HR-5100-119
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Sponsored by Roger Williams (R-TX)
What it does
This bill would extend the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs by one year, from September 30, 2025 to September 30, 2026. It would also extend a set of related sub-programs and pilot programs under the same authority, including phase flexibility, commercialization readiness, accelerated awards, administrative assistance, and due diligence programs, all by one year.
Who benefits
Small businesses engaged in research and development, particularly early-stage technology startups that rely on SBIR/STTR grants as a primary funding source. Universities and research institutions that partner with small businesses under the STTR program. Military and civilian federal agencies that use these programs to source innovative technologies. Venture capital firms and angel investors who co-invest alongside SBIR/STTR awardees. Rural and minority-owned small businesses that disproportionately rely on federal grants rather than private capital markets.
Who is hurt
Larger defense and technology contractors who compete with SBIR/STTR awardees for federal R&D contracts may face continued set-aside competition. Taxpayers bear the cost of continued program funding for one additional year. Businesses that were anticipating program expiration and planned to fill the resulting market gap would not benefit from that opportunity.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that SBIR and STTR are among the most effective federal programs for seeding private-sector innovation, with the Small Business Administration crediting them with producing thousands of patents and commercialized technologies annually. They contend that allowing the programs to lapse — even briefly — would disrupt funding pipelines for thousands of small businesses mid-project, causing irreversible harm to ongoing research and the federal agencies that depend on their outputs.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a one-year extension without substantive reform perpetuates known program weaknesses, including concerns about fraud, low commercialization rates, and "SBIR mills" — firms that repeatedly win grants without producing market-ready products. They contend that Congress should use reauthorization as an opportunity to strengthen accountability measures rather than simply rolling the programs forward, and that short-term extensions create recurring uncertainty that itself undermines long-term business planning.