HR-8882-119
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Hillary Scholten (D-MI)
What it does
This bill would amend the Small Business Economic Policy Act of 1980 to add promoting competitive markets through antitrust enforcement as an explicit goal of federal small business policy. It would require the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to submit biennial reports to the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy detailing their antitrust enforcement activities as they relate to small businesses. The Office of Advocacy would then compile and analyze those reports and submit its own findings — including recommendations for administrative and legislative action — to the relevant congressional committees.
Who benefits
Small businesses across all industries that face anticompetitive conduct or market consolidation by larger competitors. Entrepreneurs seeking to enter markets dominated by large incumbents. Consumers who may benefit from more competitive markets. Congressional oversight committees (House Small Business; Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship) that would receive structured data they currently lack. The SBA's Office of Advocacy, which would gain a formal role in antitrust oversight. Antitrust researchers and policy analysts who would gain access to disaggregated enforcement data.
Who is hurt
Large corporations and their shareholders that may face increased antitrust scrutiny as a result of heightened congressional and agency attention. The DOJ Antitrust Division and the FTC, which would bear new administrative reporting burdens. Taxpayers who would fund the staff time and resources required to produce biennial reports. Businesses involved in mergers or acquisitions that could face additional regulatory attention if the reporting process surfaces patterns of concern.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that small businesses — which account for roughly 44% of U.S. economic activity and nearly half of private-sector employment, according to SBA data — currently have no systematic mechanism to track whether federal antitrust enforcement is actually protecting them from anticompetitive harm. They contend that requiring the DOJ and FTC to report complaint volumes, investigation rates, and enforcement outcomes disaggregated by industry will create accountability and surface gaps where large firms may be suppressing competition with little consequence, giving Congress the data it needs to act.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill creates a new layer of reporting mandates without granting any new enforcement authority, making it largely symbolic while diverting DOJ and FTC staff resources away from actual enforcement work. They contend that existing antitrust laws already apply equally to conduct harming small businesses, and that directing agencies to prioritize small-business complaints could distort enforcement priorities away from cases with the broadest consumer welfare impact — potentially undermining the economically neutral application of antitrust law.
Constitutional context
The bill operates squarely within Congress's Commerce Clause authority (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) to regulate interstate commerce and oversee federal agencies. It does not delegate new rulemaking power to agencies, so it does not raise major questions doctrine concerns under West Virginia v. EPA (2022) or post-Chevron scrutiny under Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024); it adds reporting requirements, not substantive regulatory authority.
Checks and balances
Congress gains enhanced oversight capacity through structured biennial reports; the DOJ and FTC retain full discretion over enforcement priorities and are not directed to take any specific enforcement action, preserving executive branch independence.
Historical precedent
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 similarly expanded the SBA Office of Advocacy's role in monitoring federal agency actions affecting small businesses, establishing a precedent for using reporting mandates to create accountability without altering substantive law.