It's a Prize Fight: Wall Street vs. Main Street. The Prize: SBIR Money and more.

.
Are you ready to rumble? There's gonna be a big fight! A Floor Fight! In the House of Representatives!

In one corner: Wall Street. The Challenger. Big. Brawny. Polished. Well heeled. Slickly packaged and promoted. Big guys trying to muscle in on the little guys' territory and grab some money.

In the other corner: Main Street. The Defender. Small. Scrappy. Agile. Impecunious. Ragtag organization and promotion. Little guys trying to hold onto the only source of money they've got.

The Prize: Money of course. Millions, even billions of dollars. But wait -- There's more! (Be patient, we'll get to it...)

In the ring for the Wall Street Challenger: Velazquez the Chairwoman. A Rep from New York. The Big City. The Challenger's home territory. Tough. Stubborn. Aloof. Bows to the almighty VC. Believes that the only ones worthy of her time are those who've been anointed by the almighty VC. Won't even let the little guys speak in her presence. (Huh! Doesn't she actually lead the Gang that allegedly protects the little guys' interests? What's she doing in the Challenger's corner anyhow?)

In the ring for the Main Street Defender: Markey the Magnificent. A Rep from Massachusetts. Bows to no one. Energy is his thing. Willing to stand up for the little guy and challenge the Gang. Gets it that small businesses can have great ideas and innovate even if they haven't been anointed by a VC yet. Just as stubborn as the Challenger's avatar. Ready to fight. Ready to lead.

The Referee: Pelosi the Speaker. All powerful. Owns the ring, so to speak. She can stop the fight by imposing rules that no one else understands. Both of the avatars in this fight are "Dems", Pelosi's Party, so it's really gonna be interesting! Hopefully, she'll decide to preside over a fair fight and give both sides a chance to throw some punches.

The Prize: SBIR Money. Not a lot per award actually -- just enough to get started. Plant the seeds and grow a product. Prove it works.

Is SBIR really worth fighting for? The little guy thinks so. He has no other source for seed money. The already anointed have VCs with deep pockets. And the VC's bucks are bigger, much bigger. So what's the deal?

The deal is -- there's more! Along with the prize money comes Validation. Acceptance. Proof that a great idea can produce solid results. Results that make money. (The almighty VC reveres money over all else.)

And, for the little guy it's jobs. The SBIR prize creates jobs. Especially valuable when jobs are hard to find.

How does the winner of this fight get chosen? All the House Reps vote. Winner gets to define SBIR (H.R.2965). So, there's a lot at stake.

Women and minorities don't get anointed by VCs much. If the Wall Street Challenger wins, they should probably just forget about SBIR.

Most VCs seem to live in big cities by the ocean. Not many live elsewhere. What's more, they only anoint those who live near them! If they find someone to anoint who doesn't - they usually force them to move close by. If the Wall Street Challenger wins, SBIR money will flow to the big cities on the coasts.

So what about the middle of the country and away from the big cities? If the Wall Street Challenger wins, fewer SBIR Prizes will be won there. If I were a House Rep from ANYWHERE the VCs don't hang out, I'd back the Main Street Defender!

That's what makes Markey the Magnificent so special. He's from a big city by the ocean that does have VCs hanging out. But he's not swayed by their slick talk. You other Reps need a role model? He's your guy. Follow his lead. We Main Street Defenders are proud to have him in our corner.

So, get ready for the Big Fight. Bell rings just after the Fourth of July fireworks. They're lacing up the gloves as we speak.

We'll be covering the fight on www.SBIRreauthorization.com. There will be lots of information from the SBTC and others you can use to cheer on the Defenders and try and influence the House Reps to back our cause. The more cheering and influencing we do the better.

All together now: "Follow Markey's Lead! Follow Markey's Lead!"

House Reps can be convinced if you find their WIIFM (What's In It For Me). More than anything, they want to get re-elected. They need to be able to show how they did good to protect and support those who vote for them. Give them a reason to back the Main Street Defender. Give them several reasons. We have the data you need on www.SBIRreauthorization.com.

Hang on! And get ready for a really raucous rumble!
.

BIO Endorses Senate SBIR Reauthorization Bill -- Co-Sponsors Sought

.
They said it couldn't be done! Impossible. Never happen. But it did!

The SBIR Advocacy and the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) agree on an SBIR Reauthorization bill!

In a unanimous endorsement, the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship (SBE) Committee passed S.1233 up to the full Senate for consideration yesterday.

BIO immediately endorsed it too, joining the SBTC in recommending its passage!

In an article that appeared on GenomeWeb.com moments after the SBE Committee's action was announced, Jim Greenwood, BIO's CEO, is cited as having lauded the Bill! That's not to say that BIO won't promote amendments, but lauding is lauding! Guess we'll just have to wait and see what ensues in the full Senate debate.

Greenwood is quoted as urging Congress to reauthorize the SBIR program "as soon as possible in a way that provides a level playing field." Oh, really? Sort of ironic, eh what! A tip of my hat to you, JG! I appreciate chutzpah, being somewhat unabashed myself!

And, way to go, SBE Committee! And especially, thank you Senators Landrieu and Snowe for leading the way on this.

OK, let's get S.1233 Co-Sponsors lined up! If we can show overwhelming bi-partisan support for this Bill, there will be intense pressure put on the House to conform to it.

There's a Call to Action for enlisting S.1233 Co-Sponsors on the www.SBIRreauthorization.com website.

You'll find a model letter, links to Senatorial contact information, and a copy of the GenomeWeb article to attach.

Any questions? OK, team, let's get busy! Everybody's in the game! Fax letters, make calls.

We can do this. Nothing is impossible. It just takes a little longer!
.

It's All about Deal Flow - Where's the SBIR Money Gonna Go?

.
I agree with others in our Advocacy in thinking we've been focusing on the wrong message. We've been pleading not to un-level the SBIR competitive playing field. We've eloquently elaborated on the logic of fostering innovation via SBIR and being fair to start-up businesses with an idea for new technology development and no other way to get funding. Yadda yadda yadda. Good logical arguments, but they're getting little or no traction. Why not? They don't relate to what a legislator cares about -- how much money will flow to his/her State?

If companies with VC majority funding wind up getting SBIR awards, then more Federal R&D money will flow to States where companies with VC seed investment are located. Want to see a map showing the distribution? Click HERE to download it. (It's also viewable on the www.SBIRreauthorization.com website along with some tabular data and messages about it from Advocacy leaders.)

The numbers show the deal count. The colors show the dollars. The lighter the color of the state, the more VC-involved money flow. Change the SBIR eligibility rules as the House would have us do, and the States with virtually no VC deal flow will inevitably lose Federal R&D money flow. Bummer!

OK! So, who's going to vote to have fewer Federal R&D dollars coming to their State? Step up -- let's see a show of hands! (Looking around...) No one?    ;-)

This message will resonate. Watch for the tell-tale furrowed brow when you show this to your Congress-person and Senators. Stress that H.R. 2767 must be amended or defeated. (See links to the text of all of the bills on www.SBIRreauthorization.com.)

BUT, DON'T FORGET THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES TO SETTLE!

The most important ones with contention:

Will we increase the Allocation Base?
The House says NO; the Senate says YES.

Will we increase the Award caps?
Both say YES, but the House wants them higher than the Senate.

• Increasing the award caps without increasing the allocation base will inevitably result in a reduction of awards. Do we really want reduced deal flow? The States that get few awards will get even fewer!

Will we allow a bypass of Phase I?
The House provides a way to actually do it! The Senate doesn't.

• I call this the "Missouri Clause". Phase I is a vetting step for the Agency. You say you've already demonstrated feasibility? OK... "Show Me!"

Will we allow multiple Phase IIs?
The House says YES. The Senate doesn't make such allowance.

• Follow-on projects are Phase III not II. The meager funds in the allocation base should not be used for follow-on work, even if it's further development.

When will we go through this Reauthorization process again?
The House says in two years so we can assess the impact of the changes! The Senate says not 'til 2023.

• Assess impact in two years? Really? How? It'll take almost a year to start the first project under new rules. Three years to finish an SBIR project. Another year to evaluate results of ANY kind, but probably three to five to get statistical validity. That's five years at a minimum, but more like eight. Two years? Get real.

I don't want us to be perceived as a one-note chorus, so help me out here. Let's see some good commentary on these other issues.

But, focus on the deal flow. Where's the money gonna go?

"Why, its gotta go to OUR State of course!"   Me-yow!*
.
[* See the June 14th column:
    It’s all about herding cats and pushing wet noodles]

It’s all about herding cats and pushing wet noodles

.
I’ve always admired Howard Baker, the Tennessee Republican who led the Senate back in the 1980s. He’s frequently quoted as having likened Congressional leadership to “herding cats” and the process of enacting legislation to “pushing a wet noodle”. I never appreciated the truth of his witticisms until now.

The political process of getting legislation through the system and having laws enacted has very little to do with logic. Cats have never been swayed by logic. They respond only when they’re offered something that interests them or when they’re hungry.

What are our legislators interested in? Let’s see…I know! Getting re-elected! What gets them re-elected? Money to spend on campaigns. What they’ve done or haven’t done - unless it’s really egregious - doesn’t really seem to matter.

What are they hungry for? Let’s see...I know! Money! What's the only thing they’re allowed to use contributed money for? Their re-election campaigns! Hmmmm…

Nowhere in this mix does logic play a role. That’s our problem. We’ve been trying to herd cats using logic. Those who would reshape the SBIR Program are using money, not logic. That’s gotten the cats’ attention, and their affection. We’re ignored. Cats are really good at ignoring.

All of our arguments about how small business creates jobs and how innovation drives economic growth are immaterial to the wet noodle process of influencing policy and enacting legislation. Those at the far end of the noodle are oblivious to what’s happening at our end. They don’t feel the effects of our pushing. They’re not even aware that we are pushing!

I attended a two day NSBA meeting in Washington DC last week, their 72nd annual Washington Presentation. We were provided with two briefings – one at the White House and another at the Capitol.

The White House briefing featured people who ostensibly influence administration policy that affects small business. Mostly we heard bureaucratic rhetoric.

The economist who spoke, Jason Furman, he of the impressive resume, was largely incomprehensible to most of us. He served as Obama’s economic advisor during the presidential election campaign, and now holds a key post on the National Economic Council. Small business is merely a small statistic to him. He had no idea how to talk meaningfully to us.

Health care was promoted by Dr. Robert Kocher, President Obama’s Special Assistant on Health-Care Policy. He talked up how much better health care was going to be, including the important role of small business in creating innovative technologies and systems to improve the quality of care, etc., etc. But in response to my question about why the Administration had allowed HHS, its health care agency, to exclude small business from its ARRA Stimulus funding, he was caught flat-footed and speechless, obviously completely unaware of the situation. He actually took out his pad and jotted a note. His end of that noodle had no idea that our end was in convulsions!

The obligatory SBA speaker, Penny Pickett, is the point person in SBA Director Mills’ office for entrepreneurial development including SBIR. Mostly she talked about SBA loan programs. SBIR was only mentioned once, in passing. I was really disappointed. Kinda tells us the priority SBIR has with the SBA, doesn’t it?

The next morning, at the Capitol briefing, we, of the National Small Business Association, were addressed by no less than six Representatives and a Senator. You’d think that at least one of them would be serving on either the House or Senate Small Business Committee. Nope. How sad is that? Sure points out how important small business really is to them.

Only one speaker, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), took a single question. I was privileged to ask it: “What is Congress doing to halt the attempt of larger businesses to redefine and manipulate what is meant by a “small business” to their advantage?” Her answer indicated that she did not realize that there were multiple standards for defining a small business. When I challenged her on that she actually stammered a moment before giving a stock answer and promising to look into the situation. Yeah. Right. Not a clue, and not her problem.

So, it appears the cats in the House are going to do their thing and pass (some would say steamroll) an SBIR Reauthorization bill that pleases the ones who feed them. Our logic, recitation of facts, and clamoring for attention will be ignored. We can push noodles all day long to no effect.

The bottom line: Small business is great for making popular points in political speeches. Always gets applause. But will other than token money be put up to fulfill the promises? Nope. Not by these cats.

More’s the pity.
.

SBIR on the front burner - stir the pot!

.
After months of virtual inaction and indifference, the House Small Business Committee has finally put SBIR on the front burner. The Committee is in the process of marking up four separate bills that address SBIR reauthorization. The intent, we're told, is to eventually combine them into a single bill and send it up to the full House for approval.

On first glance, this is almost a de-ja-vu of last year's H.R. 5819 that died (thankfully) without being enacted. But there are a few differences that tells us they have been listening.

The big same-old is that despite our best efforts and the entreaties of over forty House members that SBIR eligibility requirements not change, the VCs are evidently getting their way. Would we really expect different? After all, no small businesses have been invited to testify to the Small Business Committee on this subject.

The four bills being marked up are:

H.R. 2769, “Commercializing Small Business Research and Development Act”
H.R. 2767, “Investing in Tomorrow’s Technology Act”
H.R. 2772, “SBIR and STTR Enhancement Act”
H.R. 2747, “Rural Technology Development and Outreach Act”

Got opinions? Stir the pot by calling, emailing, or better yet, faxing all the Representatives on the Small Business Committee ASAP! No time for form letters. Just make your opinion known.

[Added 6/12: Actually, fellow advocist Jonathan Pearl has provided a model letter -- see Comment #3!]

Then get the word to your Representative and everyone else in the House that you might influence that small business is being threatened. Don't let them just ramrod this through again.

Links to data files of legislator contact information is on www.SBIRreauthorization.com.

[Added 6/13 : Note - some excellent comments have been submitted since this was first published. Be sure to read them, and feel free to add your own!]
.

NIH Tosses Small Business a Few Crumbs

.
I'm not ungrateful. Really. Small technology businesses appreciate any funding opportunities, and the NIH is doing the right thing. But why did it take so long for them to do it? And why is it so pitifully small?

Want to see what they tossed us for Stimulus-funded SBIRs?: RFA-OD-09-009, Recovery Act Limited Competition: Small Business Catalyst Awards for Accelerating Innovative Research

Small business (via SBIR) should have been allocated 2.5% of the NIH's Stimulus pop for R&D. That's something over $200 million. What are they offering us? $5 million. (Hmmmm.... That's 2.5% of 2.5%! Huh! Coincidence or are they sending us a not-so-subtle message?) Funding on these is for up to one year not to exceed $200K. That means a scant 25 awards. Big deal.

Yeah, there's an alleged pot sweetener. Another $35 million to "Spur the Acceleration of New Technologies". But this isn't a small-business only competition. Sure, we can apply. Gee, thanks. Another Challenge Grant-type competition?

Here's that announcement: RFA-OD-09-008, Recovery Act Limited Competition: Biomedical Research, Development, and Growth to Spur the Acceleration of New Technologies (BRDG-SPAN) Pilot Program

Well, whaddya know? Valley of Death funding! This is a whole new category for NIH, and I do congratulate them for introducing this. It's a good start. For a company extending SBIR funded technology, to get this award means it's a Phase III by definition. But it's not limited to SBIR funded companies or subject to SBIR eligibility rules. It's NOT an SBIR program. It even has a new NIH Grant Code: RC3.

You see, there's some interesting wording in the Eligibility section that says: "Applications received under this FOA may be given funding priority if the applicant is associated with an enterprise/commercial organization that is of small size (e.g., 500 or fewer employees), and/or of limited resources, such as an early-stage company, and/or one positioned for receiving funding or in-kind support from a third-party investor and/or strategic partner, etc." The key words are "MAY BE given funding priority". And there sure are a lot of conditions to be sorted out by the NIH funding decision makers.

A friend of mine is the savvy CEO of a small bio-tech company that has won several SBIR awards. He recently made the following very astute observation: "For many years the SBTC and others opposed to BIO’s legislative efforts have argued that VC owned firms should procure NIH funding from outside the SBIR set aside. BIO and NIH have always responded that there are no business funding opportunities outside of SBIR. This new RC3 program -- not SBIR -- is precisely where VC owned firms should be competing for NIH support."

Indeed, there's enough on the table here to attract a VC funded (dare I say controlled) company -- $3 million over 3 years. Much better than SBIR and more focused on where they probably are in their product development life-cycle.

RC3 is a new sandbox for the bigger boys to play in. (Now will you please stay out of ours?) How this new NIH funding category will color the SBIR Reauthorization debate remains to be seen.

But we have had some crumbs tossed our way, so let's get busy. Due date for grant applications in both of these programs is September 1st.
.

Are you one of America's Most Promising Companies?

.
We all think we're special. Small technology businesses especially think so. Companies who win SBIR awards ARE special! Well, anyhow, they've won a limited funding competition. But does that mean they're going to be successful beyond an R&D effort? Not without having a lot of other factors be aligned. What are those factors? What makes one company more "promising" than another? And how does that translate to future fundability?

Forbes is curious to find out. So they've teamed with The Venture Alliance (TVA) to survey lots of small companies, do some assessment, and "identify the most promising of the bunch".

I read about this today in my issue of NetNews, the weekly newsletter of the National Association of Seed and Venture Funds (NASVF). Here's what it says:

TVA has developed a scoring algorithm based on a range of variables that determine a company's potential--and, ultimately, its worth to investors---including financial projections, current capitalization, market opportunity, intellectual property, management experience and others.

TVA crunches that data (which it collects via the survey) and reduces it to a "fundability score." Companies that score high theoretically have a better shot at raising money than those who don't.

TVA will do an analysis and produce a visual "Radar Graph" mapping that looks like this:

Those with top ratings will be considered for a spot on Forbes' upcoming list of America's Most Promising Companies. They will also be offered the opportunity to raise additional capital through TVA.

Here's the link to the survey: http://www.forbes.com/ampcSurvey/questionnaire.html

This is cool stuff! I'm going to combine this with my trademarked Funding Readiness Level (FRL)® index and really be able to provide my SBIR clients with a dose of realism that provides clues to exactly what has to be worked on to improve future "fundability" for commercialization.
.

Small Bio speaks out on changing the SBIR eligibility rules

.
Watch out BIG BIO, small bio has a bigger voice than you might think! Responding to the call to action from the SBTC, a group of FIFTY small biotech and medical device businesses have signed a letter to Chairman David Wu (House Science & Technology’s Technology & Innovation Subcommittee) saying, in effect, “BIG BIO doesn’t speak for us! Changing the SBIR rules will be harmful to the innovation economy being supported by the majority of small biotech businesses!”

Here’s the body of their letter:

The undersigned leaders of small biotechnology and medical device companies from throughout the U.S. respectfully request your assistance in opposing legislation that would give companies owned by venture capital (VC) firms unlimited access to the SBIR program.

Last year the House of Representatives passed HR 5819 that, if it had become law, would likely have permitted companies with tens of millions in financing to win an unlimited number of SBIR grants of unlimited dollar amounts. NIH grant reviewers in particular typically give significant weight to the preliminary data generated by applicants. Exceptionally well capitalized companies with expansive laboratory infrastructure and scientific personnel necessarily have an advantage in competing for these awards.

If VC owned firms are permitted to win the lion’s share of the mere 2.8% SBIR/ STTR set aside this would effectively shut out most of the small companies for which the SBIR program was originally created. This would have profound consequences to our nation’s economy and health care system. Companies in fields traditionally out of favor with VC firms, including vaccine development, orphan diseases, biodefense, diagnostics, research tools, and most early stage, high risk R&D, but which play a critical role in solving technical challenges facing the US, will be particularly disadvantaged if deep pocketed VC owned companies are permitted to usurp the SBIR program.

To the extent that the law is changed to permit more VC participation in SBIR it is imperative that safeguards be put in place to protect access to the program by firms that lack VC financing. These safeguards should include, at a minimum, the following:

(1) Caps on award size and total dollars awarded to any one firm should be established. Agencies would be permitted to exceed these caps only with funds taken from outside of the SBIR/STTR set aside;

(2) Limits should be placed on the overall percentage of the SBIR pool that may go to VC owned firms for at least the first few years to gauge the impact and any consequences of these changes;

(3) The SBIR/STTR set aside should be increased by at least a few percentage points to compensate for the increased competition in the program.

The above protections would expand access to the SBIR program while protecting small biotech companies that do not have VC investors, which includes the vast majority of emerging biotech firms.

Thank you for your consideration of our views.

Unlike others who have already made up their minds without knowing all the facts, Chairman Wu has been open to hearing both sides of this debate, and we applaud his refreshing willingness to include small businesses in discussions that involve them. Gee, what a concept!

If you agree with these sentiments, please copy the letter onto your own letterhead, add your own words for emphasis, and send it off to your Congressional Representatives and Senators. You’ll find contact information on www.SBIRreauthorization.com. You’ll also find this letter there complete with the fifty original signatories.

The National Small Business Association (NSBA) will hold its annual Washington Presentation, which includes a White House briefing, on June 9th and 10th. This year the focus will be on SBIR Reauthorization and Economic Stimulus procurement opportunities. The SBIR Coach will be there. See details at http://www.nsba.biz/wp. You’re invited to join us.
.

Should the NIH be allowed to play by different SBIR rules?

.
It's the issue that just won't go away. Eligibility for SBIR awards for VC controlled companies.

Will somebody please tell me why companies that now have received millions of dollars of outside investment would even care about grabbing a relatively few thousand dollars of grants intended for startups.

Reminds me of the rich bully on the playground stealing lunch money from the weaker and poorer kids.

The Small Business Technology Council (SBTC) sent out an appeal to its membership yesterday. I'm going to provide it verbatim:

Sign on to the NIH Letter Today!

During a recent hearing SBTC Executive Director Jere Glover testified before the Technology and Innovation Subcommittee of the House of Representatives’ Science and Technology Committee. Glover documented the success of the federal Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program, which is due for renewal by Congress.

During the hearing Chairman David Wu (D-Ore.) suggested a compromise that would allow National Institute of Health (NIH) applicants to be exempt from affiliation rules preventing large venture capital (VC) owned companies from participating in the SBIR program, while keeping the restrictions in place for all other agencies. Glover objected to this compromise, pointing out that many small biotech companies oppose VC involvement in the SBIR, including those in the SBTC membership.

In response to this, an SBTC NIH member has drafted a letter to send to Rep. Wu urging him not to allow VC owned companies unrestricted access to the SBIR program. SBTC would like as many biotech and medical device firms as possible to sign on to this letter to show Wu that opposition to VC involvement in this program is not just limited to Department of Defense (DoD) awardees.

If you are a NIH awardee and would like your name on this letter, please send an email to Alec Orban.

Take Action Today!

View the NIH Letter
View Jere Glovers Testimony
Sign on to the NIH Letter

OK, here's your chance to voice your opinion. If you're a "biotech or medical device" company and wish to sign onto the letter, click the links above and do so.

If you have a good reason that you don't want to sign the letter (other than not wanting to stick your neck out), please use the Comments feature on this Blog and tell me your reasoning. I really want to understand the underlying thinking here.

My position on the VC issue is well documented. I am opposed to changing the eligibility rules. However, I'm a realist. If we must compromise on this in order to get SBIR reauthorized, than so be it. But let's do it smart and not fundamentally change the program.

So, convince me it's a good idea to broaden SBIR eligibility. Even selectively.

And please cut the crap about having had eligibility "taken away". We all know that really isn't true.
.

SBIR Reauthorization – What are the issues?

.
Only three months to go. Time to get serious. The House has begun the process. With any luck our legislators will actually pay attention to the issues, learn the truth, and improve the SBIR Program. We’ve got a tough battle facing us to overcome the lies being told and perception management techniques being used against us.

I actually had an Austin Business Journal reporter call me yesterday and ask me what I thought about the fact that “venture capital participating small businesses would have to leave their drug discovery innovations on the shelf because they couldn’t qualify for SBIR awards any more”.

Oh, Good Grief! She said she got the premise for the story from a Washington DC sister publication. Perception management strikes again. Boy did I give her an earful of the truth. Can’t wait to see what she actually writes in the story she said would be published today.

The VC issue dominates the SBIR reauthorization landscape. It’s important, yes. But it’s not the only issue. In a series of upcoming columns I’m going to highlight each of the issues, and shed some light on what’s important about them. Hopefully it will spur some comments and engage some debate.

Here’s the list of SBIR Reauthorization issues:

1. Eligibility (who may compete for awards)
2. Agency Allocation Base (% of R&D set-aside)
3. Award Caps for Phase I and II
4. Phase I bypassing – should it be permitted?
5. Multiple Phase II awards
6. Phase III funding and required support
7. State (FAST) and Rural Outreach support
8. Funding for SBIR/STTR administration costs
9. Streamlining the process of review and award
10. Special technology priority mandates
11. How long until we reauthorize again?

Some are more contentious than others, but all are important. We’ll discuss them one by one over the next few weeks.

I can see from this Blog’s analytics that we’re being monitored by those in Congress who really want to know what all sides think, so if you have an opinion here’s your chance to be heard. I’ll publish a comment that intelligently approaches an issue, whether or not I agree with it.

Rick Shindell published an issue of his SBIR Insider last evening. Lots of good info about what went on in those House hearings last week, including a video of Jere Glover’s testimony.

And, Rich Hendel sent out Boeing’s NSF SBIR topic interest list a few days ago. I expect to see the DOD 2009.2 interest list any day now. Write me if you’d like a copy of either of these.

Remember to keep up with what’s going on at www.SBIRreauthorization.com

Finally, today’s my lovely wife Kay’s birthday, and I’m taking the rest of the day off to pay some attention to her, including dinner out and some Country/Western dancing this evening at Billy Bob’s. She’s so patient with all of my SBIR travails, I just wanted to recognize her and have y’all join me in wishing her a Happy Birthday!
.