Referred to the Committee on Small Business, and in addition to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each…
This bill amends section 9 of the Small Business Act to require federal agencies running SBIR and STTR programs to collect and publish additional information about research institutions subcontracted by SBIR/STTR award recipients. Required data include each subcontracted institution's name, location, whether it is an institution of higher education, a nonprofit, or a federally funded research and development center, and for institutions of higher education whether they meet various minority-serving or other statutory categories (e.g., HBCU, HSI, Tribal College).
Support for transparency and MSI tracking (liberal/centrist) vs concern about added bureaucracy and potential politicization (conservative).
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-scoped administrative amendment that precisely defines additional public data fields and amends the Small Business Act and its database-reporting provisions, but it provides limited implementation detail beyond statutory edits and a one-year deadline.
This bill amends section 9 of the Small Business Act to require federal agencies running SBIR and STTR programs to collect and publish additional information about research institutions subcontracted by SBIR/STTR award recipients.
Required data include each subcontracted institution's name, location, whether it is an institution of higher education, a nonprofit, or a federally funded research and development center, and for institutions of higher education whether they meet various minority-serving or other statutory categories (e.g., HBCU, HSI, Tribal College).
The bill extends database reporting requirements to explicitly cover Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III SBIR/STTR awards, adds STTR parity where relevant, and directs the Administrator to update the central database within one year of enactment.
Based solely on the text, this is a targeted administrative transparency amendment with modest implementation costs and little ideological content. Such technical reporting fixes often attract bipartisan support and face limited substantive opposition, so the bill appears reasonably likely to be enacted—particularly if shepherded through relevant committees or attached to a larger legislative vehicle. Uncertainty remains about agency implementation timelines and any procedural hurdles in the Senate.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-scoped administrative amendment that precisely defines additional public data fields and amends the Small Business Act and its database-reporting provisions, but it provides limited implementation detail beyond statutory edits and a one-year deadline.
Support for transparency and MSI tracking (liberal/centrist) vs concern about added bureaucracy and potential politicization (conservative).
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Support for transparency and MSI tracking (liberal/centrist) vs concern about added bureaucracy and potential politicization (conservative).
A mainstream liberal is likely to view this bill positively as a transparency and equity enhancement for federal innovation funding.
They would see public reporting of subcontracted research institutions and their MSI status as useful for tracking whether underserved institutions (HBCUs, HSIs, Tribal Colleges, etc.) are participating and receiving downstream benefits.
They may view the one-year deadline as reasonable but could want stronger follow-up requirements to ensure agencies act on the data to improve outreach and access.
A centrist/moderate would generally view the bill as a modest, pragmatic transparency improvement that seems low-cost and targeted.
They would appreciate that it focuses on institutional-level information (not individual-level personal data) and that it sets a one-year deadline for database updates.
Their main questions would be about implementation details: reporting burden on small companies, protection of trade secrets, data quality controls, and whether agencies have budget/staff to comply.
A mainstream conservative would approach this bill cautiously.
While transparency in federal spending can be positive, they would be concerned about adding regulatory and reporting requirements that could burden small businesses and create additional bureaucracy within agencies.
There may also be concern that collecting and publishing institution classifications (e.g., MSI status) could be used for policy preferences or political aims rather than purely oversight.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Based solely on the text, this is a targeted administrative transparency amendment with modest implementation costs and little ideological content. Such technical reporting fixes often attract bipartisan support and face limited substantive opposition, so the bill appears reasonably likely to be enacted—particularly if shepherded through relevant committees or attached to a larger legislative vehicle. Uncertainty remains about agency implementation timelines and any procedural hurdles in the Senate.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Support for transparency and MSI tracking (liberal/centrist) vs concern about added bureaucracy and potential politicization (conservative).
Based solely on the text, this is a targeted administrative transparency amendment with modest implementation costs and little ideological…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-scoped administrative amendment that precisely defines additional public data fields and amends the Small Business Act and its database-reporting provisions…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.