today, Dr. Gregory P. Crawford, the 22nd president of
Miami University, one of the great universities in Ohio. And I
SBD026 with DISTILLER
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
5
would note that our staff director, Mr. Kevin Fitzpatrick, is a grad-
uate of Miami; as is my son, Randy; as is my younger brother,
Dave. And so, a great university. Excuse me.
Aside from being an Ohio native, Dr. Crawford is uniquely suited
to present on today’ s topic. He has bachelor’ s degrees in mathe-
matics and physics, a master’ s degree in physics, and a doctorate
in chemical physics from Kent State University. His work includes
more than 400 research and education publications, review articles
and book chapters. Dr. Crawford has an extensive track record of
guiding research to commercialization. He has participated in spin-
off and startup companies and is credited with 21 U.S. patents and
patent applications. Before coming to Miami, he launched research
commercialization initiatives at Brown University and at Notre
Dame. He is currently a member of the board of directors at
Cintrifuse, the incubator and accelerator dedicated to creating a
stronger technology presence in the Greater Cincinnati area. Dr.
Crawford’ s administration emphasizes diversity, inclusion, and
interdisciplinary collaboration across all of Miami’ s campuses and
colleges.
We thank you for joining us today as we do all the witnesses on
this distinguished panel. I want to thank you for your dedication
to Miami University and the Greater Cincinnati area and the state.
Thank you very much, Doctor.
Chairman CROW. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
And the members, we got through our introductions which when-
ever folks from academia come is really the most challenging part
for us. There are a lot of acronyms here. So, thank you for bearing
with us.
So, let’ s start with Dr. Younger. You are recognized for 5 min-
utes, Doctor.
STATEMENTS OF DR. JOHN YOUNGER, VICE PRESIDENT OF
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, UNIVERSITY CITY SCIENCE
CENTER; DR. SHEILA MARTIN, VICE PRESIDENT OF ECO-
NOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, AS-
SOCIATION OF PUBLIC AND LAND-GRANT UNIVERSITIES;
DR. ETHAN MANN, VICE PRESIDENT OF MARKETING AND
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, SHARKLET TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;
DR. GREGORY P. CRAWFORD, PRESIDENT, MIAMI UNIVER-
SITY
STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN YOUNGER
Mr. YOUNGER. Great, thank you.
Chairman Crow, Ranking Member Balderson, and members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
It is an honor to join my distinguished colleagues on today’ s panel,
and I will suppress my Wolverine access for the rest of the morn-
ing.
Before a great idea becomes a business, or creates a sustained
new job, or generates a dollar of export, it must spend time in what
you have called the ‘‘valley of death.’’ The term applies to a period
of commercial development in which really critical questions have
to be answered—does anyone actually need the idea that is being
SBD026 with DISTILLER
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
6
put forward? If so, how many people actually want it? What are
they willing to pay?
If you have an adverse answer to any of these questions, a really
great idea can be shown the door very quickly. In most instances,
that is the appropriate outcome. A lot of ideas turn out to be much
better on paper than they are in practice.
The concept of the ‘‘valley of death’’ applies to any new under-
taking but it is really acutely relevant to startups, in which there
is no predefined market and there is no proven business model to
draw from. Startups often die on the vine. Nobody buys, the intel-
lectual property is not defensible, a capable founding team cannot
be recruited. That is common and a key tenet of startup thinking
is that poor ideas should be identified as such as quickly as pos-
sible and abandoned as quickly and efficiently as possible. That
saves investment and it saves time for the entrepreneurs that are
working on that ideas to move on to more promising ideas.
I began my career as a physician scientist and pursued that path
for 20 years. However, for the last 6 years of my career, I have
spent a really great time working in the ‘‘valley of death,’’ first as
an entrepreneur of a Michigan-based biotech startup, and most re-
cently as part of a team that is doing everything possible to make
the journey of that valley as quick, if not painless, as we can for
new ideas and new companies.
I now work at the University City Science Center of the Nation’
s oldest and largest urban research park, founded in 1963 and
based in Philadelphia. As the Science Center’ s vice president for
Science and Technology, I lead all of our efforts to help universities
and startups move their technologies beyond the valley, including
a program that provides grants to research universities to better
prepare their most promising technologies for entry into the world,
a portfolio of some of the most effective business incubators on the
East Coast, and an early stage investment fund that provides crit-
ical early capital to biotech and healthcare IT startups in their
most vulnerable formative days.
Our Nation’ s economy faces persistent and intensifying chal-
lenges. Innovation is the key to addressing many of those concerns,
but how best to support innovation is an especially tough nut to
crack. There is no question that research funding is essential to
creating ideas and universities that may become great new compa-
nies.
However, I am here today to draw your attention to what must
happen after those ideas come out of universities as they mature
through formation, commercialization, job creation, and economic
impact.
In 2010, Steve Blank, a seminal thought leader in entrepre-
neurial theory, defined a start-up as an organization formed to
search for a repeatable and scalable business model. Having
launched my own startup, I whole-heartedly endorse that idea.
Startups are not small versions of established businesses. They are
harsh, marketplace experiments seeking to determine if a business
idea has legs or not. These experiments are risky. They are often
heart-breaking. They are typically expensive, and in most in-
stances, end up with a decision to call it quits. But they are an un-
avoidable and unblinking prerequisite for commercial success.
SBD026 with DISTILLER
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
7
The nature of startups suggests that the predominant models of
Federal support are not really well-suited for these endeavors.
The measured pace of grant submission, review, and award oper-
ate at a speed that does not match the tempo of intense innovation.
A startup applying for an SBIR or STTR award typically will not
see that money for over a year after application. In that time,
many companies will fold or pivot so strongly away from the origi-
nal plan that even when the SBIR arrives, the idea is no longer
in alignment with the grant was meant to pay for.
Much like the patent process, the SBIR/STTR mechanism is a
funding approach that favors teams that have the luxury of being
able to take things slowly. In my opinion, taking things slowly is
not part of an effective formula for a national innovation strategy.
Startups do not necessarily need a lot of money; they need money
right away. It is not practical for the government to implement a
mechanism to quickly release small amounts of cash. Fifty thou-
sand, $100,000 dollars can be transformative. In my experience,
the best approach instead is to provide funding to reliable and
proven incubator and accelerator programs and organizations, such
as the Science Center, which has helped over 400 companies
launch. These enterprises have boots-on-the-ground familiarity
with the core ingredients that companies will need. Who are the
talent? Who are the local advisors? What is the behavior of local
investors? These startups require these ideas to move forward, and
the companies we help launch grow benefit from our decades of ex-
perience in this space.
My sense is that the best practical means of facilitating and
monetizing the innovation that turns academic research into busi-
ness development is to specifically support the growth of private
sector organizations that can make rapid, unbiased determinations
of which early-stage ideas have sufficient commercial promise to at-
tract investment. This is a role we currently play for BARDA using
our multistate tech transfer network to identify biotechnology ideas
that may be of interest to Health and Human Services.
I am going to—wait, am I past time? All right. I am going to give
up my negative time and say the rest of my remarks are in written
comments. Thanks.
Chairman CROW. All right. Thanks, Dr. Younger.
Dr. Martin, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. SHEILA MARTIN
Ms. MARTIN. Thank you, Chairman Crow, Ranking Member
Balderson, and members of the Committee. I am grateful to be
here to testify today. It happens to be National Inventors’
Day. So Happy National Inventors’ Day to all of you.
The subject of today’ s hearing is important to public research
universities who work with small businesses to improve their suc-
cess in three important ways:
The first one is talent. The most important form of technology
transfer happens when businesses hire our graduates. When our
students participate in federal research grants, they benefit by
learning about scientific discovery, participating in cutting?edge re-
search, and working in teams. And they bring that knowledge to
the companies that hire them.
SBD026 with DISTILLER
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
8
The second way that public research universities work with
small businesses is through innovation, the discovery that gen-
erates new products, greater productivity, and entirely new indus-
tries, while solving important social problems.
Third, universities are important to improving the quality of life
in their local communities. They generate prosperous economies,
offer cultural activities, enrich civic life, and partner with local or-
ganizations to address important community issues. And thriving
regions are a magnet for the talent that small businesses need to
innovate and flourish.
In thinking about the innovation pipeline, we really have to take
the long view. We cannot always predict what area of basic re-
search will lead to an invention that transforms our economy, cures
a widespread disease, or allows us to lead more fulfilling lives.
Because the benefits of basic research are so diffuse and long
term, few private sector companies will fund it. And therefore, it
makes economic sense that basic research is funded by Federal
agencies. So, maintaining or increasing that Federal basic research
funding is essential to ensuring that the font of scientific knowl-
edge that feeds the innovation pipeline continues to flow.
University researchers are anxious to see their discoveries put
into practice by businesses. And they often launch their own busi-
nesses. But before those ideas reach the market, someone has to
invest in the engineering, design, and market research that is nec-
essary for commercial success.
That is why programs like SBIR and STTR are so important.
They provide funding to help companies work through some of the
more difficult technical risks, evaluate the market potential, and
take ideas to the point where the private sector is willing to invest.
Public and land-grant universities are important sources of both
ideas and talent to companies who benefit from SBIRs and STTRs.
Empirical studies of these programs demonstrate that SBIR
projects that have a connection to a university are more likely to
be successful commercially.
And while there are many examples of companies that have suc-
cessfully used an SBIR grant to commercialize a university tech-
nology, I will highlight just two here and there are many more pro-
vided in my testimony.
The first I will talk about is Solid Power. It is a Louisville, Colo-
rado company that spun out of the University of Colorado at Boul-
der and is developing solid state battery technology for the electric
vehicle market. Its SBIR awards have led to successful funding by
strategic investors. And so, these Federal investments have not
only helped us make progress in clean mobility technology but also
have spurred success for this small company.
The second is Core Quantum Technologies, a Columbus, Ohio
firm that developed a method for speeding diagnoses and identifica-
tion of cancer treatment options. The company’ s founder is Pro-
fessor Jessica Winter from The Ohio State University’ s College of
Engineering. She benefitted from Ohio State’ s NSF-funded Ad-
vance Program which develops the entrepreneurial capacity of
women faculty. It helped her start her company, win the SBIR
grant, and connect to additional investors. And that project also il-
lustrates the importance of programs that diversify STEM fields
SBD026 with DISTILLER
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
9
and provide resources for women, minority, and student
entrepeneurs so that they, too, can be successful with SBIR and
with their companies.
Because as great as they are, SBIR and STTR are not enough.
Funding for basic research and complimentary programs, like NIH
Reach, NSF I-Corps, EDA’ s Regional Innovation Strategies, and
NIST’ s MEP partnership are also important for successful small
businesses.
APLU and its member universities are grateful for the Com-
mittee’ s support for these programs. To see for yourself how our
universities are supporting the universities’ small business innova-
tion pipeline, I invite all of you to meet inventors at the Innovation
and Entrepreneurship Showcase, sponsored jointly by APLU and
the Association of American
Universities, on April 28 at 5 PM here in the Rayburn Cafeteria.
I look forward to seeing you there.
Chairman CROW. Thank you, Dr. Martin.
Dr. Mann, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. ETHAN MANN
Mr. MANN. Thank you for inviting me. It is truly an honor to
be here.
I want to talk a little bit about Sharklet Technologies, which has
been a recipient of several SBIR awards over the years. Sharklet
is a startup company based in Aurora, Colorado, developing novel
surface textures applied to consumer and medical products to pre-
vent the spread of germs that cause infections. The novel para-
digm-shifting concept was the brainchild of Dr. Anthony Brennan,
a professor of Engineering at the University of Florida in Gaines-
ville. Dr. Brennan noticed that tiny surface structures impact bio-
logical response of cells, like bacteria. He noticed also that sharks
are not susceptible to fouling like whales, manatees, and sea tur-
tles. When he studied shark skin, he noticed that that specific tex-
ture is responsible for preventing fouling, and when reproduced on
plastic surfaces, it is able to prevent the accumulation of bacteria.
Sharklet has been developing numerous applications for this
technology now based in Colorado ever since Dr. Brennan’ s origi-
nal discovery.
Developing novel innovations for market readiness requires sig-
nificant investment regardless of the sector involved. Science Direct
reports that medical device development requires about 7 years to
go from concept to commercialization, and costs more than $31 mil-
lion. Biomedical technologies require substantial safety and efficacy
testing, usually to the molecular level, to satisfy regulatory approv-
als. Other advanced industry fields are similar due to the intrica-
cies of the technology. Manufacturing and development steps are
completed with the utmost scrutiny to ensure consistency and safe-
ty of the products used by customers.
Innovations with high likelihood of success are those that have
been de-risked to the point where certainty of value surpasses the
risk of failure for these new ventures. More quickly, driving tech-
nologies to this value inflection step should be the step of tech-
nology transfer offices around the country. Activity of these offices
SBD026 with DISTILLER
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
10
is critically important to ensure taxpayers are allowed to benefit
from the technologies they have had a part in funding.
Offices of technology licensing should be appropriately resourced
to support the quantities of emerging innovations that are in our
amazing universities.
Resources may need to be expanded to track with the fast pace
of science occurring in these academic research centers. Perhaps
one of the best examples to support de-risking innovations is the
SBIR and STTR grant programs which serve to fund proof of con-
cept and early R&D activities for these innovations. Small busi-
nesses taking advantage of these mechanisms are at a distinct ad-
vantage. They have improved their technology and added value
without selling equity which dilutes investors.
Delivering technologies to the marketplace provides a value be-
yond the obvious use of the technology. Supporting small busi-
nesses and innovation fuels entire community growth. For example,
the life science industry in Colorado in my home state has been in-
valuable for the state’s economy. The life sciences industry provides
more than 30,000 high-paying jobs with an average annual salary
of more than $89,000. Moreover, these direct jobs lead to estimated
indirect jobs of about 92,700.
I sit on the board of directors for the Colorado Bioscience Asso-
ciation, CBSA. CBSA is a state organization that creates co-oppor-
tunity for the Colorado life sciences community. CBSA champions
a collaborative life sciences ecosystem and advocates for a sup-
portive business climate.
Workforce collaboration is key to the growth and maturation of
any industry. CBSA and the life science industry together work to
cultivate a strong life sciences talent pipeline in Colorado with sev-
eral different workforce development and skilled training programs
including various interactive educational experiences, mentoring,
internships, and workforce skill building.
And Colorado life sciences companies see the value of engaging
not only in K-12 but in higher deduction. In fact, Sharklet Tech-
nologies, for example, engaged with CSU, Colorado State Univer-
sity, biomedical engineering students each of the last 4 years to
complete a senior design project as part of their senior-level course
work. These projects included core components to the Sharklet
product development activities.
Support from the Committee on Small Businesses and the Sub-
committee on Innovation and Workforce Development is critical to
reduce barriers and ease the ability to bring technologies to life.
Chairman CROW. Thank you, Dr. Mann. I just love that Colo-
rado is leading the way on shark-based technologies.
Dr. Crawford, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. GREGORY P. CRAWFORD
Mr. CRAWFORD. Good morning, Chairman Crow, Ranking
Member Balderson, and Committee members. I truly appreciate
the opportunity to testify in front of the Committee today.
Today, I wish to answer how universities and small town Amer-
ican and rural America can create a vibrant economy based on in-
novation, creativity, and entrepreneurship.
I wish to make three points today.
SBD026 with DISTILLER
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
11
First, pulling in innovation that you do not necessarily have to
grow it at home, but you can pull it into your institution.
Second, educating innovators for innovation. How technology ac-
celeration and the global world today requires a new set of skills
for our students.
And three, keeping innovators and innovation at home. How do
we attract talented graduates to stay in small town America and
work at small companies to create vibrant communities?
Number one. Pulling innovation into our ecosystem. Oftentimes,
universities use a push strategy. They invent, they patent, and
they try to push it out through a startup company and/or license
it to a big co. We also do that, but we have also started a new kind
of process and we call it the pull strategy. And pull strategy means
that we go to our partners and we pull in patents into our eco-
system and then develop them with our students, faculty, and staff.
And so, two examples there: We work with Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, and they have over 1,000 patents for
defense-oriented applications, and we have access to that portfolio
to try to find commercial applications for their use.
And second, we work with companies. And so, there may be an
idle technology that may just be too small for a company developer,
not on their critical path but then they decide to push it our way.
We will pull it into our ecosystem and develop it, which is great
for a small, entrepreneurial company. Entrepreneurship is about
shots on goal and pulling these patents into our ecosystem is a way
in which we can accomplish that.
And three, in the great state of Ohio—got to put a plug in
there—but working with Lieutenant Governor Husted and also all
the Ohio public universities, we just created an IP promise in Ohio
which is a really simple way for companies and universities to
work together with a very simple agreement and a very simple
technology transfer contract.
Second, educating innovators for innovation. Jobs today are not
blue collar or white collar, but they are new collar jobs. Industry
4.0 and artificial intelligence is driving change all across our indus-
tries from biomedicine to advanced manufacturing the materials to
climate and the environment. And how do we train students in this
new area? Well, one is to train them in humanics or humanics,
however you want to call it. And it is the convergence of learning
a little bit of science and technology, the quantitative aspects, sta-
tistics and mathematics, but also the humanities. And pulling
those all together makes somebody actually very robot-proof. I al-
ways get asked, how do you make sure your students are robot-
proof in this new world? And I say, the best way to do that is to
be good at being human first.
And second of all, we want to educate in entrepreneurship. We
want students to deal with ambiguity. We want students to fail
and to use that steppingstone to pivot to something successful. And
we do that through many different avenues with business plan
competitions and a top entrepreneurship institute in the country.
But more importantly, we also put students and they spend a se-
mester in Silicon Valley where they work at the most innovative
companies in the world and also take courses out there. And we
SBD026 with DISTILLER
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
12
also have a specific internship program for students to work at
small startup companies, not just the big cos.
And third, experiential learning. We just started something I am
very excited about. It is called the Work Plus program. But we
place students in our local companies, and they work 24 hours a
week. They get a salary. Then, that company actually pays off their
tuition. It is a debt-free education. And one example is
Thyssenkrupp Bilstein, company in our area which makes shock
absorbers, and our students are working in their industry 4.0 ro-
botics laboratory.
And third, keeping innovators at home. Small and rural towns
need talent to live, work, play, and enjoy, to build these powerful
small towns in America. People and ideas are the key to these
thriving small towns.
A couple of things that we are doing as we looked at the Depart-
ment of Ag’ s report by Wojan, and to attract that talent to small
towns, innovation and creativity was important so the arts was just
equally as important as the technology side. So, with Oxford, Ohio,
we work together, and we have a space that we use jointly where
we have creatives come in. It is called our Center for the Arts. And
the second floor and third floors have spaces for photographers, ar-
chitects, artists, musicians, and sculptures, and these sole propri-
etors actually add to our local economy.
And the next phase of that is taking a second building on that
same block and moving towards putting our technologists and
innovators in there so that we truly combine an innovation block
in small town Oxford, Ohio, which pulls together both the creatives
and the technologists in one space and one place.
And I am so happy to have joining with me today our assistant
city manager, Jessica Greene.
That concludes my comments.
Chairman CROW. Thank you, Dr. Crawford. As a wayward lib-
eral arts major, I share your passion for the humanities, so.
I am going to begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes. And I
appreciate the opening statements from all of you.
Let me begin by a comment that Dr. Younger, you had made
about the difference between accelerators and incubators and just
direct SBIR/STTR funding and some of the kind of vetting role that
some of those kinds of intermediary organizations might play. And
I would like to hear from all four of you.
Is it your view that more of the funding and more of the support
should go to kind of some of these intermediate incubators and ac-
celerators on the ground as opposed to kind of direct funding di-
rectly to companies and that would be more helpful for folks? Or
is there kind of a middle ground here?
Let’ s start with Dr. Younger.
Mr. YOUNGER. It is a great question. So, the question at hand
is how do you make that money as rapidly deployable and as ac-
countable as possible; right? You want the money to succeed. And
for better or for worse, startups are local endeavors. You can at-
tempt to be global, but your advisors are likely local. Your first in-
vestors are probably going to want to visit you on a frequent basis.
They are not going to be a world away. And so being able to put
resources right at the spot where the company is starting, I think
SBD026 with DISTILLER
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
13
is really key because everything is going to happen locally, at least
in the first 6 months to a year. The role that we play is that we
have the ability of knowing pretty much all the facts on the
ground. Who is active? Who is doing what? Who do these people
need to connect with? And that is something that the study sec-
tions for SBIRs/STTRs just do not have at their fingertips. And
their ability to evaluate the novelty of the technology is unques-
tioned, but their ability to sort of very effectively and wisely put
the money to play quickly is limited. And that is just the nature
of the beast. So, I think that there is actually a role for using incu-
bators, not as an alternate sort of recipient of the money but as the
decider for how that money is going to get deployed most effec-
tively. And that is the way that I would frame it.
Ms. MARTIN. I think the important thing to remember in this
is that each of these places needs to build a complete innovation
and entrepreneurship ecosystem. And we all have a different role
to play in that. And each of those pieces needs to be strong. And
so, I think the answer to that question probably varies depending
on where you are and where that ecosystem is strong and where
it might have some weak points. Certainly, capital is a challenge
for many different companies and many different stages of the de-
velopment of those companies. So, you know, it is important to re-
member that we do need to continue to fund basic research to
make sure we have the basis for those discoveries. Capital and
mentorship and, you know, the incubators and accelerators are all
very important, but I think the answer really depends on where
you are and where the strengths and pain points are.
Mr. MANN. I think the incubators around the country really
serve as the support structure for a lot of the ecosystems that these
small companies exist in. I know in Colorado there is a number of
incubator-type facilities. Sharklet has been located in the Fitz-
simmons Innovation Campus for a period of time now and really
have developed strong relationships with mentors on an unofficial
basis, but also with the staff at the incubator facility. So, I think
there is a case to be made for sharing funding with the incubator
facilities to be able to leverage some of those assets that are kind
of company agnostic and be able to kind of rapidly deploy those
systems. But I agree in some cases the companies themselves have
made the case for what they are doing and could quickly utilize
those funds as well. So, I would agree that at times the answer is
kind of both, but there are circumstances where those can be iden-
tified.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you. I agree with those statements that
we should put dollars into the incubators and accelerators and
greenhouses and so forth. I just do believe in that principle of
subsidiarity, getting the resources down on the ground where those
folks can make those decisions that know that area the best. But
more importantly, I think when you put dollars there, really look
for that co-investment. And if those dollars are highly leveraged
with angel investors, venture capitalists, and other city and state
constituencies and so forth so you get the most bang for your buck
so to speak.
Chairman CROW. Thank you.
SBD026 with DISTILLER
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
14
I am going to end my time here and then I will recognize the fill-
ing in Ranking Member, Mr. Hern, for 5 minutes.
Mr. HERN. I would like to thank the Chairman. I would like to
thank the witnesses for being here today.
As an engineer and a small business owner, former small busi-
ness owner for 35 years, I certainly understand the value of our re-
search universities we have around the country and how valuable
they are to small business.
With the localities across the United States constantly evolving
their policies to create environments that are conducive to small
business growth, research universities help to serve as a significant
resource for small businesses looking to capitalize on technological
and entrepreneurial knowledge. This is why I am glad to have such
great research universities, not only in our district but in our state,
University of Tulsa, Oklahoma State University, and University of
Oklahoma. These universities are assets to Oklahomans, and I be-
lieve it is our job in this Committee to help universities like these
to continue to have these types of relationships with small local
business owners.
As a part of this, I think it is necessary for members of this Com-
mittee to try to work, and we do this a lot, work in a very bipar-
tisan way to reduce the onerous regulatory burdens which have
been placed on these institutions. This is something that I would
like to spend the remaining amount of my time to ask each of you
to elaborate, what are the most significant regulatory and adminis-
trative requirements of federally-funded research programs, and
what do you think—let’ s talk about that. So, if we could just go
through, and maybe think in your mind about what some of those
solutions might be as we go through.
Dr. Crawford, we will start with you and come this way.
Mr. CRAWFORD. What I wanted to mention about that is one
of the areas, you know, I have also started a couple of companies
based on my inventions, and so I saw it from the side of being a
professor and trying to struggle to get the intellectual property out
of the university. And then as a leadership role, actually trying to
make it a little bit more conducive to great cooperation.
One of the areas that you see with small businesses and compa-
nies and so forth is just the complexity of the contracts and so forth
that have to kind of take place to get that relationship developed.
And I am going to kind of embellish a little bit here but there will
be a stack of papers that you put down on the company and here
at the university and they are like, this is the contract.
Well, what we did in Ohio is we wanted to kind of crunch that
sort of piece down into something that was reasonable, a page or
two, so that we could create these kinds of agreements. And so,
when there was an interest and an idea coming out of a university,
a research project, that we could move on it much quicker. We
were not negotiating over something that may or may not happen
in the future, but we actually agreed to moving it forward today
and then coming back to the table when that was successful. And
so I think from that perspective of always having sort of something
simple and that is easy to understand and moving forward that you
can actually pull together the company and the university and get
SBD026 with DISTILLER
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
15
things off the ground much quicker than I think we ever could in
the past.
Mr. HERN. Thank you.
Dr. Mann?
Mr. MANN. Yeah. I think your point is well brought. I think that
certainly as a small company is starting off and licensing and tech-
nology or developing and technology, they have to think not only
in that short window but they have to think, you know, 10 years
down the road when they are trying to exit to a strategic or dis-
close things publicly. So, all of the agreements have to accommo-
date that.
I would take, maybe as an example, something like the Bayh-
Dole Act has provisions in it that are extremely ambiguous that are
challenging for even legal counsel with a small business to be able
to understand some of the restrictions associated with how the use
of Federal funding and productization occurs. And so just simple
ambiguity can lead to stacks of legal agreements where you have
to be able to decide around how you are going to handle ambiguity.
So, from a simplistic sense, perhaps even looking at the current
regulations and providing more detail for what is trying to be ac-
complished could be dramatically impactful for small businesses.
Mr. HERN. Thank you.
Dr. Martin?
Ms. MARTIN. Thank you, Congressman Hern.
I would just say that developing patents is very expensive, and
it is really important that our institutions be able to defend those
patents in court. And so, I will follow up with you in writing on
other aspects of the regulatory system that our institutions might
need some relief with. But I would just like to mention that it is
very important that companies be able to defend their patents in
court because not only is it expensive, but getting a patent also
makes it much more likely that that company will be successful in
getting venture capital.
Mr. HERN. Thank you.
Dr. Younger, I am sorry, but I have got to close out here. But
I just want to take your thoughts, and I know you have got great
thoughts there, and encapsulate those in this Committee as we go
forward and looking at how we continue to do what I like to say
is, you know, when I ran for this office, was to get government out
of the way so we can help entrepeneurs create jobs and put Ameri-
cans to work. I have said that statement so many times and this
is a classic example of people who are right in the fray, especially
when you have been on both sides of this you know exactly what
to do. And so I have also been one to claim that a lot of people talk
about a lot of things in Congress they know nothing about, so it
is always refreshing to come to this Committee because we always
have great witnesses that are either nonpartisan or bipartisan in
what they are trying to get accomplished. So, thank you so much
for being here.
And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman CROW. Thank you, Mr. Hern. Appreciate your com-
ments and questions.
SBD026 with DISTILLER
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
16
So now the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Kim, who is also
the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Tax, and
Capital access is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KIM. Thank you, Chairman. I am really glad we have an op-
portunity to talk about this issue. I represent a district in South
Jersey and the Shore, Burlington County, Ocean County, about
120,000 small businesses in that area. And I am trying to think
about not just where my district is tomorrow or next year but what
do we think our district is going to look like 20, 30 years from now
when my kids are adults, and what is it going to look like at that
point? So, I am trying to piece this together. We have some great
assets. We have a joint military base on the district, a lot of inno-
vation happening there and other things. But we do not necessarily
have sort of a top research university. And I guess some of my
thinking is, you know, Dr. Younger, you are right across the bridge
from us, so you are maybe familiar with our area. I guess what I
am trying to get a sense of is I have a deep respect for the work
that your organization does, the partnerships that your organiza-
tions have with the universities. What about places that are more
suburban and rural? I think Dr. Crawford, you kind of got to some
of this. But I am trying to think about this. Is that model Dr.
Younger of what your organization is doing, how can that be rep-
licated, or should it be replicated in places that might not have a
top research-type university? Are there examples of how this part-
nership has happened with community colleges or other types of
examples? I would just love to get your thoughts on that.
Mr. YOUNGER. That is a great question.
So, for the record, the Science Center now has relationships with
four out of five research institutions in New Jersey, and we love
working with them. There is quite a spectrum of talent there. So,
I think that some of these issues come down to sort of population
density. How many people are around to come up with new ideas?
How many people are there to work in new companies? How many
people around that potentially serve in the capacity of angel inves-
tors?
But I think that in the end I do not believe that a research uni-
versity is absolutely a requirement for making something remark-
able happen. And I think the Miami example is just right. I grew
up in a little town in Missouri. Things can be innovative in lots of
different places. I think what you need is you need local cham-
pions. So, you need folks who are really going to stand up and try
to make something happen. You need imaginative capital that can
come in from potentially a farther distance than you would other-
wise expect that can make the trip and come in and try to support
things. And you need founders who can have a pretty broad sense
of sort of what region are they in. Right? So, am I in Cape May
or am I on the East Coast; right? And that is a mindset that really
matters, that makes a difference. But I do not really think that
there is any reason to believe that—institution is required for
something remarkable to happen. I think things can happen in lots
of different capacities if you have the right resources.
Mr. KIM. Well, I certainly hope so. And our district, certainly a
lot of innovation going on there but I think, you know, some of the
points you mentioned about the local champions, the founders, a lot
SBD026 with DISTILLER
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
17
of it also comes down to just, you know, the sheer infrastructure,
ensuring that we have the broadband infrastructure and the other
types of just sheer capacity components.
Dr. Crawford, I would not mind getting some of your further
thoughts on this type of approach.
Mr. CRAWFORD. That is actually a great question, and I grew
up on the track of, you know, Ph.D. programs, post-docs, inventing
things, patents and spinning things out of the university. But as
I have been in this career now for over 25 years in academics and
seeing what is happening today, you know, it is quite interesting
because it is not necessarily the sole property of graduate students,
faculty, and post-docs anymore. But we are seeing undergraduates
come in because they can do an app. They can do coding. They can
do all kinds of great things. And I think if you put more emphasis
on looking at some of that talent, they are younger in their career,
of course, but they can just do some spectacular things. It may not
be a farmer or the billion-dollar molecule, but it can be some great,
neat things going on.
And we are doing it in Ohio to building up a network of univer-
sities and putting their entrepreneurship centers together. We are
on our path for doing that. And I do think that one of the things
that we should all be thinking of, too, is just going down in that
pipeline of the training of undergraduates, also going into the high
schools, because some may not go to college and some may become
plumbers or electricians or what have it, but the entrepreneurial
skillset is going to be very important to them. So, trying to figure
out ways which you can train high school students and making
sure your local community colleges and local undergraduate insti-
tutions can also play a role in this very vibrant and accelerating
economy.
Mr. KIM. I think that is right. I mean, look, we pride ourselves
in New Jersey for having top public schools, K-12, and having de-
veloped that kind of workforce, but we also see such an exodus of
that young talent going to other places. And I think for me, I am
really trying to get to this understanding that, you know, innova-
tion is what you do, not where you do it. And how do we then try
to have that sense of spreading that out and not just further, you
know, siloing our society in terms of where innovation and that
type of technology can be done. So, I appreciate your thoughts.
Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman CROW. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Dr. Joyce, for
5 minutes.
Mr. JOYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
What a great presentation you have brought to the table today.
Dr. Younger, I, too, come from a medical background, and having
trained at Temple University School of Medicine, my wife at Drexel
University School of Medicine. And I find it really fascinating that
you are here today with a background in emergency medicine and
talking from the city with an incredible history in medicine. And
bringing that forward into these discussions. You and I recognize
that Pennsylvania has more medical schools than any state in the
union. And with the addition of another medical school in 2022 at
Duquesne in Pittsburgh, that will even be further expanded.
SBD026 with DISTILLER
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
18
Would you please comment on the importance of you setting up
a program in West Philadelphia, really in the hub of medical
science in the northeast?
Mr. YOUNGER. Sure. So, Philadelphia is remarkable. Pennsyl-
vania is remarkable. I just got back from Pittsburgh. It is a re-
markable commonwealth.
I think that we are trying to do some heavy lifting; right? We are
trying to do some difficult things. There is amazing technology.
There are diseases that will be gone in my career that are going
to come out of West Philadelphia. There is no question about that.
Treatments are going to be just remarkable.
We are trying to find out how do we take this idea forward?
There is a traditional model. The Science Center is trying to inno-
vate at the same time that we are trying to support people. We are
in some ways a startup like a lot of our startups are in trying to
figure out what is the best path to try to make some of these things
happen? I spend a lot of my day in that regard.
I think if there was one thing I could do to the physicians in
Pennsylvania, the physicians, the academic scientists everywhere,
is I would look for a way to lower the boundary by which someone
can do what I did, which is to do the math and say I am going to
be okay leaving the university to go try to launch an idea. The
math is very much against that move; right? Having a tenured po-
sition. Having a clinical practice. There is hardly any reason to go
innovate because you are pretty well taken care of. And I think
that if there is one thing this Subcommittee can do is to look at
existing policies and regulations and say how can we make it so
that that balance is a little bit more in favor of people taking a
shot as opposed to staying in their sort of usual position. And I
think I have some great ideas I can follow up on that but I think
that one of the things that we are trying to do is there is a lot of
talent sitting in universities that is most comfortable there but that
might be most impactful outside. And I would love to think about
ways in which simple things could be implemented to allow people
to take a shot coming out of university to try to make a remarkable
thing happen.
Mr. JOYCE. Do you think your background, the presence of a
strong science base allows for innovation in a different line than we
might traditionally see in engineering or in math?
Mr. YOUNGER. Perhaps. I guess the proof of the pudding is in
the eating. We will see. I think I have a fairly broad technical
background and so I think I try to put my skills to use wherever
I can. But I think clearly just physicians, just engineers, just physi-
cists, that is not enough. I think the crossover is where amazing
things happen, and it requires people to be relatively flexible in
how they define their backgrounds.
Mr. JOYCE. What can we see in students in training these days?
What can we expect? How can we raise that bar so that the stu-
dents that you work with, the innovators that we will see tomor-
row, how can they be better prepared?
Mr. YOUNGER. So I think two things. One was alluded to here
before which is just embracing ambiguity; right? Being able to
work in very uncertain circumstances is a great skill. Frankly, just
personally I will say that numeracy matters, and we train a lot of
SBD026 with DISTILLER
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
19
folks in a lot of skills but just being able to quantitatively think
about problems I think is something that always needs sort of re-
emphasis. But I think those two points would be the ones that I
would say deserve a lot of respect.
Mr. JOYCE. Thank you.
I yield the rest of my time.
Chairman CROW. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
I will now recognize the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, who is no
stranger to entrepreneurship and starting and growing businesses,
is now recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. HOULAHAN. Thank you. And I am really appreciative, Dr.
Joyce, of your conversation as well. Philly is where it is definitely
happening. And I am from just outside of Philadelphia as well and
I am going to carry on with your line of questioning as well as with
Mr. Kim’ s line of questioning because I have been struck by in the
couple years that I have been running for Congress and now the
one that I have been here how many people I meet who say, oh,
yeah, I am from Philadelphia, or yeah, I am from Pittsburgh, but
yet they are not there anymore. And I really want to figure out not
just for my community, for Philadelphia, for Pennsylvania, and for
Pittsburgh, why that is happening but also for places all over our
country where people are going to places like the Silicon Valley or
like Boston with the talent that they have learned and gained from
places like Pittsburgh and places like Philadelphia because there
is definitely a brain drain going on and I am trying to figure out
as an entrepreneur who came to Philly and stayed in Philly, you
know, how do we make that happen more?
And so, I would like to dig in a little bit more on what Dr. Joyce
was asking, which is how do you incentivize people to take their
shot?
I was very, very fortunate because I had a ROTC scholarship and
then I had a research assistantship first at Stanford and then at
MIT. I ended up coming out with no debt from both of those experi-
ences, and that allowed me to take chances and allowed me to take
a shot at being entrepreneurial. And I just wonder if you could dig
a little bit deeper, first Dr. Younger and then anybody else who
would like to answer, what can we do to provide more incentive for
people to not be scared?
Mr. YOUNGER. So I think it is mostly leading by example;
right? I think that it is a process that takes time. You need to have
some local success. There need to be some high visibility successes.
And I think that you need to have the ability of folks who under-
stand that going into an early stage company is a career path that
actually counts.
I am a very big proponent of having greater influence of busi-
ness, but frankly, small business in really sort of core university
processes, like when a training grant is under evaluation at the
NIH, should there be folks who represent more of an industrial
perspective looking at the science and the training programs? So,
if we are going to be training people to go into biotechnology com-
panies or go into engineering technology companies, should there
be company representation in evaluating what those training pro-
grams look like? I think it is a great question, and if you make
small changes to the curriculum, then these decisions to go into
SBD026 with DISTILLER
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
20
early stage companies become much more reflexive. It just seems
like a natural thing to do because your training curriculum has fo-
cused on this idea of how to innovate and how to move quickly into
a new idea.
So, I think that there are processes that go all the way back to
make students more comfortable in making a decision to do some-
thing fairly risky right out of the gate. So, I think that is certainly
part of it. But then once they are out, how do you prevent local
brain drain? That is outside of my wheelhouse. I will not make
much of a shot at that except to say I think examples count; right?
And once you can stand up someone, you know, if you can sit down
and have coffee with someone who has pulled it off, then it looks
like something that can exist and then you can move on.
Ms. HOULAHAN. So I say this a lot as a woman and as a STEM
professional, you cannot be what you cannot see. If nobody is there
that you can see, and you cannot look at success then it makes it
pretty easy for you to go somewhere else.
And I am interested in also Dr. Crawford, you know, what role
do universities play in trying to create those centers of gravity and
trying to capture people’ s minds and attention so that they stay?
Mr. CRAWFORD. That is a great question. I know our grad-
uates, they are pretty enthusiastic, and they want to go to the right
and left coast, or they want to go to Austin, Texas, or Chicago, Illi-
nois. And we obviously would love to keep them in Oxford. And I
do think that ag report that I mentioned in the beginning by Wojan
about bringing the creativity, creatives together along with the
technologists can actually build more of a vibrant community
around small towns rural America where you can actually keep
and attract that talent to kind of stay locally.
I do think also following up on the other remarks, it is impor-
tant, I think, for us to see that you can be an entrepreneur early
on in people’ s thinking. I think in some cases, by the time you go
through graduate school—undergraduate, grad school, you may go
to medical school or whatever—you are already thinking about how
to pay off your debt and how to do all these different things. And
you have a car and a house and so forth but that seed early on in
the education is great. And I think there is no better experience
than an entrepreneurial experience as an undergraduate where you
get in there and you can fail a bunch of times and nothing matters
and you have all the support of professors around you. And so, I
think the more that we can offer those experiences it will get that
mindset going so that when they do graduate, they will think about
something on more of a startup rather than the status quo.
Ms. HOULAHAN. Yeah. And I only have 7 seconds. I just want
to emphasize the importance of it is easy to create opportunities to
dream, but if you do not provide places and pathways for the peo-
ple to do that and also the freedom to be able to dream where you
are not burdened by so much debt that you cannot make good
choices, we need to work on that, and I would look forward to
working with our Small Business Committee on those particular
issues as well.
I yield back.
Chairman CROW. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
SBD026 with DISTILLER
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
21
And now I recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, whose own
experience starting and running businesses adds a lot to the depth
of this Subcommittee as well. Mr. Burchett, you are recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. BURCHETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think my business
knowledge is sort of like my stock knowledge. If you see me invest
in something, do not or short it and then you will come out on top.
I want to thank you all so much. And Mr. Ranking Member, who
really is not the Ranking Member but is sitting in the chair, thank
you for your hard work.
And this is the part where I praise the Chairman for our bipar-
tisan work on our two bills, but I will just sort of leave that up to
the historians to figure out what those two bills are because their
names are very long. But I do appreciate you, brother. We work
very close on them and dealing with technology.
I have questions for the panel. I will just kind of throw it out
there. And I appreciate academia. My parents were lifelong edu-
cators. Have a degree in education, and so I appreciate all the re-
search and things that you all have been a part of.
What are the biggest barriers to technology transfer from Feder-
ally funded laboratories and universities to the private sector?
This is totally off the record, so just go ahead and speak your
mind.
Ms. MARTIN. Thank you, Congressman.
I would say that first of all, developing intellectual property is
very expensive. And many of our universities are under resourced
in their technology transfer offices. Of all of the ideas that are dis-
closed to universities every year, only a small fraction of them are
developed because this process is so expensive. So that is one bar-
rier.
The second, of course, is the capital that is not always available
in order to develop those technologies into commercializable ideas.
And certainly, programs like SBIR and STTR are important for
that early stage funding when the private sector is not yet willing
to invest because it is too risky. But there is also capital that is
needed before a small business is formed and so it is not yet eligi-
ble for SBIR. So what they call phase zero programs, like the NIH
Reach program are also important because it helps the faculty de-
velop the technology a little bit more to the point where they are
able to form a small business and apply for an SBIR and STTR
program.
So, as I mentioned earlier, these complementary programs to
SBIR and STTR are also important, as well as continuing to fund
our basic research.
Mr. MANN. Yeah, I think to that I would just add, you know,
as someone who has dealt with license agreements that were put
together 10 years ago and probably had 10 or 12 amendments,
maybe more than one a year, and looked at licensing additional
technologies, I think one of the components that you deal with in
a technology transfer or licensing office is that those offices are not
aligned with the same levels of success as what the small busi-
nesses, meaning that those offices are essentially protecting a polit-
ical capital by making sure that they do not miss an opportunity
on some unicorn; right? So, nobody wants the Gatorade story. So
SBD026 with DISTILLER
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
22
then when you go through a licensing conversation with somebody,
it is very challenging to be able to get broad terms that are going
to be supportive of raising capital and developing a technology, and
not necessarily knowing where you are going to end up but that
you are going to end up somewhere valuable.
And so, I think that maybe merging what a technology transfer
office’ s interest is would be critical. And perhaps part of the way
to do that is their resources are so restrictive that they only get
to pick a few winners a year. So, they do not want to miss, so they
have got to pick what is going to be the Gatorade. What do I not
want to miss, is what is going to be some billion-dollar unicorn? Be-
cause if it comes out that we passed on some unicorn, you know,
then we are in real trouble.
Mr. YOUNGER. Yeah, I would just add, I cannot say that better.
I think the reason why university is pursuing intellectual property
is different than the way a small business pursues intellectual
property. The small business is having that intellectual property
pulled by market forces. The university is pushing that intellectual
property to protect sort of academic assets. Both of them are legiti-
mate behaviors but they are just very different. And so that is why
I think you see an accumulation of IP in universities where you
would never see that kind of accumulation of unused IP inside of
a business.
Mr. BURCHETT. All right. My wife is very supportive of me and
my crazy inventions. She always says, baby, I am sure somebody
laughed at the pool noodle. You know, if you have got a pool, you
have got a pool noodle. And they cost like 6 bucks, and I am sure
they were probably just some insulation on a pipe somewhere and
somebody took one home, some plumber and their kid was swim-
ming around in a pool somewhere. So, there you go.
What is the best way to measure the economic impact of univer-
sity R&D? Is there a way to do it? I get aggravated sometimes, and
I am running out of time and I have got a great story, but I will
tell it later. You can read it in my book. But go ahead one of you
all quickly.
Chairman CROW. Yeah, I will extend. I will extend for a few
minutes so you can answer the question.
Mr. BURCHETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
effort at bipartisanship.
Should I tell my story now or should they read it in my book?
Chairman CROW. I am not going to extend it for the story, but
I will extend it for the answers.
Mr. BURCHETT. Okay. All right. Well played, Mr. Chairman.
Well played. And I appreciate the cameraman occasionally taking
the camera of me because my nose was really itching back there
and I could not scratch it because, you know. Go ahead.
Ms. MARTIN. Well, that is a tough act to follow.
I would just say that the long-term impact of university R&D is
a very difficult thing to measure. In fact, I was asked once if I
would do that for my dissertation and I said I will move on to the
next subject now, please.
You need to look at long-term growth of industries. There are en-
tire industries that have grown from university R&D. The most re-
cent winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry developed the lithium
SBD026 with DISTILLER
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
23
ion battery that we are all carrying around in our pocket. And you
do not always know where that impact will be. And so, it is a very
difficult nut to crack. We try to do it; the Association of University
Technology Managers has some measures that we can track that
are useful metrics. But you have to look at the whole equation and
how universities and the companies that they spin off affects their
communities in the long run.
Mr. BURCHETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman CROW. Thank you. The gentleman’ s time has ex-
pired.
So, I am going to thank all the witnesses for coming in and tak-
ing time away from your busy schedules to share all your experi-
ence and your knowledge with us. I think this is one of the most
bipartisan Committees in Congress as a matter of fact. We pride
ourselves on that because these are not political issues; these are
issues that I think we can do a lot of great work on and we have
been. And I think we also pride ourselves on this Committee that
we have passed over 30 bills I think in the past year unanimously
out of the Small Business Committee. So, we have some great ideas
that we continue to hear in hearings like this that we will follow
up and take some action on. And to the extent that you have addi-
tional information to supplement your testimony, we would love to
receive that through the staff so that we can have discussions
about what we can do to kind of fulfill our dual purpose. As Mr.
Hern mentioned, I think we all share this view that we have a dual
purpose here. One is to kind of reduce barriers and kind of get red
tape and bureaucracy out of the way of innovation when it is nec-
essary when we can do that. And as a matter of fact, the broader
Committee merged two programs in the Federal Government last
year to make it easier for veterans to certify their own small busi-
nesses and reduce some barriers and red tape. And I think that is
a great example of us working together to make things easier for
folks.
But the secondary purpose is really finding ways to promote and
boost up and where government can get involved in a positive way
through very directed funding to accelerate and to help businesses
through the ‘‘valley of death’’ or other difficult areas where the
market does not necessarily work perfectly but where there might
be tremendous innovations that can benefit all of us as a society.
And if we can shepherd those through very targeted investments,
we want to find ways to do that.
So, we appreciate you all sharing your time and experiences with
all of us.
And I would ask unanimous consent that members have 5 legis-
lative days to submit statements and supporting materials for the
record.
Without objection, that is so ordered.
And if there is no further business to come before the Committee,
we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:13 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
SBD026 with DISTILLER
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
24
APPENDIX
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 24 here 39605.001
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
25
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 25 here 39605.002
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
26
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 26 here 39605.003
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
27
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 27 here 39605.004
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
28
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 28 here 39605.005
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
29
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 29 here 39605.006
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
30
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 30 here 39605.007
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
31
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 31 here 39605.008
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
32
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 32 here 39605.009
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
33
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 33 here 39605.010
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
34
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 34 here 39605.011
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
35
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 35 here 39605.012
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
36
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 36 here 39605.013
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
37
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 37 here 39605.014
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
38
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 38 here 39605.015
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
39
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 39 here 39605.016
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
40
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 40 here 39605.017
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
41
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 41 here 39605.018
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
42
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 42 here 39605.019
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
43
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 43 here 39605.020
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
44
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 44 here 39605.021
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
45
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 45 here 39605.022
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
46
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 46 here 39605.023
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
47
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 47 here 39605.024
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
48
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 48 here 39605.025
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
49
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 49 here 39605.026
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
50
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 50 here 39605.027
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
51
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 51 here 39605.028
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
52
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 52 here 39605.029
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
53
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 53 here 39605.030
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
54
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 54 here 39605.031
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
55
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 55 here 39605.032
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
56
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 56 here 39605.033
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
57
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 57 here 39605.034
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
58
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 58 here 39605.035
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
59
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 59 here 39605.036
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
60
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 60 here 39605.037
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
61
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 61 here 39605.038
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
62
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 62 here 39605.039
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
63
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 63 here 39605.040
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
64
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 64 here 39605.041
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
65
Æ
SBD026 with DISTILLER Insert offset folio 65 here 39605.042
VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:34 May 04, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6011 F:\DOCS\39605.TXT DEBBIE
File and source
- File
- CHRG-116hhrg39605.pdf
- Size
- 3,335,026 bytes
- SHA-256
- 2acbc3ab82301c761c2c4823084100b3b810fc22b5ff255c94bbea7c546cb3c5
- Our copy
- CHRG-116hhrg39605.pdf
- Original
- www.govinfo.gov