Technical corrections only. The changes between v2 and v3 reflect the bill's procedural movement from the House to the Senate, including updated legislative status and the addition of the House Clerk's name. No substantive policy changes were made.
DOE and SBA Research Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. LaLota, Nick [R-NY-1]
- Committees
- Energy and Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 26, 2025
Bottom line
This bill formalizes and mandates inter-agency R&D collaboration between the DOE and SBA, prioritizing small business involvement, without authorizing new federal spending.
What it actually does
This bill mandates the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Small Business Administration (SBA) to establish a formal agreement, such as a memorandum of understanding, to carry out cross-cutting and collaborative research and development (R&D) activities. It specifically requires the inclusion of small business concerns in these activities and mandates a report to Congress within two years on the progress and achievements of this collaboration. The bill explicitly states that no additional funds are authorized for these activities, meaning they must be conducted using existing agency resources.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill will leverage the scientific expertise of the DOE and the entrepreneurial network of the SBA to drive innovation, create economic opportunities for small businesses, and ensure that federal R&D efforts benefit a broader segment of the economy. They contend it promotes efficiency by coordinating existing resources and fostering a more integrated approach to national research priorities.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that while the intent to foster collaboration is positive, mandating new activities without authorizing additional funding could strain existing agency budgets, potentially diverting resources from other critical priorities. Some may also suggest that such inter-agency cooperation could be achieved administratively without the need for legislation, questioning the necessity of a formal mandate.
The bill is very short and written in clear language, making it highly accessible for a quick read and easy comprehension by any interested party.
Section 2(a) and (b)
Mandate for DOE and SBA Joint Research and Development
This provision requires the Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) or other appropriate agreement. The purpose of this agreement is to carry out collaborative research and development activities that are focused on jointly advancing the mission requirements and priorities of both agencies. This formalizes a framework for inter-agency cooperation on R&D initiatives.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this formal mandate ensures sustained and strategic inter-agency cooperation, leveraging diverse expertise to achieve more impactful and aligned R&D outcomes that benefit both agencies' missions.
Critics contend
Some might contend that mandating such collaborations via legislation could introduce unnecessary bureaucratic rigidity or administrative burdens, potentially diverting resources from core agency functions if not adequately supported with new funding.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between the desire for structured, accountable collaboration to maximize federal R&D impact and the potential for such mandates to create administrative overhead without guaranteed new resources or outcomes, relying solely on existing budgets.
Section 2(c)
Requirement for Small Business Inclusion in R&D Activities
This section mandates that the joint research and development activities undertaken by the Department of Energy and the Small Business Administration must ensure the inclusion of small business concerns. This means that small businesses, as defined under the Small Business Act, are to be actively involved in and benefit from these collaborative federal R&D efforts, fostering their participation in innovation.
Section 2(e)
Congressional Reporting Requirement on Joint Activities
Not later than two years after the bill's enactment, the Secretary of Energy and the SBA Administrator are required to submit a report to Congress. This report must detail the activities carried out under their joint agreement, covering aspects such as coordination efforts, opportunities to expand technical capabilities, collaborative research achievements, areas for future mutual success, and plans for continued coordination between the agencies.
This section explicitly states that "No additional amounts are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act or the amendments made by this Act."
Section 3
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for bills intended to be budget-neutral or to operate within existing appropriations. It ensures the bill complies with "Cut-As-You-Go" (CUTGO) rules, which prevent new spending without offsets, making the bill more palatable for passage.
Case for: Proponents argue this demonstrates fiscal responsibility, ensuring that the new mandate for inter-agency collaboration does not add to the national debt and encourages efficient use of existing federal resources.
Case against: Critics might argue that mandating new activities without authorizing additional funds could strain existing agency budgets, potentially leading to under-resourcing of the new R&D initiatives or diversion of funds from other critical programs, thereby limiting the scope and impact of the collaboration.
Estimated impact: The provision ensures a neutral budget impact from the bill itself, requiring the Department of Energy and the Small Business Administration to fund joint R&D activities from their current appropriations.
The activities carried out pursuant to the memorandum or agreement "shall be applied in a manner consistent with subtitle D of title VI of the Research and Development, Competition, and Innovation Act (Public Law 117-167; 42 U.S.C. 19231 et seq.)."
Section 2(f)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to incorporate existing legal frameworks without reprinting them, ensuring consistency with broader policy goals related to national security and intellectual property protection in research.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this ensures all joint R&D activities adhere to established national security and intellectual property protection standards, safeguarding sensitive research from foreign adversaries and ensuring fair competition and ethical conduct.
Case against: Critics might argue that broad cross-references can make it difficult for stakeholders, particularly small businesses new to federal R&D, to fully understand all applicable regulations without extensive legal review, potentially creating compliance hurdles and administrative burdens.
Estimated impact: Ensures that all joint R&D activities are conducted with robust research security measures, potentially adding administrative layers for compliance and oversight for participating entities.