[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



 
 OVERVIEW OF THE SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH AND SMALL BUSINESS 
                      TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROGRAMS

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               before the

                      COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
                             UNITED STATES
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                              HEARING HELD
                             MARCH 8, 2022

                               __________
                               

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                               

            Small Business Committee Document Number 117-048
             Available via the GPO Website: www.govinfo.gov
             
             
             
                            ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
46-932               WASHINGTON : 2022              
             
             
             
             
                   HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

                 NYDIA VELAZQUEZ, New York, Chairwoman
                          JARED GOLDEN, Maine
                          JASON CROW, Colorado
                         SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
                         KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
                        DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
                         MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois
                       CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia
                         TROY CARTER, Louisiana
                          JUDY CHU, California
                       DWIGHT EVANS, Pennsylvania
                       ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
                     CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania
                          ANDY KIM, New Jersey
                         ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
              BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri, Ranking Member
                         ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas
                        JIM HAGEDORN, Minnesota
                        PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
                        DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
                        CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York
                       ANDREW GARBARINO, New York
                         YOUNG KIM, California
                         BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas
                         BYRON DONALDS, Florida
                         MARIA SALAZAR, Florida
                      SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin

                 Melissa Jung, Majority Staff Director
            Ellen Harrington, Majority Deputy Staff Director
                     David Planning, Staff Director
                     
                            C O N T E N T S

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
Hon. Nydia Velazquez.............................................     1
Hon. Blaine Luetkemeyer..........................................     2

                                WITNESS

Mr. John Williams, Director of Innovation and Technology, Office 
  of Investment and Innovation, United States Small Business 
  Administration, Washington, DC.................................     4

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statement:
    Mr. John Williams, Director of Innovation and Technology, 
      Office of Investment and Innovation, United States Small 
      Business Administration, Washington, DC....................    33
Questions and Answers for the Record:
    Questions from Hon. Velazquez to Mr. Williams and Responses 
      from Mr. Williams..........................................    44
    Questions from Hon. Luetkemeyer to Mr. Williams and Responses 
      from Mr. Williams..........................................    48
    Questions from Hon. Fitzgerald to Mr. Williams and Responses 
      from Mr. Williams..........................................    52
    Questions from Hon. Van Duyne to Mr. Williams and Responses 
      from Mr. Williams..........................................    53
Additional Material for the Record:
    Bipartisan Policy Center.....................................    38
    Letter from multiple organizations to Congressional Leaders..    41


                    OVERVIEW OF THE SMALL BUSINESS 
                     INNOVATION RESEARCH AND SMALL 
                     BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER 
                                PROGRAMS

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2022

                  House of Representatives,
               Committee on Small Business,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in Room 
2360, Rayburn House Office Building and via Zoom, Hon. Nydia 
Velazquez [Chairwoman of the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Velazquez, Golden, Davids, Mfume, 
Phillips, Bourdeaux, Chu, Evans, Houlahan, Kim of New Jersey, 
Craig, Luetkemeyer, Williams, Stauber, Meuser, Tenney, 
Garbarino, Young Kim of California, Van Duyne, and Fitzgerald.
    Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Good morning. I call this hearing to 
order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess at any time.
    I would like to begin by noting some important 
requirements. Standing House and Committee rules will continue 
to apply during hybrid proceedings. All Members are reminded 
that they are expected to adhere to these rules, including 
decorum.
    House regulations require Members to be visible through a 
video connection throughout the proceeding, so please keep your 
cameras on. Also, remember to remain muted until you are 
recognized to minimize background noise.
    In the event a Member encounters technical issues that 
prevent them from being recognized for their questioning, I 
will move to the next available Member of the same party and I 
will recognize that Member at the next appropriate time slot 
provided they have returned to the proceeding.
    For those Members and staff physically present in the 
Committee room today, in accordance with the attending 
physician's most recent guidance, masks are optional and no 
longer required.
    Thank you to everyone for being here for this timely 
hearing. Today, we will be discussing the SBIR and STTR 
programs, two of the federal government's most important 
initiatives when it comes to driving innovation. This is our 
third in a series of hearings on this topic.
    SBIR and STTR create partnerships between federal agencies, 
public research institutions, and our nation's best and 
brightest small businesses to develop technologies that are 
important to our country and later have commercial application.
    The SBIR and STTR programs meet these goals by leveraging a 
small percentage of extramural federal R&D spending through 
highly competitive awards. For fiscal year 2020, the most 
complete year of SBIR and STTR data, these programs resulted in 
nearly $3.9 billion out of an extramural federal R&D budget of 
about $108.5 billion going to small, high-technology firms.
    Over the years, SBIR and STTR have leveraged this small 
amount of federal R&D funding to launch some of our nation's 
most innovative enterprises and develop products that have 
become household names.
    Companies like iRobot, Sonicare electric toothbrushes, 
23andMe, LASIK Eye Surgery, and Qualcomm wireless 
communications were all helped along by SBIR and STTR.
    More promising ideas are in the works. In fiscal year 2020 
alone, 11 agencies leveraged SBIR and STTR awards to back more 
than 4,000 small businesses and 7,200 projects.
    Given the importance of SBIR/STTR to our innovation 
economy, I am pleased that we are working together to 
reauthorize these programs before they expire on September 
30th. A program lapse would have severe implications for 
American entrepreneurs.
    Even a short-term disruption would deliver a substantial 
setback to R&D-focused small firms and potentially delay 
groundbreaking technological innovations. Small innovators 
operating on the cutting edge of their industries need more 
certainty and stability to invest time, money, and staff in 
applying for SBIR or STTR awards and carrying out the research.
    To avoid these consequences, it is my greatest hope that we 
can extend and reauthorize the programs in a timely manner. I 
look forward to working with the Ranking Member and our Senate 
counterparts to take these steps.
    At the same time, this moment allows us to make 
improvements to streamline and strengthen the programs, as well 
as encourage more participation by minorities and women.
    Innovation is at the heart of the American economy. Making 
SBIR/STTR permanent and working to improve the program is vital 
to holding our position as one of the most innovative countries 
in the world. Today, I look forward to discussing the 
importance of these programs and what Congress must do to 
ensure they move forward.
    I would now like to yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. 
Luetkemeyer, for his opening statement.
    Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Before I get started I would like to just take a moment of 
point of personal privilege to inquire of the Chair, now that 
we no longer have a mask requirement and we are no longer 
social distancing, is it going to be your position that we 
continue with hybrid meetings for the rest of the year or do 
you at some point believe we will go back to just strictly in-
person meetings? Just for clarification purposes, please.
    Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. I hope that soon we will all be able 
to come to Committee hearings and we are going to be discussing 
that with the leadership. I hope that pretty soon we will be 
back.
    Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay, great. Thank you for that. I just am 
curious because we are making progress towards that end. I just 
would like to see where we are at.
    I appreciate that clarification. And good morning. And 
thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this important hearing on 
the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and small 
business technology transfer (STTR) programs. SBIR and STTR's 
mission is to support scientific excellence and technological 
innovation for small businesses. These programs are vital to 
the success of many small entities and have helped create 
thousands of new jobs by fostering innovation and stimulating 
the economy through new, cutting-edge research.
    SBIR and STTR facilitate public-private partnerships so 
that firms have the funding they need to develop new 
technologies that help federal agencies meet the research and 
development needs. These programs not only create jobs, but 
they also lead to a path of commercialization for many 
participating firms.
    SBIR and STTR are funding awards are behind the technology 
in products like iRobot, LASIK Eye Surgery, Qualcomm Wireless 
Communications, 23andMe, and rapid improvements to COVID-19 
vaccines. These programs are not only essential for America's 
competitiveness, but also for our national security. From B-2 
bomber technology to threat warning systems, SBIR firms have 
played a role in critical technologies used by our servicemen 
and women every day.
    Further, SBIR and STTR programs are good investment for 
American taxpayers returning $22 to the economy for every $1 
spent on projects at DoD and $33 for every dollar spent at 
National Cancer Institute.
    I see Mr. Williams is nodding his head here so that is good 
news.
    As many of you know, Congress last reauthorized the 
programs in 2017 for a period of 5 years. The programs are 
currently set to expire on September 30, 2022. While these 
programs are not perfect, reauthorizing them will ensure 
stability and continued economic growth while Congress works to 
streamline and improve the programs. It is our job to better 
understand and address the challenges to the program's 
effectiveness and guarantee that American taxpayer dollars are 
being spent efficiently, effectively, and in a responsible 
manner.
    I am looking forward to hearing from Mr. Williams on ways 
to improve SBIR and STTR for small businesses and participating 
agencies alike.
    Now for a couple housekeeping items. Number one, while I am 
glad Mr. Williams is here today to discuss these important 
programs, the Biden administration is still overlooking the 
Members of this Committee. We are now 318 days past the April 
26th deadline for Secretary Yellen to testify before this 
Committee. We must hold Secretary Yellen accountable for the 
decision to blatantly break the law.
    Furthermore, in yesterday's Washington Post, we have a 
picture, an advertisement of Ms. Yellen who is wanting to have 
either webinar or some kind of visual discussion with regards 
to, and one of the topics is to discuss the COVID hit to our 
economy. Would not the PPP program be something that you want 
to discuss? If that is the case, why are we not here? Why can 
we not get here?
    Madam Chair, we have got by law, supposed to have Ms. 
Yellen here twice this year. Twice in 2022. I would hope that 
she is working with your staff to find a way to schedule those 
two events. I am looking forward to it.
    Item number two. The Committee is still waiting on 
responses from questions for the record submitted to SBA 
officials over 9 months ago. I talked about this with Ms. 
Guzman in a personal one-on-one conversation I had with the 
director about 2 weeks ago and we still have not got those 
responses back. Again, I would urge SBA, and Mr. Williams, I 
hope you take these measures back to your administration 
hierarchy to respond to these questions quickly. These are not 
gotcha questions. These are informational requests that 
actually round out the things that we are trying to find in 
these hearings so it is very important we get this done.
    And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my 
time and look forward to today's discussion.
    Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member. The 
gentleman yields back.
    With that, I would like to introduce our witness, Mr. John 
Williams, the director of Innovation and Technology for the 
Office of Investment and Innovation within the Small Business 
Administration. Prior to joining the SBA in 2014, Mr. Williams 
served as the Director of the Navy SBIR and STTR programs, 
building a reputation for running the most successful SBIR and 
STTR programs in government.
    Welcome, Mr. Williams. You now have 5 minutes to make your 
opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF JOHN WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR OF INNOVATION AND 
TECHNOLOGY, OFFICE OF INVESTMENT AND INNOVATION, UNITED STATES 
                 SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

    Mr. WILLIAMS. Good morning, Chairman Velazquez, Ranking 
Member Luetkemeyer, and distinguished Members of the Committee. 
Thank you for the invitation to discuss the nation's Small 
Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business 
Technology Transfer (STTR) Programs, and the role SBA has in 
leading them.
    I have had the personal pleasure of devoting 35 years to 
public service, including 15 years as the director of the 
Navy's SBIR/STTR, and Technology Transfer program offices.
    During my time at the Navy, my primary focus was on helping 
SBIR firms transition their technology and commercialize it 
into Navy platforms. I am proud to note that the Navy lead the 
DoD in Phase III funding throughout my tenure.
    In December 2014, I excitedly accepted the opportunity to 
serve as the Director of Innovation and Technology at SBA. My 
office supports SBA's mission and our nation by ensuring that 
U.S.-based innovative startups have the tools, resources, and 
support to start, grow, and expand.
    Our role is to build a national innovation ecosystem that 
supports all innovators wherever they live so that the best and 
brightest have the opportunities to succeed. The SBIR and STTR 
programs, which we like to refer to as America's Seed Fund, 
function as the heart of this ecosystem.
    America's Seed Fund provides competitive opportunities for 
small businesses to pursue high risk, research, and development 
with a focus on commercialization. These programs are a 
critical component to our national innovation ecosystem. They 
facilitate job creation, de-risking of technologies, while also 
addressing significant societal and national defense needs.
    America's Seed Fund represents the nation's largest source 
of nondilutive seed funding, meaning these investments do not 
require companies to sacrifice equity. Annually, across the 11 
participating agencies, more than $4 billion is provided 
through competitive awards to U.S.-owned and operated companies 
with less than 500 employees. There are winners in every state. 
The structure requires that 3.2 percent of an extramural R&D 
appropriation of an agency is applied to SBIR, and for agencies 
with an R&D exceeding $1 billion, an additional .45 percent for 
STTR. The program's structure means that the SBIR and STTR 
programs do not require a separate appropriation and therefore, 
do not result in additional costs to the taxpayer.
    The funding is provided in phases with multiple layers of 
competition. Importantly, over the last year, nearly 46 percent 
of the participating firms were first-time award winners. 
Bringing in new entrants, especially from underserved 
geographic and demographic communities is a priority. Since I 
started at SBA, the percentages of new entrants has increased 
by 30 percent, and multi-award winners has gone down by 25 
percent.
    For nearly 40 years, the SBIR and STTR programs have served 
as a critical need funding source for the U.S.-based advanced 
technology firms. The National Academies of Sciences have 
completed 20 studies and continue to document that these 
programs are highly competitive and a critical tool that 
converts America's research into next-generation technologies. 
The program increases competition within the federal research 
and development community as it creates a level playing field 
for small businesses to participate.
    Companies such as Qualcomm, Intuitive Surgical, Illumina, 
23andMe, Sonicare have all received funding and the Department 
of Defense has also found a 22:1 return on investment from 
their SBIR investments.
    Under the current law, the program expires on September 30. 
The time for solicitation opening to the time of awards being 
made is 6 to 12 months. We are now within 7 months. My concern 
is if Congress does not extend these programs soon, agencies 
will start to delay solicitations and awards. Due to the 
potential program expiration with no fiscal year 2023 funding 
clearly available under those programs. The impact results from 
this uncertainty and instability will fall most heavily on 
small business innovators, especially those new to the program. 
Through an extension of the programs, you will provide 
stability and certainty around America's Seed Fund and provide 
time or Congress to develop and implement a comprehensive 
reauthorization. America's Seed Fund attracts and supports some 
of the brightest innovators and provides innovative cost-saving 
capabilities to the public and our national defense.
    I thank you for the opportunity to appear today and I thank 
the Committee, especially Chairwoman Velazquez and Ranking 
Member Luetkemeyer to the support to ensure that SBIR and STTR 
programs and their current pilots are extended as is while the 
Committee continues to work on a full reauthorization. Thank 
you for your time.
    Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Williams.
    Now I will recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    Basically, you almost ended your opening statement with my 
concern regarding the effects of a long-term impact of a 
program lapse, or the threat of a lapse on small businesses and 
the agencies, particularly given the data that you are just 
providing where there has been an increase in new participants 
into the program. What effect will a lapse or a threat will 
have?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. So a lapse would be catastrophic. It would 
mean $4.2 billion to the fund, 4,000 companies actively, 7,000 
awards would really go to large prime contractors, the big 
universities, back to the federal labs. So, it would really 
decrease competition in federal R&D funding. And I would not 
result in cost savings and that is the big thing because, 
again, this is appropriated money that is already there. It is 
just being made sure that it goes to small businesses.
    I think the threat of that lapse then is the agencies are 
going to start to gear back, start to not put out new 
solicitations because it will be next year when those things 
take place and they really should not be getting companies 
involved in something that they do not have funding for.
    Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. So the lack of certainty provided by 
continuing resolutions will have an impact on the agency?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Absolutely.
    Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. I will ask unanimous consent to 
submit for the record letters of support from 117 small 
businesses, universities, and economic development groups 
supporting the clean extension of the SBIR and STTR programs.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    One of my top priorities for the upcoming reauthorization, 
Mr. Williams, is to improve the participation of minority and 
disadvantaged persons in SBIR and STTR and to increase the 
geographic diversity in this program that has been my quest for 
the last 20 years.
    In your experience, what strategies have worked and what 
challenges remain?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Sure. So, increasing geographic and 
demographic diversity is a priority of mine. It is the mission 
of SBA. It is certainly a priority for Administrator Guzman. My 
experience is that the leveraging and coordinating of a variety 
of private and public partnerships really works. There is not a 
``one size fits all.'' You need support locally. I think we can 
push national programs and education, but then locally you want 
to have programs like our Fast and Growth Accelerator really 
make a difference and so more of that I think will allow us to 
help more people at that local level in those areas.
    Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Okay. NSF and NIH offer supplemental 
grants to SBIR and STTR to provide paid fellowships for 
underserved students. Can you briefly explain how these 
fellowships work and the impact they have had?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Sure. So, NIH has a program where they use a 
supplement to the award and they give it to the company to 
bring in a diverse researcher. And then with NSF, they use a 
third party that then finds and connects post-docs with small 
businesses.
    Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Do you think this approach is worth 
expanding to other agencies?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. So I think the approach is worth expanding. 
But I think also there is a lot we can do, and should be doing 
to try to link students as young as possible to the excitement 
of what and small business does in tech. And so, I think there 
is a lot of opportunities. I have seen companies really get 
excited in bringing in students and summer hires and things 
like that even at the high school level. I think it gets people 
involved in STEM.
    Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Where should funds for fellowships 
come from? For example, should we use the base SBIR and STTR 
funds like NIH, those? Or the 3 percent administrative dollars?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. So the current legislation allows both and I 
think there is flexibility in having that flexibility for the 
agencies.
    Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Have the staff and budget for the 
Office of Innovation kept pace with the growth of the program 
over the years?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. The total funding for the SBIR programs has 
increased as we have noted, as has the responsibilities for 
SBA. The resources at SBA have not increased. I have got an 
amazing team that does treat stuff with what they have but, 
yes, if we had additional resources I am confident that we 
could do a lot more to help, and especially the underserved 
communities in getting out there and bringing on more----
    Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. If Congress legislated SBIR agencies 
to transfer a portion of their 3 percent administrative funds 
to SBA, how would that help your office administer the program?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. So it would expand a lot of the things we do. 
More outreach, more train the trainer, more coordinating with 
our Growth Accelerator and our FAST to provide information. 
More getting them together, building out our website. So again, 
it is easier to get access, better data handling so that we 
could push out information. So, there are a lot of areas. I 
think mentor networks. There are a lot of areas and I would be 
glad to talk to you about them.
    Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. My time has now expired.
    The Ranking Member is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Williams, you indicated you had some service in the 
military with the Navy. Thank you for your service, sir, to our 
country. The programs that you oversee seem to have been very 
successful the last several years and I thank you for your 
leadership on that.
    Along those lines though I have got a couple of questions 
here. In 2011, to address Congress's concerns, the SBA created 
a commercialization benchmark to better determine the 
eligibility for the SBIR and STTR programs or awards I should 
say. However, according to GAO, SBA and I quote, ``The SBA and 
the participating agencies assessed small businesses against 
the commercialization benchmark only once in 2014 because of 
challenges in collecting and verifying the accuracy of data.''
    I guess let me start with this. Whose responsibility is it 
to provide the assessment and why did the SBA measuring small 
businesses against the benchmark only occur once in the last 10 
year span?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, we do do it now. But I will go back to 
the history. So, the legislation came forward. There are 
performance metrics. One is Phase I to Phase II transition and 
then the other commercialization Phase II to Phase III. Phase 
III information is cumbersome and DoD does collect it or had 
been collecting it for many, many years. And so, what we wanted 
to do was to move to a single source. We did not want to have 
11 agencies collecting the same data and putting the burden on 
small businesses. DoD was the primary one but other agencies 
also collected that information. And the legislation really 
required that those agencies implement a standard.
    And what is important to note is that even without that, 
the potential to commercialize the past history of Phase IIs, 
that goes in every proposal and every agency evaluates in one 
of the main three criteria on the potential to commercialize. 
So, has that company done a good job with that in the past? 
That is what they are measured on. And so, the information is 
being looked at on every proposal and has been. Now we have 
actually implemented, we have taken over the DoD system and we 
have a central system at SBA starting in 2020 that all firms 
now have to put, and it is a single source for all Phase III 
information.
    Mr. LUETKEMEYER. So basically what you are saying, it has 
been the responsibility of other agencies to collect this 
information and do the benchmarking up to this point?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. So we have transitioned to that because it 
just did not make sense. So, we set the requirement of what a 
transition benchmark would be with coordination across all the 
agencies. And then as we work to do it, they were then 
evaluating on whether they felt these firms----
    Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay. So, we can anticipate in the future 
this information is going to get to us?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes. Yes.
    Mr. LUETKEMEYER. That is necessary for our oversight.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Absolutely.
    Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I mean, it is not something that is, you 
know, it is in law. It is supposed to be addressed.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes. No, we have a system that does and we 
can provide that information.
    Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay. All right. Great.
    In your testimony, you mentioned some stats about 46 
percent increase in the last few years with new people coming 
into the program. And that is a 30 percent increase from when 
you took over. So, can you explain to me just a little bit 
about how this works from the standpoint that existing 
businesses are getting repeat awards? Is there a point in time 
when they get weaned off of this assistance? Why are the 
existing businesses continuing to get these awards and maybe 
pushing out some new businesses? Can you explain the situation?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Sure. So, I am going to go back to my Navy 
days. And this is not an assistance program. This program is 
designed to make sure that when we develop R&D by an agency and 
so it is the DoD and I have specific R&D's needs, I have to go 
to a small business instead of the major primes that typically 
is what happened. So, in the DoD, it is----
    Mr. LUETKEMEYER. So you are soliciting that individual 
business yourself rather than them coming to DoD with a bid to 
bid on their project; is that what you are saying?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. So I will give you an example. Progeny 
Systems had I think over 300 awards over a 20-something year 
period. They now build all the torpedoes for the Navy. They are 
still a small business. That is not a capability that really 
existed. So, the SBIR program, by awarding companies multiple 
times, we are bringing in companies into a program. As you 
probably know, the DoD, there are only a few big players now. 
And so, when we were in the Navy, when I was at the Navy, we 
used the program to bring in competition. And it was not that a 
company would get one or two or three or five awards and then 
we would never need to continue to fund the R&D. We continued 
to fund them because we wanted that additional capability. And 
sometimes in areas that no one was interested in because it is 
not economically viable to develop some circuit board for us 
because there was only five of them needed. Same with NASA. You 
are building three products. One to blow up, one to put on the 
space shuttle, and one to have as a backup.
    So, I think it is important to understand that it is not 
the same for all. Now, NSF is different where they would not do 
that. They do look at funding companies a couple times and then 
they want to see those transitions. So, it is not a ``one size 
fits all.''
    Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I appreciate the clarification. Thank you, 
sir.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you.
    Mr. LUETKEMEYER. With that I yield back.
    Ms. DAVIDS. I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    First of all, thank you to the Chairwoman and to our 
Ranking Member for holding this hearing today.
    The reauthorization of the SBIR and STTR programs is 
definitely one of the most important tasks in front of the 
Committee this year and is, of course, of critical importance. 
The SBIR, STTR, and the FAST partnership program, as well as 
the Growth Accelerator Fund competition offer critical 
opportunities for innovators and entrepreneurs to develop their 
technologies and to build their businesses as we have been 
hearing today. But especially in the tech space. And I know it 
can be hard for entrepeneurs outside of tech hubs on the coast 
to find investors and partners and we heard the Chairman 
earlier reference geographic diversity as being kind of 
critical to the work we are doing here.
    So, Mr. Williams, I would love to hear from you how the 
various programs we are talking about today are able to reach 
more entrepeneurs or businesses and research institutions 
outside of those tech hubs in places like the Midwest or the 
Kansas 3rd. We do have a couple of SBDC, women's business 
centers and those sorts of things, but I am just curious how 
you all are thinking about it and what we can be doing.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Sure. You know what is unique about the 
programs that have been funded that I manage with FAST and 
Growth Accelerator is that they really target the unique needs 
of a tech entrepreneur which is very different than kind of a 
traditional company. They are non-revenue generating at that 
time. They cannot really get loans. And so, I think what we 
found is it is not a ``one size fits all.'' It is really about 
bringing connections. And so, we want our FAST and Growth 
Accelerators to leverage the SBDCs and their capabilities. 
Reach out to the district offices. And so, we do a lot of 
training to the SBDCs and others to let them know about the 
program and that there is a group out there. And it is usually 
at a research innovation hub outside the university that has 
really taken that university research that we would then fund. 
They will bring in venture capital. And again, there is more 
money out there that is small that is teaming with these 
accelerators and innovators and so we see that as kind of, it 
is not a one size. It is bringing all these parties together.
    Ms. DAVIDS. And then I am curious, this is actually to 
follow on from Mr. Luetkemeyer's questions about the data 
collection. You kind of started to talk about the new system 
that you are implementing where the SBA is kind of the 
repository of information versus the various agencies. I am 
curious how you are looking at that and how are you taking into 
account demographic information and geographic information?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. So, there are a couple of pieces of 
information. We gather information on Phase III directly is 
what I was talking about there. But then all the information 
from the awardees comes to us by each agency and in that the 
company is supposed to tell us, woman-owned, demographic data, 
and then we track that. So, in our annual reports, we list the 
awards per state, the awards by women, the proposals by women, 
the awards by women. We are also starting to now link to SAM so 
that we can kind of validate that. So that is a role that we 
play is to gather all that data together and then look across. 
And absolutely, that is one of the areas we measure.
    Ms. DAVIDS. And I think I will stop there. I do not have 
enough time to get into the next set of things.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. And I will just say that data is available on 
our website at all times. It does not have to be in the annual 
report. Our data is current on fiscal year 2021. We are 
probably 80 percent full and you can pull down woman-owned and 
you can sort and it is Excel. And so that information is always 
available and we are trying to push it out.
    Ms. DAVIDS. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Williams. And thank you 
for the work you all are doing. It is certainly an improvement 
over the years. So, thank you.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. I appreciate that. Thank you.
    Ms. DAVIDS. I yield back.
    I am yielding back. The Ranking Member--oh, sorry about 
that.
    Mr. Fitzgerald is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. FITZGERALD. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Williams, thanks for being here today.
    Fiscal year 2022, the NDAA extended the pilot program for 
streamlining the awards for innovative technology projects, 
such as awards under SBIR, until 2024. Under the pilot program, 
and maybe you can give me a little bit more detail, any 
contract or subcontract valued at less than $7.5 million is 
exempt from certain costs. So, I am not sure why the $7.5 
million was the magic number. It could be just congressional 
wisdom. I am not sure. But we could not track that down. But 
there is no pricing data disclosures per se.
    So as this Committee kind of does its due diligence on this 
before we vote to extend on SBIR and STTR, is there any better 
metrics that you are aware of or is there any better way of 
measuring this, especially when you get down into that, below 
that threshold? It seems like it should be a critical piece of 
legislation before we would actually take that step and 
reauthorize.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. So unfortunately, I am not as aware with that 
piece of legislation on the NDAA.
    Mr. FITZGERALD. Yeah, I think because some of the pilot 
programs were part of the NDAA, and I think ultimately that 
final, when that final appropriation package comes before us 
that there is going to be kind of this question about I think 
the level of funding. And that is why I was just looking if 
there is some better metrics that we should be looking at, or 
better set of numbers.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. So, I will be glad to follow up and really 
get into it because I want to make sure I give you a proper 
answer. The amount for a Phase II is set at like $1.8 million. 
They can go above that by 50 percent. Anything past that they 
have to come to SBA for a waiver request. And then we approve 
those on a case by case basis. And so, there are certain 
agencies, the Air Force to be an example, where they were 
coming in with additional matching dollars from a Department of 
Defense weapon system, so non-SBR being added to SBR money. And 
even outside money. And that encouraged me to then allow them 
to make higher awards. And we did that on a pilot. So, there 
have been some pilots to experiment that certain technologies 
just takes more money and they need it quicker. Instead of 
doing six Phase IIs over a 3-year period, would it be better to 
do a larger Phase II if other dollars came in during that 
development process? And that is what we have been approving. 
And it has to come through SBA to approve those waivers.
    Mr. FITZGERALD. I gotcha.
    I will put something together and make sure that you get 
it. I have very specific questions.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Yeah, absolutely. I would appreciate that.
    Mr. FITZGERALD. The second question I had was in and around 
semiconductors. And I think the chip stuff. So, I think that is 
going to come up, and I know there are other Members who are 
going to talk about that. So, I would yield back. Thank you.
    Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
    Now we recognize the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. 
Houlahan, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. HOULAHAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Mr. 
Williams, for your testimony today and for your role 
administering the SBIR and STTR programs.
    I am an entrepreneur and an engineer myself, and I, as a 
result, do understand how important America's Seed Fund is to 
all aspiring innovators and small businesses and to research 
institutions across our country.
    I believe this Committee must have an eye for consistently 
improving the SBIR and STTR programs, particularly when it 
comes to commercialization. Across the 11 participating 
agencies, only about half of the SBIR and STTR awards result in 
products that are commercially sold. Furthermore, delays in 
decisions and disbursement of funds or patents can present 
particular challenges for small businesses who are seeking to 
translate their investments into marketable products and 
services.
    To address these challenges, I have worked across the aisle 
with my colleague, Representative Balderson, to introduce the 
Research Advancing Market Production (RAMP) for Innovators Act. 
This bipartisan and bicameral piece of legislation would ensure 
that our federal government is prioritizing research with the 
highest commercialization potential, significantly reducing the 
time agencies must take to make a final decision on proposals 
and establishing an annual commercialization impact assessment 
at every agency to monitor the program's success and more.
    So, Mr. Williams, I was hoping that you might be able to 
speak to the importance of enhancing commercialization outcomes 
through SBIR and STTR programs, and particularly, I am 
interested in hearing from you about how changes, such as those 
that might be provided by RAMP, would allow American 
entrepreneurs the support that they need to get their products 
on shelves and increase the economic impact of the programs at 
large.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. So anything we can do to help on the 
commercialization side is obviously important. And that was a 
big thing that I did at the DoD. And again, I think some of the 
challenges, like I mentioned, the commercialization of DoD is 
very different. Sometimes we do not want anyone selling 
products of the DoD. So, it is a criteria for evaluation. So, 
there are basically three criteria. The value of the 
technology; the team, how good they are at it; and then the 
potential to commercialize that. And so, I think it is always 
valuable, that those are important factors and that they are 
all there. And I think some of the RAMP Act, make sure that the 
right people are helping in that evaluation process and there 
are some resources with USPTO who we work with very closely. 
Patents are an issue, so things that can reduce the cost of 
patents. All those things can help small businesses and those 
are challenges they run into.
    Ms. HOULAHAN. I 100 percent agree with you having struggled 
through those kinds of processes myself. It is a race in many 
cases to get something to a shelf or into a store or into 
somebody's hands and I think that time matters and expertise 
matters. So, I appreciate your insight into that.
    Given that the proven value delivered by SBIR and STTR is 
demonstrable, I have heard from a lot of stakeholders and 
businesses who have asked that Congress should address the 
uncertainty that is associated with what I have seen here in my 
few years, frequent and very sporadic reauthorization of 
programs. They have shared that it would be better if we would 
be able to have a more reliable stream of reauthorization and 
it would result in less fraud, waste, and abuse. So, from your 
experience in the ONR, the Office of Naval Research, could you 
please speak a little bit about how the SBIR and STTR programs 
have delivered valuable research back to the 11 participating 
agencies and how would a longer term authorization or 
permanency of the program allow for relationships and benefits 
for the American people to be able to continue and grow?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Sure. Anything that creates continuity. And 
so, there is a lot of, especially in commercialization, people 
relying on that part. So, the DoD, if we were going to be part 
of a missile system that was a 10-year program and we were 
funding it for 4 years and that went away and they was not sure 
that it was going to be after that, they would not include that 
as part of the program. That is a design risk that just would 
not be done. So, the goal is to try to get these systems, 
especially the DoD, which is half the program, into these 
weapon systems, into these programs. And if there is not a 
guarantee then that is a risk. And the same with the private 
sectors. Investors are not willing to invest. But we have seen 
more incubators and others established that are using the SBIR 
program funds as a tool, which we want them to do, but if it is 
not going to be there, are they going to provide the resources 
to train people to really understand what the program is, to 
build the relationships with the program managers? So, there 
are a lot of pieces to this and stability in longer term just 
creates more stability that we can plan for. And at program 
offices, you cannot hire people and things like that if it is a 
2-year program. So, it feeds it in a lot of different ways.
    Ms. HOULAHAN. Thank you. I have run out of time and I yield 
back, Madam Chair.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you.
    Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back.
    Now we recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Ranking 
Member of the Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Tax, and Capital 
Access, Mr. Meuser, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. MEUSER. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And thank 
you, Mr. Williams, for being with us. And as Ranking Member 
Luetkemeyer said, thank you for your service, your work for our 
country, and in your work you clearly have the knowhow and 
dedication. So that is great to see.
    First, Madam Chair, I do want to bring up what Ranking 
Member Luetkemeyer has mentioned a number of times and that is 
the absence of Secretary of Treasury, Janet Yellen. It is kind 
of inexplicable that the law states and the requirements are to 
appear before this Committee within timeframes and yet the 
requests seem ignored. And so, I just want to go on the record 
saying that is really irresponsible and kind of hard to 
believe, actually.
    But moving on. Moving on. So, Mr. Williams, hearing you 
out, it sounds like you have got a very focused plan and you 
are there for all the right reasons, to figure this out. It is 
a pretty bit operation you are running. What are your goals for 
this year? What are your macro or micro goals, within 60 
seconds if possible for the year?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Sure. I am an office of four. I am not a big 
organization. So, my goal would be to actually grow that and be 
able to provide more resources. Really, on the underserved, 
there is, again, this trick, goal is to get legislation making 
sure because, again, that is something that now I have to spend 
a lot of time on. And then if we know there is FAST and Growth 
Accelerators, because those will be the programs that we really 
believe we can get to underserved states, if we have those 
funds that we would then need to manage and execute and get 
those awards out quickly.
    So potentially on the 11th, I am going to have a budget of 
some type, and then once I get that, my job is to execute that 
as quickly as possible because the money does not do any good 
in Treasury. It has got to get to helping small businesses.
    Mr. MEUSER. You have an office of four. So, but you have 
how many clients? How many----
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, I have a lot of clients. I guess it 
depends on how you look at it. I consider you my client. We 
have the small businesses, the agencies.
    Mr. MEUSER. Business clients.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. So we deal less directly with the companies. 
Our goal is to build this national innovation ecosystem so we 
have 84 Growth Accelerators that we work with that are funded 
this year. We have 33 FAST awardees. So those are groups that 
we work with, that we have contracts with, and that we monitor. 
And then we have an ecosystem. We just have calls and we 
connect with people we do not fund but that we try to provide 
information to them. Our goal is to kind of share the 
information in one place and push it to those that need it.
    Mr. MEUSER. Is it possible for me to get a list of the 
number of businesses that have accessed and utilized and gained 
support from----
    Mr. WILLIAMS. So, I mean, there are 7,000 awards made, 
33,000 proposals submitted every year, about 4,000 to 5,000 
companies. Our website is over a million hits every year. But I 
can give you any more detail.
    Mr. MEUSER. In Pennsylvania or just in my district for that 
matter?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Yeah, I can give you that information. 
Actually, it is on our website. SBIR.gov. You can pull up each 
year, each agency. But I can get you that, too. Absolutely.
    Mr. MEUSER. All right. Good. I will do that. Thanks.
    So, you do see, and I am sure you are aware of this and are 
focused on doing everything you can to change it in a 
reasonable way. But certain areas of the country utilize the 
program far more than others, such as the northeast and the 
West Coast, as well as some companies receive upwards of 50 
Phase I awards in a single year. That is not necessarily a bad 
thing. It could be a good thing. But how would you explain 
that? It seems a little lopsided?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. I will have to look into the 50 Phase I 
awards. I mean there are a couple reasons why certain places in 
the country do not get as much awards. VC funding goes to five 
states, 80 percent of it. There are infrastructure issues that 
exist and so that is why we really believe there are great 
universities throughout the country, that that is a good place 
for us to lock into. FAST and Growth Accelerated established, 
they are now much more focused in transitioning to research 
that they were not really years ago and it is that forming of a 
kind of translational side of NSF where we are really going to 
start funding more of that basic research. The small businesses 
are the glue to that. Those are the ones that are going to be 
motivated to take that and then they will stay locally. And so, 
I think that is what we need to do is more programs to put some 
boots on the ground in those places and help them get access to 
this program. It is still a government program. Government 
programs are not always the easiest and so we want to train new 
people.
    Mr. MEUSER. Real quick. You probably will not have time to 
answer this, but provide us, or me, any specific 
recommendations you have that we can help you improve the 
program because it sounds important.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Stability. And I think some of these resource 
programs that we talked about so we can do more would help.
    Mr. MEUSER. I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
    Now we recognize the gentleman from Minnesota, Chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Regulations, 
Mr. Phillips.
    Mr. PHILLIPS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you, 
sir, for being with us today.
    Both SBIR and STTR are examples of government policy that 
in my estimation aid, not obstruct, private sector initiatives, 
which I celebrate, specifically for R&D. They are programs that 
drive competition between small businesses to develop 
innovation in both products and services. We all know that 
every large enterprise began as a small startup, including such 
iconic Minnesota companies like 3M and Medtronic just to name a 
few. They were innovators which developed new technologies in 
their industries and grew into two of the world leaders in both 
medical devices and manufacturing. They are the types of 
successes to which America should aspire and which we, in 
Congress, have to support. And of course, they did not do it 
alone. No business does it alone. Federal investment in R&D and 
commercialization of new technologies plays a really meaningful 
role in generating success. So good government policy should 
incentivize those best practices in the private sector.
    So, Mr. Williams, you well know, many countries around the 
globe are rapidly increasing their investment in government 
funding dedicated to small business R&D. I know you have worked 
with SBIR and STTR and the small businesses that have used them 
for many years during your career. So, I would like to get a 
sense from you, what is the ROI on every dollar that both SBIR 
and STTR distributes?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. So the only measures that we have are a DoD 
study. And I am going to get the years wrong but it was a 10-
year timeframe that I think ended in--well, I will not quote 
it. But it was a 10-year timeframe. And that was the 22:1 ROI. 
And then the Cancer Institute was the other major one. Navy has 
done a study but the Cancer was 33:1. These studies are 
expensive and so there have not been a ton of ROI studies but 
those are two landmark ones. And then the Academy of Sciences 
has done some studies that have all shown substantial ROI. But 
I think one has to be careful of not just focusing on ROI 
because, again, this program is designed to address the mission 
needs of that agency, and to that agency, having the research 
done, and sometimes having research fail is of value.
    Mr. PHILLIPS. Yeah, agree.
    But fair to say that increasing the percentage of R&D 
budget set aside for both SBIR and STTR would surely help drive 
innovation in small business; true?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. I think so. Yes.
    Mr. PHILLIPS. Yeah. I think it is also fair to say that 
programs like these really have a complementary relationship 
with VCs. Ms. Tung, VP of Research at 23andMe, a company that 
was aided by SBIR, described that in a hearing that we hosted 
last spring. Are there ways that you believe we can encourage 
more public-private sector collaboration in both programs?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. So I think if we had some more resources. I 
do not know if you know but we have a program in my sister 
office, the SBIC program. Certainly, that is a program that 
could look at investing. But we work with the National Venture 
Capital Association. So, I think our ability to get out there 
more and to be able to help document the technologies and where 
they are in building those bridges would help to kind of bring 
that network together.
    Mr. PHILLIPS. Okay. Venture capital and SBIR investments 
are often directed at different industries and different types 
of small businesses, of course. How can SBA more clearly 
distinguish between existing small businesses and new high-
growth startups?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, the ones all listed under the SBIR 
program on SBIR.gov I would consider all high growth. And so, 
they are available on that site. We are always looking at 
better ways to provide more information but there is a lot of 
information on our website that talks about those companies. 
So, I think that is the best place.
    Mr. PHILLIPS. Okay. And lastly, something on all of our 
minds is fraud and abuse in all federal programs. Is there 
anything that you might share with the Committee on how we 
could aid both oversight and fraud prevention in these 
programs?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. I think the legislation that came out in 2011 
set into motion a couple of things that we have done. Setting 
up these 10 requirements that each agency must implement. I 
worked closely with the IGs. We developed that with the IGs. We 
post fraud, waste, and abuse issues on our website. We have 
training on fraud, waste, and abuse. So, I think a lot of the 
things are out there and they are being implemented.
    Mr. PHILLIPS. All right. Well, thank you, sir. That is all 
I had and I appreciate your time with us today.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, sir.
    Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
    Now we recognize Mr. Williams, Vice Ranking Member of the 
Committee from Texas.
    Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I 
appreciate that promotion. And there are more Williamses in 
here than not in here today. I appreciate that.
    In 2017, I helped pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act which 
provided historic relief for small businessowners and Americans 
across the country. This bill revitalized the U.S. economy, 
making it more globally competitive, and unfortunately, a 
critical provision of this bill expired at the beginning of 
2022, and now businesses will no longer be able to deduct the 
cost of research and development from their taxable income in 
the year they incur the cost. This will reduce tax benefits for 
companies investing in R&D and will result in less domestic 
innovation, fewer jobs, and SBIR and STTR programs were 
established to increase participation of smaller companies and 
fairly funded research and development. So, without this tax 
benefit, there will be a dramatic reduction in business 
incentives to invest in R&D.
    So, Mr. Williams, do you agree that allowing the R&D tax 
credit to expire will negatively impact small businesses and 
entrepeneurs? And how could less R&D affect American innovation 
and competitiveness?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. So this is not an issue that I am really 
familiar with. It is not something that comes up to small 
businesses that they have expressed their concern on this.
    Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Well, I will just tell you, as a 
small business owner, too, any time that you can get a positive 
cash flow to invest in R&D or even buy equipment it helps. So, 
we need to do everything we can to get that back in the program 
and put more cash in the hands of main street.
    Now, secondly, during the pandemic, various federal 
agencies were tasked with getting money to the American people 
as fast as possible. Unfortunately, the SBA was by far the 
worst at distributing business savings funds for the last 2 
years and now we are hearing that the Biden administration is 
calling for more COVID-19 money even as inflation soars and 
billions have gone unspent from his last partisan COVID bill. 
The administration should be focusing on alleviating the supply 
chain crisis, solving the worker shortage, and lowering 
regulatory costs because these are the major concerns for small 
business owners across the country.
    So, my question to you would be part of your responsibility 
as a director at the SBA is to advise businesses on how to grow 
and succeed. I think the SBA should be totally pro main street. 
How do we create businesses to be successful? And so, what 
advice would you give to small business owners right now who 
are concerned about the high inflation and the effect it will 
have on their businesses?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. The one thing that I think helps is that 
every year we adjust the amount that they can get in an SBIR 
and STTR award based on inflation. So, we are always making 
sure that that amount goes up every year. And then----
    Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. It is going up this year, is it not?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. It will probably go up this year. Yes, sir.
    Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Yeah.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. And so our goal is really to just get, I 
mean, my role is to get more people involved in it and get more 
money to them. That is the R&D program funding of the SBIR and 
STTR.
    Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Let me ask you another question from 
a tax standpoint. Do you think that lowering taxes benefits 
small businesses like those in the SBA or raising taxes would 
be good for small business?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. So the program I work with is SBIR and the 
issue of taxes is not one that is raised to me.
    Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Okay. All right.
    Madam Chairman, I yield my time back.
    Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
    Now we recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 
Evans, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. EVANS. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Thank you for this 
hearing. This is very valuable.
    Increasing diversity in entrepreneurship in technical 
startups is important to me coming from Philadelphia, a city 
that has nearly 50 percent Black. And Black and Brown citizens 
make up most of the 25 percent of Philadelphians in poverty. 
Entrepreneurship is a tool in the economic toolbox to lift 
people out of poverty. SBA still has the same level of 
diversity in the Small Business Innovative Research and the 
Small Business Technology Transfer program as it did 10 years 
ago. Does SBA coordinate with historical Black colleges and 
minority services to expand awareness of these programs to help 
applications? Can you respond?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes. Thank you, sir. Great question.
    So, we have done a couple things. And again, this is an 
area that is a high priority to me. We just actually got some 
funding from NSF to award a contract with Howard University 
that is on an SBR Inclusion Study to really better understand 
the barriers that underserved founders have with getting access 
to SBIR and STTR. So that is an ongoing program and we are 
going to learn from that and share that information with not 
just the agencies but other schools. We have a longstanding 
working relationship with MBDA. They were part of our 
conference this year. They have been the last couple of years 
but when we had this virtual conference, 41 percent of those 
registrants were from underserved representatives. And that was 
the biggest event that MBDA has had.
    I also, about 2 years ago, signed a memorandum of agreement 
with MSRDC, so that is the MSI STEM R&D Consortium that is made 
up of 60 MSI and HBCU research schools. And we feel that that 
is a really good group because, again, trying to get SBIR 
awareness to those communities. And so, I think the next big 
step really though is to have some funding like there would be 
potentially in Growth Accelerators in FAST so we can have 
offices at those HBCUs to provide that direct training and 
bring more people into the program.
    Mr. EVANS. There are nine such institutions in 
Pennsylvania, four which are in my home city of Philadelphia. 
So, I am interested to hear does SBA work with them?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. So we work with all universities. Now, with 
SBIR and STTR, in my role we will mainly just work with 
technical schools that are developing the types of clients that 
we believe would apply. But yes.
    Mr. EVANS. I thank the gentleman. I yield back the balance 
of my time, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
    Now we recognize the gentlelady from California, Ranking 
Member of the Subcommittee on Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and 
Workforce Development, Ms. Young Kim, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. YOUNG KIM. Thank you, Chairwoman. And I want to thank 
Mr. John Williams for joining us today to discuss the SBIR and 
STTR programs.
    The SBIR and STTR programs are critical tools for small 
businesses to research, develop, and commercialize innovative 
technologies and help create good-paying jobs.
    China and other nations are taking considerable steps to 
bridge the innovation gap with the United States and knock us 
down as the world leader in innovation. While we must not 
relent our country's position as the leading innovator and 
developer of emerging technologies, Congress must ensure that 
programs like SBIR and STTR are adhering to their allocation 
requirements meeting timeliness guidelines and safeguarding 
taxpayers by successfully commercializing technologies and 
getting them off the program.
    So, Mr. Williams, the Small Business Act requires the SBA 
to report annually to Congress on the SBIR and STTR programs. 
Unfortunately, SBA compliance with this requirement has been an 
ongoing issue. Without the timely reports, it is difficult for 
Congress to legislate and improve the programs.
    So, in your view, what steps is SBA taking to meet the 
reporting requirements as mandated by law?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Sure. Thank you for the question.
    So, what we have really focused on since I have come is 
getting the quality of the data up, making sure we are getting 
complete data from all the agencies that first collected from 
the individual companies, and then get that on the site. And 
so, the second an agency submits their information on awards to 
SBA, it is posted on our SBIR.gov website. That site allows for 
downloads. It has got over 170,000 awards on that site from the 
beginning of 1982. We really focused on the last 10 years, 
making sure that that data was as accurate as possible. So, our 
push was really to make sure the data is there, can be 
downloaded and looked at in real time, and also looked at in 
trend form and things like that.
    For the current 2021 report, the data is due by March 15th 
from the agencies so we have not started on that. We are 
working on the 2020 report and we have got that in paper form 
and that will then start the external review process then 
before it gets to Congress. But I would stress that really all 
that information is out there and we make sure it is available, 
transparent, downloadable, and it is a massive amount of data. 
Each award has over 80 records and so there is a lot of 
information on that website about what we do.
    Ms. YOUNG KIM. Thank you.
    You know, I am concerned that the effectiveness of the 
programs vary by agency and some agencies are more successful 
in others in responding to requests in a timely manner. Do you 
believe it might make sense to standardize some of the 
paperwork requirements across agencies to improve timeliness? 
And do you think SBA has a role to play in helping agencies 
standardize proposal review procedures?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. So, timeliness is in the legislation and we 
then measure the time from a solicitation closing to the 
selection to the award and then the gap between Phase I and 
Phase II. Different agencies based on FAR and DFAR and some of 
the regulations have different timelines that have been 
established by Congress. And so, we work with those. And so, 
our role is to measure those. Measure the agencies. Measure 
what they are doing on every award and then to document that 
and provide that information to Congress.
    Ms. YOUNG KIM. Thank you.
    One more question. Some companies have received upwards of 
like 50 Phase I awards in a single year. What can we do 
differently to make sure other companies have a fair shot in 
receiving the awards? Because it does not seem fair that a few 
companies are receiving the bulk of the awards.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. The numbers on multi-award winners, which is 
over 15 awards that they have ever received, is down 25 percent 
in the last 5 years and the percent of first-time applicants is 
at 46 percent currently right now. So that is about 2,000 
companies every year new to the program year over year. So, I 
think it is really up to the agencies then to determine why are 
you awarding to the same company. And again, the goal of the 
program is to solve the mission needs of that agency and to 
pick the best technology solution for that. And so that is what 
the agencies do. They understand the transition. All that 
information is in the proposal for them to evaluate.
    Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Now we recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Kim, 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. KIM. Thank you. Thank you for taking the time to be 
able to come talk with us, Mr. Williams.
    I wanted to ask you about something that I came across in 
the district. So, I have a joint base, McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in 
my district, and as I have been talking to them about 
entrepreneurship and innovation and kind of bringing in the 
work of small businesses, they talked about how they did a 
pitch day when it came to SBIR/STTR. I know as I dug into it 
more, the Air Force has been moved forward on a number of these 
types of ditch days in which they have been able to streamline 
the process and often even be able to make initial awards on 
that same day.
    So, I guess I wanted to ask you just what you thought of 
that process, how it has been working and whether or not there 
is something there that the other departments and agencies 
might be able to pick up on, have been intrigued by this model.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Sure. So, Lakehurst is great. When I was at 
Navy they did pretty much all our contracting and we went to a 
central single source of contracting which I think was one of 
the more valuable tools than just about anything that the Navy 
did. And I know the Air Force has done some of that because, 
again, when you spread contracting out you get different types 
of contract shells and things like that. And so, 
standardization of those kind of things, centralizing it, at 
least at the Navy, created great value and it allowed us to 
make awards more quickly.
    There are pros and cons to pitch days. There is a lot of 
time and effort that goes into some of those things but they 
have shown some interesting results on awarding instantaneously 
and so I think I am a big proponent of we experiment. We allow 
the flexibility that the legislation allows and we measure the 
time it takes. And so, when things work well, again, we have 
monthly meetings with all the program managers, that we share 
that information and we learn from best practices and what we 
are seeing the Air Force and others do is tweak some of those 
things. So, they take what works and continue. So, anything 
that accelerates the time to award is absolutely something we 
are supportive of.
    Mr. KIM. Yeah. And so, you are saying that you are actively 
keeping track of this process.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes.
    Mr. KIM. And analyzing how it has been working for Air 
Force. And what are some of the other departments and agencies? 
Which other ones are utilizing this model right now?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. The Air Force is the lead in the pitch day 
but I know a couple of the other Department of Defense ones are 
looking at it. I personally do not think it is a ``one size 
fits all'' in this area because some of them are in person. But 
yes, that is the main one, is the Air Force.
    Mr. KIM. Well, one other aspect of this, and I think this 
kind of gets at some of what you were saying about pros and 
cons and see how it goes and track it, there have been some 
concerns raised though about the diversity of those that are 
participating when it comes to pitch days as well as the 
reviewers. I think there are some concerns that we are not 
necessarily hitting the kind of racial diversity and the 
diversity that we want to through these types of efforts right 
now.
    So, I guess my question to you is, is that kind of 
demographic tracking happening in terms of understanding who is 
gaining access to this, whether through pitch days or other 
types of processes? I just want to make sure that we are 
thinking through things in that kind of whole way.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. So demographics are measured from the 
proposals and awards made and we even are now moving to 
breaking down that in SAM to really understand because the 
challenges of an African American are different than an Asian 
American. And so, yes, those things are tracked. And so, I 
think what needs to be understood is there is a low percent of 
African American tech companies that exist today. Our woman-
owned companies in tech are 15 percent. We get about 15 percent 
of the proposals, make about 15 percent of the awards. So, the 
issue is we need to figure out how to get more African 
Americans to start a tech company and then that again is 
probably boots on the ground, FAST programs, Growth 
Accelerators to kind of really figure out what works, and that 
is why we are excited about this project we are doing with 
Howard to really understand what are those barriers? Why are 
they choosing not to start a high tech company and instead 
maybe going to work for a big defense contractor or something 
else.
    Mr. KIM. Okay. Great. Well, thank you for talking to me 
about this and we will follow up on some of this.
    I will yield back my time.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. I appreciate that. Thank you.
    Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
    Now we recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Garbarino, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. GARBARINO. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much 
for holding this hearing, and to the Ranking Member.
    I have some questions about the SBIR and STTR. Federal 
agencies need to, when they invest they have the extramural 
research budgets. The SBIR, I believe they use 3.2 percent of 
those budgets have to go to small businesses and to the STTR, 
.45 percent of those agencies' budgets are extramural research 
budgets have to go to small businesses. Where did those numbers 
come from, the percentages? Is that said in law? Can we raise 
that so more small businesses can participate in these 
programs?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, it is in the law and it is up to 
Congress to determine those levels.
    Mr. GARBARINO. Is there enough demand that we should 
increase these levels, the percentages?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. When you say is there enough demand are there 
enough high-quality proposals?
    Mr. GARBARINO. Applications. Could we fulfill more 
participation----
    Mr. WILLIAMS. So the only data that I have is that the 
Academies of Science and others have studied and looked at, and 
this exists with other federal funding, too. So, it is not 
unique to SBIR. But they do not get to fund all the high-
quality proposals. So that is the case with SBIR but it is also 
the case with other programs.
    Mr. GARBARINO. So you are saying that they do not get to 
fund everything they want to, so increasing that number would 
help them with that? Can they spend more than the 3.2 or is it 
required that they only spend 3.2 percent to the SBIR?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. It is a minimum floor.
    Mr. GARBARINO. It is a minimum floor. So, they can spend 
more if they want to?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes.
    Mr. GARBARINO. Okay. Do they spend more?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. No.
    Mr. GARBARINO. Okay. So, they are doing the bare minimum. 
Okay. And that is the same thing for the STTR as well?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. And I think actually there are one or two 
agencies. I think Homeland in the past has spent more but that 
is probably one of the few.
    Mr. GARBARINO. Okay. How do you ensure that they do spend 
the minimum amount of money? Because I have had some----
    Mr. WILLIAMS. We spend a lot of time measuring that. That 
is one of the reasons our reports take so long.
    Mr. GARBARINO. Okay.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. But that is a big part of the measurement is 
to determine the total extramural R&D spend that year compared 
to then that is the denominator, the numerator of what they 
spent and obligated. Yes. And that is part of the reports.
    Mr. GARBARINO. So I have had some complaints from some 
contractors in my district, military contractors that say that 
DoD does not keep up their spending and I do not have any way 
to say that they are wrong or they are right so that is my 
question to you. So, every year you make sure that your reports 
ensure that these agencies are spending the minimum amount that 
is required?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. No, our reports report what they are spending 
as we measure it and we compare it to other things.
    Mr. GARBARINO. Have any of these agencies missed the mark, 
the amount that they are supposed to?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. The answer in the way we report it, the 
answer is yes. The challenge with the DOD is they have 2-year 
funding. Their funding continues to go up. They typically spend 
SBIR. They spend a percent of the SBIR in the second year so we 
are trying to get more transparency in understanding the year 
of the funding and the year of the obligations which is 
challenging but I do believe that all agencies are spending the 
minimum amount. It is just not in that year and the way we 
measure. And we measure it based on the way the legislation is 
written.
    Mr. GARBARINO. Okay. So, what happens if they do not spend 
the money. You think they are but they might not be. The 
numbers say they are supposed to be spending this minimum 
amount, what happens if they do not?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. So I think they are. I think it is over time 
but the legislation does not address that issue. We report it.
    Mr. GARBARINO. They are required to spend it but there is 
nothing to hold their feet to the fire if they do not?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, there is Congress. We report it to 
Congress.
    Mr. GARBARINO. Oh, Congress. Yeah, there is us. Okay.
    A separate question. How many companies or small 
businesses, and you might have mentioned this before. I know 
somebody was asking about the return on investment from the 
dollars invested. How many companies or small businesses make 
it all the way to Phase III?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. So there is reports, and I would really 
reference the National Academies of Sciences reports. So, it is 
in the 50 to 65. It depends on the agencies. And again, you do 
not want it to be 100 percent. You do not probably want it to 
be much more than it is because it is cutting edge R&D that you 
do not expect all to transition. But that data is in the 
Academy of Sciences reports.
    Mr. GARBARINO. I appreciate it. I am running out of time so 
I thank you for your answers and I yield back.
    Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
    Now we recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Mfume, 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. MFUME. Madam Chair, thank you very much for the 
opportunity to both you and the Ranking Member.
    Director Williams, hello.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. How are you doing?
    Mr. MFUME. I am pretty good. And I appreciate your time 
here as something that we do not take for granted but it is 
part of our responsibility to do oversight and to follow up, 
particularly on programs such as the two we are talking about 
today.
    I know your authorization runs through September 30th. I 
think it is fair to say that this Committee wants to make sure 
that reauthorization occurs because of our concern for 
innovation, technology, and research. I do want to at some 
point follow up on the gentleman from Minnesota's comments 
about ROI. Return on investment is important to me. I happen to 
Chair a Subcommittee on Contracting and Infrastructure and 
perhaps I will take that up in that Committee.
    But what I would like to turn my attention to right now is 
to go back to the comments offered up by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania regarding diversity, specifically with HBCUs.
    Director Williams, in 1982, the gentleman whose picture 
hangs on the wall here behind me, Parren Mitchell, was very 
instrumental in creating the programs that we are here talking 
about today and very insistent at the time of that creation on 
diversity. Ten years later, in 1992, I Chaired the Subcommittee 
of this Committee on Minority and Women Business Enterprise. 
And I reiterated 10 years later the concerns that Congressman 
Mitchell had, the founder, that we really needed to see a 
reduction in multi-awards, that we wanted to see increase in 
access to a number of ways to get organizations and people 
applied, and that we wanted to make sure that there was real 
diversity with woman-owned, minority-owned businesses. And at 
that time the emphasis was specifically in 1992 on Black, 
Latino, and woman-owned businesses.
    So, it is ironic we are 30 years after I held those 
hearings. We are talking about the same two very important 
programs. And for me, the irony here is that there is such a 
similarity of what the hearing 30 years ago dealt with to where 
we are today. So, the fact that we have real concerns about 
diversity, the fact that there are still many, many multi-
awards that are taking place. I think you said around 46 
percent; is that correct?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. No, 46 percent are brand new awardees.
    Mr. MFUME. Awardees. Yeah.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. I think it is 27 percent have won more than 
15 awards.
    Mr. MFUME. Yeah. So that is why I can appreciate your 8 
years in your position. I have got a longer view on this. A 
longer perspective that goes back 30 years and remembering the 
10 years before that. We really need to get beyond where we 
are. Because if not, I think the next time around for 
reauthorization, you and the agency are probably going to face 
a real bulwark of resistance by those of us who do not 
understand why we cannot find a way to do what we say we are 
going to do 40 years ago when it was begun and 30 years ago 
when I held hearings on this. There has got to be some sort of 
way, particularly with HBCUs and MSIs, not to go to one college 
or one university or one consortium but to ask the question, 
why are we not doing more here and what are the keys? The key 
in many respects is where you are going I think and where you 
have to go are schools that have engineering programs, STEM 
programs, and R2 colleges and universities that will give you 
the people who can, in fact, apply. I think there has to be 
increased access to early stage technical assistance to 
facilitate greater diversity among the program participants. 
And we have heard concerns in the past about the barriers that 
women and minorities faced then in 1992 and now today women, 
minorities, and those in rural areas just to be able to get 
matching funds because of where they are. So, there are real 
concerns. I do not have more than 5 minutes to discuss my agony 
here if I can use that term, having lived and watched this. I 
am not here to condemn you or to blame you but I am condemning 
the process and what may have preceded you because this is, as 
Yogi Berra once said, deja vu all over again. We have not moved 
an inch from where we were.
    So, my time has expired. I want to thank the Chair for 
allowing me to have the opportunity to chime in. I hope, sir, 
that you would take these concerns so that this time next year 
when we are talking about reauthorization, some of the answers 
then will go far beyond where they are now, particularly in 
terms of increased participation and diversity for women, 
minority-owned businesses, and others.
    Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
    Now we recognize the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Stauber, 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. STAUBER. Thank you, Madam Chair, and to the Member who 
just spoke. I really appreciate some of the things you brought 
up and the perspective that you come at these issues with.
    As with every government program, finding success is not 
always easy. When I first got to Congress, I assisted a small 
business, obtained feedback from the Air Force regarding the 
SBIR applicant denial. They were never able to get a straight 
answer before my involvement, but I was certainly happy to help 
get things cleared up for them.
    Mr. Williams, can you speak to requirements, if any, of 
providing feedback to SBIR and STTR applicants when their 
applications are denied?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. I know at Navy we had a process where we 
would provide electronic feedback on all of them and then 
follow up. So, I will have to get back to you on the specific 
rules because the rules really are not associated with SBIR and 
STTR. They are associated with how an agency runs a grant and/
or a contract and how they go out. So, they follow the same 
rules that they do for any types of proposal situations and 
grant situations.
    Mr. STAUBER. Will you get those to our office or get it to 
Madam Chair for us so she can distribute it?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Sure.
    Mr. STAUBER. Thank you very much.
    And then we talked about standardization of paperwork 
across the agencies which would help increase participation. 
And you even alluded to the timeliness. Are there any things 
that you can suggest to us on the timeliness or change of the 
timeframes from your experience? Because a couple of questions 
you had answered, well, it is Congress's role. Can you give us 
some ideas on specifically the timing from your expertise that 
we should be looking at reference legislation change?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. So I think all agencies are committed to 
reducing timeliness and it is something we measure; we talk 
about a lot. There are restrictions and a lot of them are FAR, 
DFAR, policies at those agencies. And so, it is hard for me to 
speak on one or two. And I know the GAO has done a study to 
look at that and they have kind of looked at some of these 
things. So, I would be really glad to work with the offices and 
really bring in different, because it has got to be 
brainstormed. And it is really the procurement and contracting 
organizations, not the SBIR shops that need to get involved 
because that is where it happens. Those are the regulations 
that control these things. And there is a good reason for some 
regulations. And so, we always want to balance doing things too 
fast and making sure we are checking everything.
    Mr. STAUBER. What other barriers to entry have you 
identified in your time as director?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. I think a lot of it is, again, I am really 
proud that we have got 46 percent of the awardees every year 
are new. I am not proud that we do not do that across the 
country, especially with some of the underserved. So, I think 
we need to do more and it is really a resource-based thing of 
getting systems in place where training on SBIR and STTR is 
available. Access to wet lands is available. Mentors are 
available to help those that are underserved that are not 
getting access or understanding of this program so they can 
write proposals and win awards. I am a big fan of trying to do 
that.
    In the post-doc there was a hearing here. One of the post-
doc individuals, an African American, he got access to one of 
our Growth Accelerator funds that helped them pivot a little 
bit but it while he had some other programs going on and 
funding. So post-docs are a great place because they are 
getting funded to be there anyway. They are used to eating 
Ramen and things like that so that is a good time to get them 
to write proposals, win awards, and start new companies.
    Mr. STAUBER. You talked about some of the things that 
needed to be changed to help the program become successful and 
we talked about some of the barriers for some small businesses 
that want to come into these programs. Would you say that this 
administration's $201 billion in additional regulations in year 
1 and the $130 million of new compliance hours are barriers to 
entry for startups?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. I have not seen any of those affect what we 
do. The barriers that startups talk about are barriers that 
have been in place for a long time.
    Mr. STAUBER. The $201 billion in additional regulations in 
one year, is that good or bad for small businesses?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. So I have not heard any of my small 
businesses that I work with reference any specific, but if 
there are certain ones that I should be aware of, I would be 
glad to work with you on that and try to figure that out.
    Mr. STAUBER. My time is expired. Madam Chair, back to you. 
Thank you.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you.
    Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady from California, Ms. 
Chu, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. CHU. Mr. Williams, I am fortunate to represent 
California's most prolific research institution, the California 
Institute of Technology, Caltech. Caltech has partnered on more 
STTR grants than any other research institution in California. 
I believe that is a major reason why my district in Pasadena, 
California, in particular, has become such a hub for 
technology-focused startups and small businesses. This includes 
companies like iRobot which you mentioned in your testimony.
    In your experience working with these programs, how do 
surrounding communities benefit from proximity to qualified 
research institutions that participate in SBIR and STTR? What 
are the second order investment, employment, and innovation 
impacts supported by SBIR and STTR?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not have specific numbers on that. I 
believe that SBIR and STTR can really accelerate economic 
development in areas that are underserved because if you get 
that, those are high-growth companies that rapidly grow and 
then they can support another layer of small businesses that 
are providing supplies and support and things like that. So, I 
certainly think it is a great way to get economic growth by 
investing in that and the university systems. And there are 
many universities that should be playing a bigger role in the 
program and we are starting to see that.
    Ms. CHU. Thank you.
    And Mr. Williams, I would like to follow up on your 
reference in the testimony that you provided on efforts to 
increase participation by woman-owned small businesses and SBIR 
and STTR. A study conducted by the National Women's Business 
Council found that across the 11 agencies that participate in 
these agencies, only 14 percent of Phase I awards were made to 
woman-owned businesses. And while some agencies, such as the 
Department of Education are awarding nearly 40 percent of their 
grants to woman-owned small businesses, agencies that focus on 
STEM fields, such as the Department of Energy, still only award 
10 percent of their grants to woman-owned small businesses. 
Although this is an improvement over the dismal 3.5 percent 
they were awarding to woman-owned small businesses in 2011, it 
is still not enough.
    Can you talk about the direct work that you are doing at 
SBA to encourage more woman-owned small businesses to 
participate in these programs? And in particular, I want to 
know, how are you measuring success in increasing women's 
participation? Is it just that the number of awards granted or 
are you also measuring the number of woman-owned small 
businesses that apply to the program? Are you increasing the 
number of women who serve on peer review panels?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. So the study I am very familiar with because 
we performed that study for the National Women's Business 
Council. And the data that it also showed was that woman-owned 
STEM companies was pretty close, was in that 15 percent range 
of the amount proposing and the amount winning. It did vary. 
So, as you mentioned, certain agencies, and a lot of that 
seemed to be tied back to the pipeline, in STEM areas, in 
physics and things like that were lower in women than they were 
in education and they were in other areas. And so, we saw a lot 
of correlation with that.
    Now, that said, I certainly think what I would like to see 
more of is finding grad students, women while they are in 
college and figuring out what the barriers are for them to 
start a small business and take the risk. And so, we have seen 
some success. Oklahoma FAST has done a great job of having 
cohorts of just women first-time applicants and been very 
successful at getting them to win and thus starting the process 
of forming new minority, new woman-owned companies, and that is 
where we really need to put more time and effort. And yes, we 
do measure all those things though that you mentioned.
    Ms. CHU. But how about increasing the number of women who 
serve on peer review panels? Or do you even track that?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. So we have not measured that. It would not be 
easy to measure. But what we have seen though and we do measure 
is do we see a bias? So, do we see the percent of proposals 
being much different than the percent of awards? And we have 
not seen that.
    Ms. CHU. And also, on peer review panels for participants 
of color, do you track that?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. So again, everything data we get has to be 
kind of a requirement. We are not required, nor do we ask for 
that data from the individual agencies. I think some of the 
agencies have looked at that on their own but no, that is not a 
required data element to submit to us.
    Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Now we recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Van Duyne, 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Velazquez, 
and Ranking Member Luetkemeyer.
    Mr. Williams, thank you very much for coming and testifying 
in front of our Committee today.
    One of the main issues of SBIR and STTR programs are their 
slow timelines. A GAO report last October stated that just 9 of 
29 agencies were consistently on time on making their awards 
within the required 6 months which some argue is too long of a 
timeline already. So how is the SBA working to streamline the 
bureaucratic barriers to expedite these award timelines?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. There are a couple of things SBA does. We 
measure and we document that information and really, the focus 
on that measurement has been more of a concentration after 
Senator Carden added some legislation into the DoD bill. So, we 
certainly measure all those types of things and we report back 
on that. We meet monthly with all the program offices, I mean, 
with all the agencies' leads and we talk about what is working 
well and what is not working well, sharing best practices. Are 
there certain red tape issues that could be removed by us? Or 
is it certain policy things, FAR and DFAR regulations that they 
would need to work more together with us to remove?
    But at this point, our main focus is sharing best 
practices, putting a light on the issue because we certainly 
would love to see up from proposal to award and gaps between 
awards go down as much as possible.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. I really appreciate you bringing up the red 
tape issue because I have heard that from a number of our small 
businesses that we have been having roundtable discussions.
    So how can Congress eliminate some of the red tape, some of 
the paperwork for these small businesses that are trying to 
participate in these programs? Do you have anything specific? I 
appreciate you trying to put a light on it but what 
specifically can Congress do to eliminate some of these 
paperwork hassles?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. I am comfortable answering that. It is a lot 
of certain regulation, FAR, DFAR that are again structured for 
overall contracting and grants processing to make sure that the 
federal government spends money in a way that is efficient and 
effective and gets the best for the taxpayer. So, there is 
always a balance between those things.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Do you believe it might make sense to 
standardize some of the paperwork requirements across agencies? 
Could that help speed up the process?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. I think we have standardized what we can and 
what right now, there is pushback. Well, it is not pushback. 
They are working in own environment that says this is how a 
proposal needs to come in to us. This is the tool. Grants.gov 
was a big tool. NSF had a system. So, they have certain systems 
that everything comes through. SBIR is just one of their 
systems.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. So when you say ``they,'' ``they are working 
in their own, in their own system'' who are you talking about?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Yeah, the agencies.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Okay.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Each agency has rules on how they accept 
proposals.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. And I understand that the agencies have 
different rules. But as Congress, we can actually help to set 
up some of these standardized templates; right? I mean, like 
having a standardized contract template, for example, that all 
agencies could use that might aid the agencies and have each of 
their own. I know when I worked at HUD, we had problems when we 
were responding to some of these disasters because HUD had a 
different requirement than FEMA had a different requirement and 
so on and so forth and it was burdensome for the user.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes. So, I do not disagree that 
standardizing, simplifying our valuable. I think a lot of it 
also goes on that the workforce at those facilities to be able 
to put the time and effort on those contracts also is a 
challenge. So, more staffing in the grants and contracts shops 
to get these things out.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. So that would help them if it was one. Staff 
was not having to work on individual as well?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. So it could help. I mean, I know I worked to 
do standardization at the Navy and the more we streamlined and 
combined contracting into single shops it helped us accelerate.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. I appreciate that.
    What metrics does the SBA use to measure the overall 
success of these programs? And besides overall amounts of 
funding and success stories, how do you know the program is 
achieving its intended goal of promoting commercialization?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Of commercialization success. Okay, because 
we measure a lot of different things. But commercialization, so 
companies are required to submit Phase III information, non-
SBIR funded information on any Phase II award they had when 
they are applying to the program. We ask them to update that 
for 5 years. We also though go out and look at all the awards 
that have been made. Is there other information we can gather 
on them? There is no legal requirement for us to gather Phase 
III information so a lot of it is success story but there are 
certainly better tools out there today. But certain tools out 
there that financial industry uses to be able to gather 
information. But commercialization success is not the same 
across the board so I am concerned with just measuring the 
follow-on investment as opposed to this was a product that went 
into a military system or into the NASA row that we sold two 
of. It was not ``commercialization'' but it was very, very 
valuable research that was done.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. And I am sorry; my time is up. I yield back. 
Thank you.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. That was my fault.
    Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    I just would like to share with the gentlelady regarding 
the federal Acquisition Regulations that she made reference 
to--they do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Small 
Business Committee.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Correct. Thank you.
    Now we recognize the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Tenney, 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. TENNEY. Thank you, Chairwoman Velazquez, and Ranking 
Member Luetkemeyer, for holding this important hearing today. 
And thank you to the witness for your time and your insight.
    I am honored to currently represent New York's 22nd 
Congressional District which stretches from the shores of Lake 
Ontario all the way to Pennsylvania border. This region has a 
strong innovation heritage for centuries as a pioneer of the 
Industrial Revolution in the United States, as well as the 
birthplace of IBM--many find that hard to believe--in 
Binghamton, New York. And current headquarters for Rome Lab, 
the Air Force Research Directorate. The area around Rome Lab 
especially hosts a vibrant ecosystem of upstart companies 
solving a wide range of issues from cybersecurity to artificial 
intelligence to the future of drones and their potential to 
improve our lives and national security. Many of these 
companies have benefitted from the Small Business Innovation 
Research and Small Business Technology programs and the 
financial assistance they provide to small businesses to 
develop and commercialize innovative technologies.
    Even with these successes, however, we cannot ignore the 
need to improve on this program. Currently in the SBIR program, 
a mere 95 firms account for more than 20 percent of all award 
funding. Surprising, however, these companies provide some of 
the worst returns on investments of any beneficiaries in the 
program. In addition, among Air Force SBIT and STTR Phase II 
contracts, researchers found that there was an inverse 
relationship between federal dollars awarded and commercial 
success.
    And finally, there is a need to increase the return on 
these public investments to American technological and industry 
prosperity. This includes prioritizing companies that are 
working to expand production domestically in the United States 
and are developing new products and technologies that shore up 
and secure our domestic supply chains. We also need to focus on 
companies that have the highest potential at commercializing 
their technology and providing the taxpayers with the best 
return on investment. These programs were not created to be a 
competition of which companies can create the best white paper. 
It is essential we return them to their original purpose of 
ensuring the federal government and the American people have 
access to world class domestic innovation.
    So, Mr. Williams, with that being said, are you aware of 
this small group of companies who dominate the SBIR/STTR 
programs taking up 20 percent of the funding awarded every 
year? And what are your thoughts on an annual cap potentially?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. So we report all that to Congress and that is 
part of our report. We list out any company that is awarded 
more than 15. We break out the percentages and stuff. So yes, 
that is part of my job in being aware of it.
    My experience at the Navy would argue against caps because 
we are looking to have the best technology available to address 
a need. And the reason that my program office is going to put 
it on a weapon system is because they know it is the best 
technology. The companies that we funded at the Navy actually 
were the best, even with the large primes. We were funded the 
best of the best and I think that is a really important 
feature. So, the role of the program is to address the mission 
of that agency. It is not an economic development program or a 
VC program to kind of advance it but some agencies that is 
their role. So, I think it is not a ``one size fits all'' when 
it would come to a cap and that would be my concern.
    Ms. TENNEY. How would you improve the caps? Obviously, 
caps, there might be a great program and a cap would prevent us 
from having a great program. I think I understand maybe that is 
what your mission would be, but how would you get around that 
and make sure that we really are focusing on the mission, 
getting back to the mission and making sure that we are 
focusing on, for example, the domestic side of it and then the 
ability to commercialize these innovations that are coming out? 
We have amazing innovation around our Air Force research lab. I 
mean, just the companies that are coming up with tremendous 
technology in cyber and drone technology. How would you do that 
in a way that we can sort of prioritize where this money goes?
    I only have a minute left.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. So, yeah, I think that is what the agencies 
do. So, the agencies are evaluated on commercialization 
potential. Is it going to insert into whether it is a weapon 
system or the National Science Foundation, the private sector. 
So, it is a major part of the proposal and it is a major part 
of the evaluation factor to look at the potential to 
commercialize.
    Ms. TENNEY. So quickly, and so commercializing and 
maintaining sort of an onshore critical supply chain, do you 
think that is something we can do? Can we restrict some of the 
foreign investment and limit say China and other companies from 
getting access that have received some of this funding? And is 
there a way that we can do that, to prioritize and really bring 
the commercialization and our supply chain back here, 
especially in a de-industrialized region of upstate New York 
where my district is?
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Sure. I would probably argue that small 
businesses are more likely to do things in the U.S. and keep 
things in the U.S. and they are going to help. So SBIR is 
helping to advance the supply chain in the U.S. because it is 
investing in technologies that will be built here.
    Ms. TENNEY. Great. Thank you so much. I am out of time. I 
yield it back. Thank you.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you.
    Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Williams, you have to have a U.S. 
company to get money.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes. U.S. owned and operated. Absolutely.
    Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Okay. Thank you.
    Well, thank you, Mr. Williams, for being here today and for 
sharing your expertise in this area. Today's hearing has 
provided many concrete examples of the way SBIR/STTR help small 
businesses and our country as a whole. It has also shed light 
on the importance of reauthorizing these programs. As these 
companies pursue groundbreaking research that will benefit our 
society, they need assurance that the federal government will 
support them in their efforts. We can provide that by passing 
legislation to make these programs permanent and codifying the 
central tenets of the program.
    Without objection, Members have 5 legislative days to 
submit statements and supporting materials for the record.
    If there is no further business to come before the 
Committee, without objection, we are adjourned. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
    
                            A P P E N D I X
                            
                            
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]