The bill
Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act
S. 3971, 119th Congress — read as touching Biotech & Research.
Sponsored by
Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA]
ID: E000295
Follow the money
The bill
S. 3971, 119th Congress — read as touching Biotech & Research.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
23 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 789-791 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Became Public Law No: 119-83.
April 12, 2026
📍 Current Status
This bill has become law!
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act (S. 3971) claims to extend the SBIR and STTR programs, because who doesn't love throwing money at small businesses, right? But don't be fooled – this bill is a Trojan horse for national security concerns, wrapped in a warm, fuzzy blanket of "innovation" and "economic security." The real objective is to give the federal government more power to scrutinize and control small businesses, all under the guise of protecting national security.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Small Business Act to include new provisions for evaluating security risks associated with small business concerns. It's a laundry list of bureaucratic red tape, designed to strangle small businesses in their crib. The feds will now have the power to deny awards to small businesses deemed "security risks," based on a plethora of vague criteria, including connections to entities on various government watchlists. Because, you know, the government is always right, and small businesses are just potential traitors waiting to happen.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Small businesses, of course, are the primary targets of this legislative "protection." But let's not forget the real beneficiaries: the intelligence community, federal law enforcement, and other counterintelligence capabilities. They'll get to expand their surveillance state, all while pretending to protect national security. And, as always, the lobbyists and special interest groups will be lurking in the shadows, pulling the strings.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a cancer, metastasizing into the body of small business innovation. It will stifle entrepreneurship, create more bureaucratic hurdles, and give the government even more power to pick winners and losers. The "security risk" provisions are a thinly veiled attempt to suppress dissent and control the narrative. And, as always, the voters will be left in the dark, oblivious to the fact that they're being sold a bill of goods that's more about national security theater than actual economic security.
In conclusion, this bill is a masterpiece of legislative deception, designed to strangle small businesses while feeding the national security beast. It's a disease, and the only cure is to recognize the symptoms: corruption, cowardice, stupidity, and greed. So, go ahead, Congress, keep pretending you're helping small businesses. We'll just be over here, watching the farce unfold, and waiting for the inevitable collapse of this house of cards.
Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: M000133
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 45 nodes and 26 connections (39 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $392,100
Showing top 22 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 5 helped.
Section 3 creates a strategic breakthrough allocation for SBIR/STTR awards up to $30M for small businesses, including those in biotech, with eligibility criteria favoring technologies advancing national security and market readiness, providing clear benefit via funding and streamlined contracting.
Section 3 specifies eligibility for strategic breakthrough awards at the Department of Defense only if the small business provides technology meeting readiness levels, has commitment for inclusion in program objective memorandum, or meets military department needs, directly benefiting defense contractors.
Section 3's strategic breakthrough allocation targets critical technology areas deemed necessary by federal agencies, which includes AI and cloud infrastructure, with award criteria considering potential to advance national security capabilities and provide new technologies.
Section 7 adds cybersecurity assistance to the list of technical and business assistance services that SBIR/STTR awardees can select, directly benefiting cybersecurity firms through increased contracting opportunities.
Section 3's strategic breakthrough allocation includes technology licensing agreements or joint ventures with foreign entities as part of due diligence, and awards are for critical technology areas, which semiconductors qualify for, providing funding opportunities.
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.
— 757 — Small Business Administration largely duplicates private-sector venture capital to the extent that the sector receiving much of its support is software and information technology, which already receive the lion’s share of venture capital investment.65 In addition, Congress should reform the SBIC program to make its financing more favorable to capital-intense investments and small manufacturers. The Health, Economic Assistance, Liability Protection, and Schools (HEALS) Act, introduced in 2020,66 and American Innovation and Manufacturing Act, introduced in 2021,67 would allow SBIC to offer longer-term financing to manufacturers and make the program more fiscally sustainable. Small-Business Size Standard Modernization. Many small-business pro- grams both inside and outside the SBA use the SBA’s definition of “small business.” Under the Small Business Act, the SBA is tasked with defining what counts as a small business and ensuring that the definition varies from industry to industry to reflect differences in regular size by industry. However, the SBA’s small-business size standards reflect a one-size-fits-all approach under which all businesses within its size standard are considered small businesses for all eligible purposes, from gov- ernment contracting preferences to eligibility for SBA loans through private banks. At the same time, the SBA is an outlier among competing economies in not considering medium-sized enterprises along with small businesses, often referred to collectively as small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Medium-sized and regional businesses are increasingly critical to maintaining competition. The next Administration should: l Encourage Congress to create a “medium-sized business” classification with its eligibility for programs confined to access to capital programs from projects for which credit elsewhere does not exist. SBA POLICY PRIORITIES FOR 2025 AND BEYOND Legislation. The new Administration can support SBA reform legislation pro- posed in Congress that aligns with key measures outlined in this chapter. It also can support legislative initiatives that would help SBA to focus on its core statutory activities such as capital access, federal contracting opportunities, and regulatory advocacy. For example: l The IMPROVE the SBA Act68 would strengthen accountability, transparency, and oversight of the SBA and aligns with many of the reforms outlined in this chapter. — 758 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l The Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act69 would require federal agencies to perform more thorough RFA economic analysis and provide a rationale for proposed regulations. It also would waive fines for certain first-time paperwork violations. l The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act70 (SBREFA) panel process allows small businesses to provide input on agency rulemakings, gives participating small businesses greater procedural rights, and allows for judicial review of agency violations of the SBREFA panel process. SBREFA panel requirements should be extended to all federal agencies. l The Fair and Open Competition Act71 would disallow the use of project labor agreements (PLAs) in federal contracting as required in President Biden’s Executive Order 14063,72 which puts small businesses at a competitive disadvantage and works against the SBA’s governmentwide contracting goal for small businesses. l The JOBS Act 4.073 would advance regulatory improvements and modernization of various Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules to enhance capital formation and access. ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES AND BUDGET Administrator and Key Staff. The position of Administrator should not be considered a symbolic or messaging-related position as some past Administrations have viewed it. Rather, the Administrator should have the requisite experience, skills, and knowledge to ensure that the SBA fulfills its statutory authorities. Because much of the SBA’s statutory authority relates to financing and reg- ulatory policy, and in order to make the SBA a more effective agency within the Administration, the Administrator and his or her key staff should have experience in small-business finance and investment and/or administrative law. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the SBA was often forced to outsource key deci- sions and administrative follow-through to the Department of the Treasury. The SBA Administrator and leadership team must share the President’s mission and vision and execute the Administration’s policies effectively. Budget The next Administration should undertake a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of its various loan and grant programs and provide a report to Congress within six months. The report should rank programs by cost-effective- ness. In the interim, the roughly $1 billion overall agency budget should be held constant until the report is considered, after which Congress should terminate
— 751 — Small Business Administration implement relevant initiatives to reach small businesses. Programs would be nonduplicative and implemented on a first-come, first-served basis. l A modern, revamped, and streamlined SBA that better utilizes current technology and platforms for operations, for reporting, and in its programs to reach, service, and engage small businesses. l An Office of Advocacy that is strengthened by a renewed mandate and additional resources to protect against overregulation along with a research agenda that includes measuring the total cost that federal regulation imposes on small businesses. Accountability and Managerial Practice. The SBA lacks accountability and managerial practices to measure the effectiveness, success, and integrity of its various programs. As a future Administration evaluates agency structure and the particulars of how the SBA is spending appropriated funds, it should immediately require actions and procedures to compel a culture of accountability and perfor- mance. Specifically: l Require performance metrics and internal procedures to safeguard taxpayer dollars and program integrity. As noted in an October 2022 IG report, failure to adopt procedures that would reliably capture data and information for various programs, coupled with significant challenges and weaknesses regarding IT investments, systems development, and security controls, presents significant risks to program integrity and increased risk of waste, fraud, and abuse.34 Addressing these shortcomings and risks should be a priority challenge and action item for the next Administration. As underscored by the Inspector General in his introduction to the report, “Pandemic response has, in many instances, magnified the challenging systemic issues in SBA’s mission-related work.”35 l Review all internal government watchdog recommendations and require that SBA management implement or address outstanding and ongoing OIG and GAO recommendations within a specified time frame (ideally within 90 days of a recommendation) and on an ongoing basis. Strengthening the Office of Advocacy. The SBA Office of Advocacy (Advo- cacy) is “an independent office” within the SBA.36 It accounts for about one one-thousandth of SBA spending and 0.75 percent of SBA personnel. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, both under its current authority and with suggested — 752 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise reforms, the Office of Advocacy could be a powerful weapon against the adminis- trative state’s regulatory extremism. l Amend the RFA so that all agencies are required to provide a copy of any proposed rule (other than bona fide emergency rules) along with initial regulatory flexibility analysis to the Office of Advocacy at least 60 days before a notice of proposed rulemaking is submitted for publication in the Federal Register. The Office of Advocacy would submit comments to agencies within 30 days, and each agency would have to consider these comments, make changes in the proposed rule based on those comments, or explain in a revised regulatory flexibility analysis why it chose not to change the proposed rule. The Office of Advocacy’s pre-proposing comments would be published on the agencies’ and its own websites. RFA economic analysis should be expanded to include indirect costs along with direct costs. In addition, the next Administration should require other agencies to seek Advocacy’s input. Currently, other agencies deny Advocacy the ability to enforce their duty to consider the effect of regulations on small entities by construing their regulations as not having significant economic impact, which would otherwise serve as a trigger for Advocacy’s input. Congress should presumptively exempt small businesses from new agency rules to force agencies to seek Advocacy’s input and permit new rules to apply to small businesses only with Advocacy signoff under specified criteria. l Increase the Office of Advocacy’s budget by at least 50 percent ($4.6 million). This would allow Advocacy to hire approximately 25 attorneys, economists, and scientists and enhance its role in the regulatory process. l Explicitly direct federal agencies to comply with the RFA. This would be similar to the approach adopted by President Trump in his January and February 2017 executive orders directing agencies to relieve the cost and burden of regulation on business.37 Advocacy should organize regional roundtables, onsite small-business visits, and an online platform to hear directly from small businesses and entities as it did from June 2017 through September 2018.38 This activity produced 26 letters to federal agencies and highlighted specific regulations that need reform and how Congress had addressed the most burdensome rules through the Congressional Review Act.39
— 745 — 25 SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Karen Kerrigan MISSION STATEMENT The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) supports U.S. entrepreneurship and small business growth by strengthening free enterprise through policy advo- cacy and facilitating programs that help entrepreneurs to launch and grow their businesses and compete effectively in the global marketplace. OVERVIEW Created almost 70 years ago, the SBA was launched under the Small Business Act with a mission to “aid, counsel, assist and protect, insofar as is possible, the interests of small business concerns.”1 According to its current mission statement: The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) helps Americans start, grow, and build resilient businesses. SBA was created in 1953 as an independent agency of the federal government to aid, counsel, assist and protect the interests of small business concerns; preserve free competitive enterprise; and maintain and strengthen the overall economy of our nation.2 The SBA’s founding mission has evolved over time as programs have been expanded or implemented, subject to the philosophical grounding of each Admin- istration as well as assorted economic challenges and the occurrence of natural disasters. Because of its distinct role in the federal government, the SBA became — 746 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise the default agency for providing disaster loans to small businesses, homeowners, renters, and organizations. As a result, hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars have been funneled through the agency to businesses and individuals over the years. Some SBA programs are effective; others are not. The largest program in SBA’s history, the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), has been credited with saving millions of jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic.3 A conservative Administration would rightly focus on saving small businesses during such a crisis. At the same time, however, various SBA programs have generated waste, fraud, and misman- agement of taxpayer dollars. For example, and more recently, more than $1 trillion in COVID-19 relief was distributed through the SBA.4 The SBA’s EIDL (Economic Injury Disaster Loan) Advance program in particular shows the dangers that can come with direct government lending. EIDL Advance provided direct cash grants and loans to small businesses. The SBA Office of Inspector General “identified $78.1 billion in potentially fraudulent EIDL loans and grants paid to ineligible entities,”5 which represented more than half of all funds spent through the program. Although PPP worked through private lenders and as a result experienced relatively less fraud than EIDL experienced, it is estimated “that at least 70,000 [PPP] loans were potentially fraudulent.”6 ORIGIN, HISTORY, AND CORE FUNCTIONS In 1954, the agency began to execute such core functions as “making and guaranteeing loans for small businesses,” “ensuring that small businesses earn a ‘fair proportion’ of government contracts and sales of surplus property,” and “provid[ing] business owners with management and business training.”7 In 1970, President Richard Nixon’s Executive Order 11518 enhanced the agen- cy’s advocacy role by providing for the “increased representation of the interests of small business concerns before departments and agencies of the United States Government.”8 This advocacy role was strengthened with the adoption of the Small Business Amendments of 1974,9 which established the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, and was then reinforced and expanded in 1976 with the creation of the Office of Advocacy, providing additional resources to ensure that small businesses had a voice in the regulatory process. In 1980, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)10 further strengthened the Office of Advocacy’s role, providing accountability across federal agencies to ensure that they considered the impact of their rulemakings on small businesses. The RFA requires federal agencies “to consider the effects of their regulations on small businesses and other small entities,”11 and the Office of Advocacy is charged with ensuring that federal agencies abide by the law and is required to provide an annual report to the President and the Senate and House Committees on Small Business.12 In addition, the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act (TFTEA) of 201613
Showing 3 of 4 policy matches
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.