[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEFENDING MAIN STREET: COMBATING CCP
THREATS TO AMERICA'S SMALL BUSINESSES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
UNITED STATES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
MARCH 25, 2026
__________
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Small Business Committee Document Number 119-033
Available via the GPO Website: www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
63-520 WASHINGTON : 2026
=======================================================================
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas, Chairman
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas
JAKE ELLZEY, Texas
MARK ALFORD, Missouri
BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota
TONY WIED, Wisconsin
ROB BRESNAHAN, Pennsylvania
BRIAN JACK, Georgia
KIMBERLYN KING-HINDS, Northern Marina Islands
DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas
JIMMY PATRONIS, Florida
NYDIA VELAZQUEZ, New York, Ranking Member
MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky
HILLARY SCHOLTEN, Michigan
LAMONICA MCIVER, New Jersey
GIL CISNEROS, California
KELLY MORRISON, Minnesota
GEORGE LATIMER, New York
DEREK TRAN, California
LATEEFAH SIMON, California
JOHNNY OLSZEWSKI, Maryland
MAGGIE GOODLANDER, New Hampshire
Lauren Holmes, Majority Staff Director
Melissa Jung, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Hon. Roger Williams.............................................. 1
Hon. Nydia Velazquez............................................. 2
WITNESSES
Mr. Andrew Pahutski, Vice President & Fellow Economic Security,
Systems Planning and Analysis Inc., Baltimore, MD.............. 5
Mr. Sean Murphy, Founder, Kompassion, Former Founder, Bison
Blockchain, Cheyenne, WY....................................... 6
Mr. Tom Lyons, Co-Founder, 2430 Group, Austin, TX................ 8
Dr. Rush Doshi, Assistant Professor, Georgetown University, C.V.
Starr Senior Fellow for Asia and Director, China Strategy
Initiative, Council on Foreign Relations, Washington, DC....... 10
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Mr. Andrew Pahutski, Vice President & Fellow Economic
Security, Systems Planning and Analysis Inc., Baltimore, MD 30
Mr. Sean Murphy, Founder, Kompassion, Former Founder, Bison
Blockchain, Cheyenne, WY................................... 32
Mr. Tom Lyons, Co-Founder, 2430 Group, Austin, TX............ 42
Dr. Rush Doshi, Assistant Professor, Georgetown University,
C.V. Starr Senior Fellow for Asia and Director, China
Strategy Initiative, Council on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC............................................. 58
Questions and Answers for the Record:
Question from Hon. Velazquez to Mr. Sean Murphy and Answer
from Mr. Sean Murphy....................................... 62
Questions from Hon. Velazquez to Mr. Tom Lyons and Answers
from Mr. Tom Lyons......................................... 63
Questions from Hon. Goodlander to Mr. Tom Lyons and Answers
from Mr. Tom Lyons with attachment of the State Trade
Expansion Program (STEP)................................... 65
Questions from Hon. Velazquez to Dr. Rush Doshi and Answers
from Dr. Rush Doshi........................................ 72
Questions from Hon. McGarvey to Dr. Rush Doshi and Answers
from Dr. Rush Doshi........................................ 74
Questions from Hon. Latimer to Dr. Rush Doshi and Answers
from Dr. Rush Doshi........................................ 75
Questions from Hon. Tran to Dr. Rush Doshi and Answers from
Dr. Rush Doshi............................................. 75
Questions from Hon. Olszewski to Dr. Rush Doshi and Answers
from Dr. Rush Doshi........................................ 76
Questions from Hon. Goodlander to Dr. Rush Doshi and Answers
from Dr. Rush Doshi with attachments of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and Stanford........... 77
Additional Material for the Record:
Ozark Integrated Circuits Letter............................. 124
SBC Minority Letter to SBA................................... 127
SBC Democratic Staff Report.................................. 132
Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC) Letter.............. 149
Representative Tran Letter................................... 169
DEFENDING MAIN STREET: COMBATING CCP THREATS TO AMERICA'S SMALL
BUSINESSES
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 2026
House of Representatives,
Committee on Small Business,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room
2360, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Roger Williams
[chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Williams, Stauber, Meuser, Alford,
Wied, Bresnahan, King-Hinds, Velazquez, McGarvey, Scholten,
Cisneros, Tran, Simon, and Goodlander.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. May I have your attention. Before
we get started, I want to recognize Representative Scholten
from the great State of Michigan to lead us in the pledge and
the prayer. Would you stand?
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Dear God, thank you for the opportunity that
we have to serve this country, and to come together not as
Republicans or Democrats, but as servants of the people for the
United States of America. And help us to use the time today to
uplift the voices of small business owners, main street across
this country. May we listen with our ears and hearts wide open,
come up with solutions to better serve the small businesses
across this country. In the name we pray, Amen.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of
America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Good morning to everyone, and I now call
the Committee on Small Business to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the Committee at any time.
I now recognize myself for my opening statement. And I want
to welcome everyone to today's hearing entitled ``Defending
Main Street: Combating the CCP Threats to America's Small
Businesses.''
First, I want to thank our witnesses for being here today,
and for sharing their expertise on the important issue. I also
thank my colleagues for joining us as we examine the challenges
facing America's businesses in an increasingly competitive and
complex global environment.
Small businesses are essential to the American economy.
They drive innovation, create jobs, and strengthen our
communities. From cutting-edge technologies, start-ups, to
family-owned manufacturers, small businesses play a vital role
in driving America's economy and reinforcing our national
security.
However, this vital engine of our economy is under threat.
The Chinese Communist Party has made it a priority to challenge
the United States economically and strategically. In doing so,
the CCP is exploiting every opportunity to target American
innovation.
American entrepreneurs invest significant time, capital,
and ingenuity into developing new products and technologies.
Yet, far too often, these innovations are stolen, replicated
overseas, and sold at a lower cost, undermining the very
business that created them.
CCP-linked investments in small businesses also raise
serious concerns. Many small businesses, particularly start-
ups, rely on outside capital to grow in scale. But, when the
capital comes from entities tied directly or indirectly to
foreign adversaries, sensitive technologies and proprietary
information risk being exposed and exploited. In some cases,
these investments are structured in ways that obscure their
true origin, making it difficult for entrepreneurs to identify
their potential risk.
Additionally, supply chain dependence on China continues to
pose a serious threat, and for decades American businesses
outsource production to China due to low labor costs. But this
is efficient in the short term. It also creates significant
risk, especially for small businesses that lack the resources
and shift production or diversify suppliers. These challenges
are not economic; they are matters of national security.
Today's hearing is an opportunity to better understand how
these threats impact small businesses and identify practical
solutions. We must ensure that American entrepreneurs have the
tools they need to protect their innovation, secure a trusted
source of capital, and build resilient supply chains. If we
fail to act, we risk losing not only our competitive edge but
also the ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit that define our
nation.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about their
experiences and recommendations for how Congress can support
and protect America's small businesses.
With that, I now yield to my friend and our distinguished
Ranking Member from New York, Ms. Velazquez, for her opening
remarks.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to all the witnesses for being here with us this
morning.
In March of 1942, just after our entry into the Second
World War, the U.S. Army, citing an executive order signed by
President Roosevelt and backed by a law passed by Congress,
forced over 100,000 ethnically Japanese people on the West
Coast, including U.S. citizens, into what even President
Roosevelt himself called concentration camps. The Army was
never required to prove that the Americans in the camps posed
any threat to national security. In fact, no Japanese American
was ever convicted of any act of sabotage during the war.
Their mere ethnicity was enough in the eyes of the federal
government and the media to imply disloyalty to the country
they were born in, lived in, and worked in. Each family was
given a week to register with the government, liquidate their
homes and businesses, gather what they could carry, and report
to assembly centers, often converted from outdoor racetracks
and fairgrounds, to wait to be sent to their assigned camp.
Once shipped to their camps, prisoners were made to sleep
in barracks and confined spaces with little privacy and quality
of life under the constant watch of snipers and armed guards.
By the end of the war, 125,000 people, half of whom were
children, had to stay in the camps. Eighty-four years have
passed since this deep injustice began.
In 1988, President Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act of
1988 apologizing for it and providing reparations to the
victims of the camps. I see alarming echoes of this injustice
in our discourse surrounding China, echoes that are manifesting
in this hearing.
Let me be clear: The People's Republic of China is
America's far most strategic competitor. The practices it has
employed to bolster its state-controlled firms, corner markets,
and undermine free competition around the world are hurting
America's technological leadership and small businesses.
The federal government must do what it can to address these
issues. That is why I proudly voted for the CHIPS and Science
Act, and Inflation Reduction Act, to set industrial policies
strengthening the entire ecosystem of resources, tax
incentives, ancillary businesses, and workforce development
surrounding the domestic manufacturing of strategic
technologies and critical components.
Furthermore, multiple programs exist at the SBA and
elsewhere in the federal government to bolster small businesses
through capital access and technical assistance, which I have
been pleased to support and strengthen throughout my tenure in
Congress.
That is also why I vehemently oppose the Trump
administration's action to undermine these far-sighted
investments and substitute them with broad untargeted tariffs,
mass deportation, DOGE cuts, and racism against immigrants and
minorities.
Not only are these actions morally bankrupt, but they are
unnecessary and undermine our national security and economy. It
is entirely possible for the federal government to protect our
national security without stepping into a slippery slope that
is ethnic profiling. That means tackling complicated problems
with new solutions and examining policies based on their
merits, not engaging in inflammatory messaging and fear
mongering against Americans and other people of Chinese
ancestry.
I sincerely hope that today's conversation stays within
those bounds. With that, I thank the witnesses for being here,
and I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back.
And I will now introduce our witnesses. The first witness
today is Mr. Pahutski. Mr. Pahutski is the vice president and
fellow of Economic Security and Systems Planning and Analysis
Inc. He is a former Senior Eexecutive Member of the U.S.
Department of Defense, with nearly three decades of experience
in policy, acquisition, intelligence, and operations.
Throughout his career, Mr. Pahutski has led major defense
modernization initiatives and advised senior leaders on
strengthening supply chains and emerging technologies. Mr.
Pahutski holds a bachelor's degree in international economics
from Salisbury University, home of the fighting Sea Gulls.
Right?
Mr. PAHUTSKI. Right.
Chairman WILLIAMS. And has completed advanced technologies
at Defense Acquisition University, the Naval Postgraduate
School, and the U.S. Army War College. I appreciate having you
here today.
Our next witness is Mr. Sean Murphy. Mr. Murphy was founder
of the Bison Blockchain, a long-scale bitcoin mining company in
Cheyenne, Wyoming. Bison Blockchain faced a takeover attempt by
the CCP and ultimately secured a CFIUS divestment order. He is
also the founder of Kompassion.
Earlier in his career, he was a researcher and a speaker on
hemp, finance and healthcare policy, making appearances at the
White House, Congress, and major media outlets.
Mr. Murphy volunteers in the VA hospice care, is a
palliative care father to a child with a rare terminal disease,
and is a U.S. State Department professional fellow, and we will
pray for your family.
He earned a bachelor's degree from the University of Notre
Dame. I don't know what their mascot is.
Mr. MURPHY. Fighting Irish.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Oh, is it? Okay. I knew you'd know that.
Our next witness, Mr. Tom Lyons. Mr. Lyons is the co-
founder of 2430 Group, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization
focused on helping the U.S. private sector defend against
foreign espionage. He works with business leaders to protect
intellectual property and address threats from foreign
adversaries. Previously he served for 15 years as national
security executive in the U.S. federal government, advancing
U.S. interests in complex global environments.
Mr. Lyons holds a juris doctor from the Catholic University
of America, and a degree in international finance and German
from Auburn University, home of the Tigers.
And I now recognize the Ranking Member from New York, Ms.
Velazquez, to briefly introduce our last witness.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
welcome Dr. Rush Doshi, who is an assistant professor at the
Georgetown University Walsh School of Foreign Service and the
C.V. Starr Senior Fellow for Asia and the Director of the China
Strategy Initiative at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Previously, Dr. Doshi served as the Deputy Senior Director
for China and Taiwan on the last administration's National
Security Council. In that role, Dr. Doshi helped manage the
NSC's first China directory, coordinated China and Taiwan
policy, drafted President Biden's China strategy, and served as
a top negotiator in matters regarding the PRC, Taiwan, and the
AUKUS Alliance.
Dr. Doshi holds a bachelor's degree from Princeton and a
Ph.D. from Harvard. Welcome. Thank you for being here. Thank
you.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you. We appreciate, again, all of
you being here today.
So, before recognizing the witnesses, I would like to
remind them that their oral testimony is restricted to 5
minutes in length. You all have done that. We stick with that.
If you see the light turn red in front of you, it means
your 5 minutes have concluded, and you should wrap up your
testimony. If you're still out there talking after 5 minutes,
you're going to hear this; that means ``shut it down.'' Okay.
All right.
So, with that in mind, I now recognize Mr. Pahutski for his
5-minute opening remarks.
STATEMENTS OF ANDREW PAHUTSKI, VICE PRESIDENT & FELLOW,
ECONOMIC SECURITY, SYSTEMS PLANNING AND ANALYSIS INC.; SEAN
MURPHY, FOUNDER, KOMPASSION, AND FORMER FOUNDER, BISON
BLOCKCHAIN; TOM LYONS, CO-FOUNDER, 2430 GROUP; AND RUSH DOSHI,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, AND C.V. STARR
SENIOR FELLOW FOR ASIA AND DIRECTOR, CHINA STRATEGY INITIATIVE,
COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW PAHUTSKI
Mr. PAHUTSKI. Thank you, sir. The views expressed in this
testimony are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.
Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the
sophisticated and evolving actions of the Chinese Communist
Party, and the cascading impact those actions are having on
America's small businesses, the industrial base, and the
broader United States economy.
This hearing reflects an important recognition: Small
businesses are essential to the United States' industrial
capacity, innovation base, and long-term strategic advantage.
The bottom line is clear: Protecting America's small business
is not simply an economic issue; it is a national security
imperative.
Every large business started small. Many firms that will
shape America's future manufacturing base, technological
advantages and small businesses today often operate within
fewer resources and fewer protections. Protecting them means
protecting America's long-term competitive advantage.
In today's environment, economic security is national
security. The United States' ability to innovate, produce,
secure supply chains, and scale trusted capacity is directly
tied to our ability to project power globally.
The defense industrial base is a useful point of reference,
but the line between it and the broader American industrial
base continues to shrink. Technologies converge through use
applications often manifest over time, and software and other
less tangible technologies operate across multiple domains and
environments simultaneously.
What appears purely commercial today may become critical to
national security tomorrow. For that reason, these should be
understood as codependent parts of the same national industrial
ecosystem. The challenge is that the Communist Party of China-
linked threats to small businesses rarely appear in only one
form. They can emerge through investments, supply chain
exposures, intellectual property theft, or commercial
relationships that appear beneficial at first but create long-
term strategic vulnerabilities.
For many businesses, the threat does not present itself as
coercion. It presents itself as an opportunity. Small
businesses are often among the most innovative actors in our
economy. The examples are endless. But they are also among the
least equipped to detect, deter, and counter national State
threats. Many operate with limited capital, limited legal
support, and little margin for error when promising
opportunities carry hidden risk.
When small businesses are compromised, the loss is not
confined to a single firm. The spillover effects can be seen in
reduced innovation, weakened resilience, and less trusted
capacity for the whole of the economy. The greater concern is
not simply the loss of any one single contract, company, or
technology. It is the cumulative effect of allowing promising
American firms to be weakened before they can fully scale,
compete, and contribute to the nation's long-term economic and
national security growth. That is how strategic erosion
happens. That is how the CCP is doing it: quietly,
incrementally, and often before national security implications
are fully understood.
The policy goal in my view should be straightforward:
trusted growth, American advantage. That means helping small
businesses recognize risk earlier and making it easier for them
to choose trusted capital, trusted supply chains, and trusted
partners.
The central question is not whether we will respond after
an American company has been compromised. It is whether we will
act early enough to help the next generation of American
innovators, manufacturers, and strategic suppliers grow on a
trusted, secure, and competitive path from the start.
I thank you for your time, and I look forward to your
questions.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
I now want to recognize Mr. Murphy for his 5-minute opening
remarks.
STATEMENT OF SEAN MURPHY
Mr. MURPHY. Chairman Williams, Ranking Member, and
distinguish Members of the House Small Business Committee. I am
a former executive at Bison Blockchain. I am here today as an
entrepreneur and small business owner who survived a Chinese
takeover that literally wiped out everything we had built.
In 2022 and 2023, Bison Blockchain poured sweat and every
last dollar into building the largest bitcoin mine in Wyoming,
near Cheyenne, and just one mile from the Warren Air Force
Base, and our nation's Minutemen III missiles. When our
domestic capital fell through, we took a last-minute lead
investor who claimed to be from Singapore, an international
businessman.
After breaking ground, it became clear they were from
Beijing and Hong Kong, majority Chinese nationals backed by
CCP-linked capital, who also ran IP transfer companies. Just
before bitcoin mining began, they brought in personnel from
China to replace us as operators. We sued for breach of
contract and interference, and then they countersued us, a
small local business, for $110 million. It was unfair. It was
hugely inflated, and it was lawfare. And effectively they were
mocking us and our judicial system.
They hired six law firms, two in New York, one in Los
Angeles, and three locally in Cheyenne, and they exploited
relationships between their Wyoming lawyers and Wyoming State
legislators.
Then came the Presidential CFIUS divestment order, but they
saw it coming, and they sold the site to CleanSpark, a large
U.S. public company with hundreds of millions of dollars in
contracts with Bitmain, one of the Chinese defendants. Bitmain
is now under investigation in Operation Red Sunset by the
Department of Homeland Security.
This wasn't competition. This was the Chinese mocking us
and working with CleanSpark to try to wipe out the small guys.
The local guys. The main street guys.
Their plan would have succeeded, but for the extraordinary
work of my father, Patrick Murphy, Bison's attorney; my brother
Michael, Bison's co-founders; and two men who are here today,
Andrew Astuno, our CFIUS expert, and Cyrus Miryekta, a national
security consultant who helped us. I would also like to
acknowledge Beth Clay, who is not here. But all of these
individuals really helped me in this process with the Chinese.
They were going to run off with the money. Everyone. The
sales money. That was their plan, but we were able to secure
landmark writs of prejudgment attachment and garnishment where
the Wyoming Federal District Court took control of the sales
money. And, once they took control of the sales money, we were
then able to negotiate a settlement. So effectively we got
money out and beat the Chinese.
Who am I in all of this? I am a palliative father. My son
battles a terminal illness, and I fight for his life every day.
For 16 years, I have been a VA hospice volunteer, sitting
at the bedside of dying warriors who have served this country,
honoring the premise that no veteran dies alone.
My advocacy for my son and veterans centers on palliative
care and access to cannabinoids, rescheduling marijuana from
schedule I to schedule III to unlock research and healing,
especially for rare diseases.
I am also an advocate against child trafficking, and I
employ you to stand against it at home and abroad.
These realities made me something the Chinese did not
anticipate in the lawfare, a father who had faced bigger,
scarier dragons than them and their 16 lawyers. Being with my
son and veterans, I realized we are not chemical beings to be
pumped full of pharmaceuticals. We are electrical beings that
need to be filled with light.
Our bodies run on bioelectric fields, energy pathways, and
natural frequencies. This is biology, that every cell has an
electrical charge; every muscle movement, every heartbeat is a
result of an electrical charge or discharge. The EKG and EEG
medical tests are measuring electrical impulses in the heart
and brain.
As a palliative father, I tried everything else to help my
son. Only energetic medicine, including sound and light
therapies brought him relief when nothing else did. And this is
the next wave of healthcare, and the intellectual property
behind it is pure gold.
As a Hospice volunteer, I have seen how rampant fraud and
abuse in healthcare devastate patients in small businesses,
from massive durable medical equipment overbilling in Florida,
to ghost hospice facilities in California syphoning hundreds of
millions, literally, from Medicare and Medicaid. These scams
inflate taxes for every family, erode trust in legitimate
services, and risk bankrupting these programs. And our
adversaries, like the CCP, can and do exploit to weaken us
economically from within.
Lawfare and IP theft are a direct threat to main street,
and we cannot allow any foreign country, especially the CCP, to
do these things against American entrepreneurs, parents and
veterans.
I have included four recommendations in my written
testimony, and I urge your good consideration and action. Thank
you for this opportunity to testify and tell my story.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Mr. Lyons for his 5-minute opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF TOM LYONS
Mr. LYONS. Chairman Williams, Ranking Member Velazquez,
Members of the Committee, thank you for this hearing. My name
is Tom Lyons. I am a former CIA officer, and a co-founder of
2430 Group, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that educates
and defends U.S. innovation from nation-state economic
espionage. I am here because America's small businesses are
under attack, and most of them do not know this.
We have long characterized the CCP as a strategic
competitor, but we need to ask ourselves whether their behavior
is that of a competitor or that of a nation at war. These are
two different things, and they prompt two different policy
responses.
I would offer this, in the book ``Unrestricted Warfare''
from 1999, two PLAs colonels wrote that the future of conflict
would be waged through economic subversion, technology theft,
and the destruction of a rival's competitive advantage. The CCP
recognizes that this kind of nonkinetic gray zone warfare
against our companies, our research institutes, and our small
businesses can be more effective than a kinetic war. In their
own words, this is war, and we should take them at their word.
When it comes to measuring the damage from this war, the
numbers we hear about are dangerously incomplete. It is often
cited from the IP commission that we lose between 225 and $600
billion annually to economic espionage. Those numbers do not
capture incidents like Apple abandoning the autonomous vehicle
industry, in part, because of PRC espionage, or one Google
engineer walking out with the chip designs powering our AI
systems.
It doesn't capture the metrics of the hundreds of companies
that were never born because we lost the entire industry.
America pioneered the solar energy, lithium batteries,
drone, and wind turbine industries. China dominates all of
these today.
We invented the World's pharmaceutical innovations, but
China today controls the key starter materials in most of our
drugs. Production grinds to a halt if China restricts our
supply chain.
The real costs are the entire sectors of the U.S. economy
that no longer exist. Stand back and look at the industries
that China has targeted and currently dominates: energy,
communication, logistics, medicine, advanced computing, steel.
These are all foundational for winning any conflict.
And it is not limited to critical technology. The same
pattern plays out in agricultural, manufacturing, and consumer
goods. If Apple, a $3 trillion company, could not protect its
AV program, what chance does a small start-up have?
A third of our small businesses rely on free antivirus
software. Sixty percent shut down within months of a major
cyber attack. We have caught the big cases because those
companies had cyber or counterintelligence measures in place,
but most companies, most small companies do not. Small
businesses make up 99 percent of the U.S. firms, and they
employ nearly half of the workforce. They are the hub of
American innovation, the engine of our economy, and the
foundation of our ability to project force in any conflict.
In China's unified economy, one company steals technology;
a second will manufacture it; and a third will export it. Our
legal system treats each as acting alone, however. So we miss
the opportunity to hold the system accountable.
As you know, American taxpayers have funded part of this
effort through small business innovation grants, or PPP loans,
going to PRC state-owned entities. We have subsidized our own
long-term decline because we haven't had basic checks in place.
American executives go to federal prison for price-fixing,
insider trading, and other anti-competitive behavior. Yet the
PRC does this at a nation-state scale.
What the PRC is doing goes beyond trade, diplomatic, or
regulatory issues. They are exploiting our system, which was
designed for good-faith commercial actors. The playing field is
simply unequal.
I want to be clear: This fight is against the Chinese
Communist Party; it is not against the Chinese people. Many
Chinese nationals come here to escape the system. They are
victims of CCP coercion themselves. Our response must be
precise, targeting conduct, not targeting ethnicity.
In my written testimony, we prepared specific legislative
initiatives, the centerpiece being the Foreign Espionage
Designation Act. In this case, the President would designate
specific entities as foreign economic espionage organizations.
It would then be a federal crime to knowingly accept
compensation or material benefit from such a designated
organization. This targets the so-called talent programs or the
expert networks that incentivize theft across our industry.
We also prepared the Malign Foreign Interest Disclosure
Act, requiring that any entity receiving material-state support
from a country of concern disclose that relationship publicly.
American businesses deserve transparency in whom they are doing
business with.
We do not ask American citizens to wage war against foreign
nation states. That is the government's job. But that is
exactly what we are asking 33 million small businesses to do.
If this is war, and it seems like the PLA has said as much,
then the government must subsidize counterintelligence the same
way we fund national defense.
American industries face an existential threat from the
CCP, and our small businesses are on the front lines with
limited defenses, intelligence, and government support. The
essential point is this: Main street should not have to fight
this alone. It is not an equal playing field. Thank you for the
opportunity.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Dr. Doshi for his 5-minute opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF RUSH DOSHI
Mr. DOSHI. Thank you. Chairman Williams, Ranking Member
Velazquez, and distinguish Members of the community, I
appreciate the opportunity to testify today.
My argument is simple: Our small businesses are critical to
America's future in manufacturing and technology, but, today,
China is mounting the most comprehensive industrial strategy
any power has ever attempted and is putting our small
businesses at existential risk. The urgent task for this
Committee is to consider how to help our small businesses meet
this unprecedented challenge.
I want to divide my testimony into four questions. First,
what are China's objectives? The Chinese Communist Party aims
to catch up and surpass the West. It believes there have been
four industrial revolutions that determined the fate of
nations. The first was steam power, which brought British
dominance. The second was electrification, and the third was
mass manufacturing, which brought American dominance. And now
we are in the fourth, quantum, biotech, AI, and robotics, which
China is determined to win, not just for prosperity but for
relative power. And Beijing sees manufacturing as the key to
winning this revolution.
That brings me to a second question: How is China doing in
manufacturing? China overtook the United States to become the
world's dominate manufacturer in less than 25 years. Over that
period, our share of manufacturing fell by half, from 30 to 15
percent, while China's share quintupled, from 6 percent to 30
percent. It now exceeds that of the next nine countries
combined, and it isn't standing still.
China is spending roughly $400 billion a year on industrial
policy. By contrast, the U.S. CHIPS and Science Act is $50
billion over multiple years.
That leads to a third question: What is the role of small
business in this story? Large firms have dominated American
manufacturing for decades, but their supply chains are made up
of smaller firms. Today small business is the path to American
reindustrialization. Smaller businesses are the keepers of
specialized manufacturing knowledge; they are the producers of
precision components, tooling, and specialty materials.
Take aerospace and defense. Roughly 70 percent of Boeing's
Dreamliner comes from its smaller suppliers. Roughly 60 percent
of all employment in that sector is small and mid-sized
businesses. And the story is similar in other sectors, too,
like automotives.
Now, China sees the value of small and medium enterprises.
Ten years ago, when it launched its Made in China 2025 program
to catch up and surpass the West in key sectors, it saw small
business as part of the plan. So it launched the so-called
Little Giants Program to boost innovation, eliminate foreign
suppliers, and create global competitors in high technology.
That program is a competitive program, but once firms get
in, once they get that Little Giants designation, they get
access to an incredible package of loans, subsidies, state
equity investments, expedited patent processing, university
research support, streamlined stock market listings, and even
offtake from SOEs and the government.
To date, more than 17,000 Chinese firms have been
designated Little Giants. Ninety percent are in high-tech
manufacturing, and some have grown into global titans, like
Unitree Robotics.
That is what our system is up against, which leads to a
fourth and final question: What do we do? The SBA has some
powerful tools. In fiscal year 2025, it guaranteed $45 billion
in loans to more than 85,000 small businesses, the most in its
history. But the truth is this is simply not enough to keep up
with Beijing. I would like to offer a few proposals.
First, China is going all-in on research support, but we
have let the programs that we use to support early stage
research lapse. Congress should immediately reauthorize the
Small Business Innovation Research, and the Small Business
Technology Transfer programs.
Second, China packages its benefits together and ties them
to a certification program whereas we launch often
uncoordinated individual initiatives. We can change that.
Congress can launch a certification program that provides a
coordinated package, demand side, supply side, and regulatory
support for our high-tech small company.
Third, China's Little Giants raised about $125 billion in
the last few years from private sources, often with state
support. Meanwhile, the first cohort of our SBIC critical tech
program might raise $4 billion. Congress should scale up that
kind of program.
Fourth, Chinese manufacturers are able to access low-cost
capital, including loans. To keep up, Congress should raise the
number of loans, the loan cap, and the total appropriation for
U.S. SBA's new, manufacturing--Access to Revolving Credit
Program.
And, fifth, China's Little Giants can draw on universities,
state institutes, and SOEs for technical assistance. Our
equivalent program has lapsed. Congress should restore the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership promptly.
These are just a few recommendations, but the common thread
through all of them is integration. The SBA has loans, equity
vehicles, R&D programs, and technical assistance programs. What
it lacks is a mechanism to deploy them together in a
coordinated way.
China has built that kind of program, and it is working.
This Committee has the tools and jurisdiction to build the
American equivalent. Thank you for your time, and I look
forward to your questions.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
And we will now move to the Member questions under the 5-
minute rule. I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Murphy, as a small business owner, you were directly
involved in a dispute with a Chinese-controlled entity that
ultimately forced your company out of its own project. You
mentioned that. Can you walk us through how that situation
unfolded, and what warning signs, if any, you now recognize
maybe in hindsight?
Mr. MURPHY. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Committee. There were warning signs, but all of this was under
a prevailing need for expediency. We had secured through an RFP
process contracts to electrical power, and that is what you
need to mine bitcoin, is a lot of electrical power. And our
lead investors fell through. We had raised $3 million, but we
needed a lot more to build out the project. So we had this
quick need to secure the capital to execute the project, and we
ultimately, for lack of a better term, got in bed financially
with these Chinese partners.
So the first one was the diligence. We did not have time.
And the nature of the capital need was expedient, like we had
to execute on this or we would have lost the power contract. So
there is the due diligence piece that could have, should have
been better, but it wasn't because things had to move quickly.
And then, second, as things devolved and that played itself
out, was the nature of the lawfare. And they were mobilized;
they were strategic; and they knew what they were doing in
hiring all of these lawyers and law firms at national and local
levels to crush us on the legal fees.
So it was really those two: It was the upfront things that
could have, should have been different, but it was so quick we
couldn't do it differently. And then, as things played out,
there was nowhere to go as a small business when the lawfare
was happening. There wasn't a congressional--there was no
federal mechanism, or we weren't aware of it. We were just the
small business left to duke it out. And I don't know how that
would be solved. There is some possibilities, but that was the
difficult spot once it came to that, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you.
Mr. Pahutski, capital is the life blood of small business.
We all know that. And many rely on alternative investments to
scale but may not have the resources to fully vet investors. So
my question to you would be, how can we help small businesses
identify and avoid the investments from entities with ties to
foreign adversaries, particularly those connected to the CCP?
Mr. PAHUTSKI. Thank you, Chairman, for the question. And
your question is spot on to a plan that I have devised with the
acronym TRUST, meaning Trusted Resilient U.S. Tracks, and it is
underpinned by 10 different items that are very simple and
effective and in place today: Launch small business-led trusted
capital programs at each department and agency, embedded
already in that fabric that exists. Streamline due diligence
support with grants and affordable tools for small businesses.
Incentivize supply chain diversification through tax credits
and subsidies. Establish vetted suppliers that highlight
secure-approved partners. Foster public-private partnerships to
mentor small businesses into contracting vehicles. Align with
Section 1260H that Congress passed years ago that provides
clear supply chain risk guidance. Empower small businesses with
advocacy and pathways for market access. Build trusted and
transparency tools to map supply chains and risk
identifications early. Coordinate with small business
administration offices to ensure national security while
fostering innovation. And launch educational initiatives for
small businesses so they know how to navigate these programs.
It is not complicated. Everything that I have identified
there, as kind of mentioned in others' comments, are pieces
across this chessboard that we haven't tied together.
Implementing them are easy. We have to move from policy to
action, and that is what is slowing us down.
United States is known for innovating, and China is known
for duplicating. We have to cease that. We have to get ahead of
their actions.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you. Mr. Lyons, in closing here,
as you know, main street is increasingly vulnerable to Chinese
Communist Party efforts to target America's small businesses
and steal intellectual property. So my question would be, based
on your experience, what was the most common method used to
obtain intellectual property from America's small businesses?
Mr. LYONS. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. It is
a great question that should be studied further. In my
experience, the cyber attacks are the most prevalent. The
second I would say is insider threats. And it is leveraging
programs, such as Thousand Talents, and following that, it is
engagement through venture firms. And even the process of doing
due diligence from a venture firm when they are learning about
a start-up is a syphon of intellectual property theft. So small
businesses today are--it is multivector. It comes through
coercion at times on insiders as well. Under the 2017 Chinese
Intelligence Law, PRC nationals have to cooperate when they are
asked to. So that threatens American workers who happen to be
PRC nationals.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. Thank you very much. And I now
recognize, my time is up. I now recognize the Ranking Member
for 5 minutes of questions.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Doshi, how do
differences in the U.S. and PRC's political economies affect
our bilateral tech competition?
Mr. DOSHI. Thank you very much for the question. China is a
nonmarket economy. It has enormous amounts of state support and
coordination to support small companies and big companies
alike. And that means that oftentimes their companies can stay
solvent longer. They are not targeting profit. They are
targeting market share. There are companies which either need
to get loans or are disciplined by our capital markets. So they
can just stay in the game longer and throw more money at the
problem than we can, and they have the government as their ally
and the competition without companies.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. It is no secret that the PRC dominates the
supply chain for important items like pharmaceutical
precursors, which we saw on full display during the COVID
pandemic. Why is it in our national interest to ensure
manufacturing for strategic tech and their parts?
Mr. DOSHI. Thank you for the question. We did see that
China weaponized its unique role over the rare minerals and
magnets supply chain. The total amount in value of the rare
minerals we import is less than the price of an F-35, and yet
it supports more than 20 percent of American economic activity.
If you take pharmaceuticals, 90 percent are fermentation-
based API; that is, antibiotics are made in China. If we don't
bring some of that back or have it come from our allies and
partners, China has a chokehold over our healthcare system.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. How does President Trump's tariff wars
affect small business' ability to ensure and compete with the
PRC competitors?
Mr. DOSHI. On the one hand, the tariffs can create some
protection from the PRC. But, on the other hand, they also
raise the import costs for many companies that require
importation of all kinds of imports for manufacturing. And, as
a direct result, they may be less competitive globally, and we
are seeing a lot of strain amongst small and medium
manufacturers as a direct result of higher costs.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Our biggest strength is our ability to draw
and keep the best minds in the world. This helps us drain the
PRC's expertise and use it for our interests.
Last year Committee staff released a report finding that
President Trump's mass deportation campaign is hurting this
strength. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to put the
report in the record.
Chairman WILLIAMS. So moved.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. How does the Trump crackdown harm our tech
leadership?
Mr. DOSHI. I think there is a risk that some of the
immigration crackdown will reduce the flow of high-scaled
entrepreneurs from abroad into the United States. And a lot of
our most innovative companies are a mixture of American
homegrown talent and also foreign talent. We are only 300
million people. China is 1.4 billion. Our superpower is the
ability to attract the very best from around the world and have
them enhance our tech ecosystem.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. The SBA, Dr. Doshi, just made
sweeping lending policy changes barring small businesses from
SBA loans if they have any foreign industry stakes. The notice
names PRC nationals without justification, bringing
constitutional concerns under the 14th Amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to put in the record
my letter to the SBA detailing these concerns.
Chairman WILLIAMS. So moved.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Do these unnecessary restrictions constrain
capital access for American entrepreneurs?
Mr. DOSHI. I think a lot of foreign nationals from a
variety of countries can do a lot of good in the United States.
Ph.D. students from abroad, from India or China or Japan, when
they are here, they can launch innovative companies. We
shouldn't deny them capital just because they are foreign
citizens.
And, as for the China question, there are real concerns
about security and espionage. We also have to implement this
policy in a way that doesn't undercut our innovation
advantages.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Does it hurt small manufacturers' ability to
onshore?
Mr. DOSHI. I think it does because that foreign talent will
often, especially Trump himself said, actually help us
reindustrialize the country, for example, in areas like
batteries.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Does it incentivize them to seek more risky
foreign capital?
Mr. DOSHI. I think that is an important point. If you can't
access capital from the SBA, you may end up trying to get
capital from less trustworthy foreign sources, including China.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Lyons, the prime way to monitor fraud
and address suspicious and fraudulent activity in our federal
research programs is through their built-in watchdogs, the
offices of inspector general. Should they be fully funded so
that they can be at their greatest strength? In some cases,
some of the agencies do not have yet an OIG.
Mr. LYONS. Ranking Member, thank you for the question. I
see I am out of time. However, I think that any initiative that
provides more of a capability to allow us to do research and
background on individuals, programs, companies to determine and
detect their connectivity to the PRC is a program I would
support.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize Mr. Meuser from the great State of
Pennsylvania for 5 minutes.
Mr. MEUSER. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you all. Very compelling testimony. Just to start
out, let's face it, the advantage that was provided over a 20-
year period to China's products being shipped into the U.S.
versus where we are today, very much thanks to the courage of
President Trump to rethink tariffs and focus on fair trade--not
just free trade--has more advantages and benefits than
negatives.
That being said, there is some real serious conversation
taking place here. I am not new to it. I have got a relatively
extensive business background on the international front as
well. But what I am interested in hearing from you all is, what
can Congress do? Many of you have outlined this in your
testimony, I mean, in real terms, advice on recognizing the
risk beforehand so we can hopefully share that with--in our
promotion, communications. And, once you are under attack or
being injured or harmed, who are you going to? Who in our
federal government, state government? Is it FinCEN? Who is
helping you? The DOJ, the SBA, the FBI? I mean, you know, you
are really under significant assault, Mr. Murphy, with your
business, and others.
So, Mr. Pahutski, let me just start with you, and you were
outlining, and we really want to get those 10 items that you
had, as well as the 4 that you included in your testimony, but
what can Congress do, and perhaps advice on recognizing, if you
would?
Mr. PAHUTSKI. So I think it starts with accountability.
Right. The executive branch has the authorities to execute the
intent and everything that has been discussed here. But
shifting away from offices that concentrate on small
businesses, policymakers and shifting that to action doers.
Right. When instances occur like Mr. Murphy's, they need
advocacy at the point of the problem. And that is a long
problem expanse. Right. Far left is, ``Hey, where can I find
trusted capital?'' Right. If you are working with the DOD, or
the DOE, potentially, in his instance, that would have an
advocacy role; they should have a list of trusted providers, of
capital providers that he could have access to so he doesn't
have to guess and blindly navigate that course.
That was a policy and an instrument that had started in the
DOD that I was familiar with about 8 years ago and has slowed.
Right. That is something that needs to pick up pace. And it is
not so during the current administration. It slowed over time
because of you all's priority and focus to other things. But
having trusted capital programs do an amazing job to avoid what
he did.
The other part I would advocate for is understanding the
supply chains. Right. If you are not being bartered and traded
through trusted capital to undermine your company, it is
through the supply chains that make you less attractive to the
DOD or other institutions that you work with. Right. So
eliminating those supply chains--not just identifying the bad
ones but providing a list of trusts vendors and sources is also
a critical step in this.
Mr. MEUSER. That is great. I have limited time. Mr. Murphy,
what would say, what sort of help would you like to have had
from the federal government, and what else could Congress do.
Mr. MURPHY. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to you
Representative. The big thing from the onset was we didn't
know--we didn't even think about the SBA as an option for
capital. Never--why would we get a loan? So having hybrid and
equity options that are meaningful. So, for a business like
ours, we needed 10- to $15 million to secure the project. We
had already raised millions, but we needed more. So it is that
hybrid and equity option at larger amounts, and that was what
really led to my recommendation thinking we are doing this in
critical technology really primarily defense right now--I think
it is the SBIC critical technology initiative. There is a good
amount of capital there, but there is nothing in healthcare.
Right. There is nothing in these parallel industries that helps
us access that.
And, then, the other piece with the lawfare, I have a few
notes here, things like debarment or sanctions, but tricky in
the middle of the litigation, or fast tracking relief in some
way to DOJ or Commerce Or the Trade Representative. But, once
it got to the point of the lawfare, it was hard for Congress,
or this body, to really help us. We were in the judiciary.
Mr. MEUSER. Thank you. Mr. Lyons, somewhat of the same
question, if you could respond relatively quickly. And, by the
way, Mr. Doshi, your testimony was outstanding. All your
testimonies, I want to make sure I get it to the right people
at the SBA; your information is really critical to our economy.
But, go ahead, Mr. Lyons. Five seconds.
Mr. LYONS. I would commend Congress for recently passing
SBIR reauthorization, which includes due diligence standards in
there. That is an immediate thing. SBA should have funding to
provide threat briefings to small businesses. The biggest
problem today is that most companies are simply unaware of this
issue.
Also, states like California prevent due diligence from
occurring without providing that diligence to the subjects of
the diligence.
Mr. MEUSER. My time has run out. I yield back. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Mr. McGarvey from the great State of
Kentucky for 5 minutes.
Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
having this really important hearing today and to our witnesses
for joining us.
I am going to start with you, Mr. Pahutski. Your business
has been active in SBIR, STTR since 1988. And not just active,
but, I mean, received tons of awards. I think something like 30
awards or more through the program. And just how have you seen
this vital program support small businesses and promote
American innovation?
Mr. PAHUTSKI. I want to be careful on my testimony because
I am not representing my company, nor the awards that they have
received through fair competition. But Systems Planning
Analysis broadly is considered an expert in the industry
understanding exactly where threat vectors are coming from, and
how to provide that strategic counsel and advice back to the
government to avoid things--left of launch, if you would, that
Mr. Murphy and other Americans have experienced.
Mr. MCGARVEY. No. I appreciate that. And this is an
example, sometimes, you know, if you are watching this place
from afar, you think the fights are between Democrats and
Republicans oftentimes, and sometimes, in this place, fights
come between the House and the Senate. And this is an example
of where the House, all of our colleagues here, took this
incredibly program, SBIR, STTR, passed it, and then it was, not
just the Senate Republicans--really, it was one Republican
Senator with a bone to pick that held this entire process up.
And now it has effectively been shuddered for 6 months.
So they finally came to their senses over there on the
other side of the Capitol and reopened the program, but, of
course, now that we passed the bill out of both Chambers, the
President has said he is not going to sign any more legislation
until the SAVE Act is passed. So this important work remains on
hold.
And I just--this is important work because, as we have this
conversation, this really, really important conversation--Mr.
Lyons, I appreciate a lot of what you had to say about the
threat that the PRC and the CCP is posing to Americans, to
America, and, in particular, American business interests--we
need to have programs like this funded that are helping our own
small businesses continue to have an advantage, continue to
grow, continue to invest in products and people across the
United States. So we need the President to sign this. We need
our small businesses to get help. We all need to work on this.
And I just want to end on a little point, Dr. Doshi, is it
easier to address how China is harming our small businesses
from IP theft, from coercion, from manipulation, if we go it
alone, or if we go at it with our allies?
Mr. DOSHI. Well, thank you, sir. It is a great question.
And what I want to say is that, right now, China outscales us
in many dimensions. They are twice our manufacturing capacity,
3 times our power generation, 11 times our steel production, 20
times our cement production, but if we take the U.S. and put
our allies and partners together, we outscale China. Any time
we want to make progress, we are stronger if we do it with our
friends, and the Chinese simply cannot match the scale that we
have together.
Mr. MCGARVEY. And that is why I think this hearing is so
important. That is why it is so important in this Committee
where we still do come together and do good work. We have some
real threats we have to deal with. We are not going to be as
successful if we continue to fight ourselves and fight our
allies when we should be taking on a common enemy. So I
appreciate you guys bringing that point up.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
I recognize Mr. Wied from the great State of Wisconsin for
5 minutes.
Mr. WIED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
The Chinese Communist Party is no longer an emerging threat
to our national security. They have a calculated and well-
developed plan to infiltrate our educational institutions,
internet data, military installations, and our nation's
economy. Many of these threats are more overt than others, but
the CCP infiltration of American small business is a problem
that is not always discussed.
The threat from the CCP to small businesses ranges from
intellectual property theft to CCP-linked investments. However,
small businesses often lack the resources to protect their
company and the products they have poured their time into. I
look forward to discussing these issues with all of you here
today.
Mr. Pahutski, what are the current gaps that small
businesses face when seeking capital that allows CCP-linked
investors to access this sensitive information?
Mr. PAHUTSKI. I don't know if it is a lack of access to
capital, but it is a lack of awareness once they have access to
it, and that really means the speed of relevance.
In Mr. Murphy's case, I would dare say that he was under a
time pressure to make something happen because the deal would
close in a certain period of time. Not having the ability to do
due diligence, one, because of the cost, the other because of
the education, ``do I really need to do that,'' and those two
worlds intersect at the point of decisionmaking. And that is
not months and weeks. That is hours and days at the most.
Right. And so we are left to cross the spectrum of seeing these
types of instances because we don't have the advocacy within
the government that is a clear path to solutions for these
small businesses. We need to do better.
Mr. WIED. Well, this would be for, Mr. Murphy, how about,
what are some ways that small businesses in your--from your
experience, having gone through this, that can protect
themselves from CCP-linked investors.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, and to you, Representative, we
talked about expediency. Right. So access to capital. These
are--we have talked about these, but access to capital; and
then the nature of that capital--equity, hybrid versus just
debt only; and then the amount of that; and the ability to have
due diligence as a part of that. But working with funds and
particularly funds that are leveraged with the SBA program that
are trusted, that are safe. Many of these venture capital funds
in Silicon Valley, they are not; they are not. They are
gathering IP. They have relationships with attorneys and many
of the law firms. I am using Silicon Valley as an example
because that is one that everybody is aware of. But that is the
nature of it. So it is having what I would call safe,
protected, trusted funds, and resources that are part of the
diligence and to also have leverage to help entrepreneurs and
businesses move quickly.
Mr. WIED. So how do we do that? How do we help you? And I
am going to just basically open this up to anybody: How can we
help you in that regard here in Congress.
Mr. MURPHY. I would say briefly improving, updating,
upgrading the SBA program. I learned here from Mr. Pahutski
that there are actual offices--like there is a Department of
Energy SBA office. I didn't know that. That would have helped
to know. But working and moving capital and options to apply
for that into the agencies to help it move quicker.
Mr. WIED. Mr. Lyons.
Mr. LYONS. Thank you, sir. I do think awareness is a big
part of this. I also think that State laws create a discrepancy
in being able to actually conduct things like due diligence.
And I brought up briefly the California statute, not to pick on
California. It is just that we come across a lot of companies
based in California, and the statutes are currently favored
towards privacy versus background research on people. And, when
you are running a critical technology like AI or quantum, where
it makes a--it is a zero-sum game--we need to be able to
facilitate those checks. So I think federal preemption on that
issue, but also federal tax credits to allow companies and
small businesses to do this would be important.
Mr. WIED. Mr. Doshi?
Mr. DOSHI. Thank you, Congressman. I will just offer two
quick points.
First, we have to protect ourselves, which means that I
think we need to strengthen due diligence. That, in turn, means
that we basically should think about Corporate Transparency
Act, beneficial ownership, because knowing who ultimately owns
some of these companies that are investing in the U.S. is
critical, and that is the hard part of due diligence. We can
fix that. And it also, by the way, will help combat fentanyl
and money laundering.
The second thing we should do is promote, and that is
access to more capital from the SBA for our high-tech
companies.
Promote and protect, together, are the way we do this.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. WIED. All right.
Thank you, witnesses, for being here today.
I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Ms. Simon from the great State of
California for 5 minutes.
Ms. SIMON. Thank you.
And thank you all. Today has actually been extremely
informative.
I have a question for Dr. Doshi.
So, last week, the House sent the bipartisan Small Business
Innovation and Economic Security Act--and the act, as you know,
it reauthorizes the Small Business Innovation Research and
Small Business Technology Transfer programs--to the President's
desk for signature.
I am curious, what is the significance of these programs on
tech leadership--our tech leadership?
Mr. DOSHI. Thank you, Congresswoman.
The SBIR program, as I recall, has done over $70 billion in
loans over the last 40 years almost, including many iconic
American companies that have benefited.
Right now, the Chinese are putting billions and billions
and billions into their small companies. The fact that we have
had a 6-month lag--and hopefully that will be cleared up very
soon--puts us at a significant competitive disadvantage when it
comes to small business relative to China.
Ms. SIMON. Puts us at a disadvantage?
Mr. DOSHI. Yes, ma'am, a competitive disadvantage.
Ms. SIMON. Can you say more?
Mr. DOSHI. Absolutely. I mean, right now, the Chinese small
companies, the so-called ``Little Giants'' companies, are able
to being access tens, if not more, billions, of dollars in low-
cost capital. The fact that our program is paused means that
every small company in China that wants to win in manufacturing
has yet another advantage now over us, which is access to
cheaper funding.
Ms. SIMON. And just so the public understands, they are--
these small Chinese companies are able to access this capital
from the Party, from the----
Mr. DOSHI. So they are able to get it from----
Ms. SIMON. Where are they getting it from?
Mr. DOSHI. Yes, ma'am. From the state and, as well, from
the private sector, with the state backing it.
And so, right now, we are pushing ``pause'' and the Chinese
are pushing ``go'' through multiple funding channels.
Ms. SIMON. So, should this act be signed by the President,
we have no idea what that implementation would look like. So
what are tech companies and leaders and innovators doing in the
whim while they wait?
Mr. DOSHI. Well, for small companies, access to capital is
a challenge, especially now with so much capital going to the
data-center build-out. That is crowding out capital for smaller
companies.
Ms. SIMON. Right.
Mr. DOSHI. So, as we hear, they have to take capital from
less trustworthy sources; they have to take it on less
preferential terms. They may have to give up more equity, take
more dilution. That is not great.
And one of the great things about the SBA program is, it
doesn't do any of that. It is not diluted, for example.
So we should get that program restored. Otherwise,
companies may make poor choices with the long-term
competitiveness.
Ms. SIMON. Now, in lieu of--who knows what that calendar
will be and when the act will be signed by the President. We
hope it will be. Any advice to this Committee on how to push
the conversation forward?
Mr. DOSHI. Well, I think hearings like this one are useful,
because I do hear some bipartisan support for the idea that our
small companies need low-cost, non-dilutive capital to lead in
high tech. That is a view I think most Americans would support.
And I think, at the same time, when you understand the full
scope of what China is up--what they are up to--and that is why
I focused on that in my testimony----
Ms. SIMON. Right.
Mr. DOSHI.--what they are doing--it makes all this look a
lot more urgent. It is a lot harder to say let's push ``pause''
when you see tens of billions of dollars flowing to small
companies in China.
They are very serious about promoting these small
companies. And let me be very clear: Their goal is to
ultimately knock our companies out of business. They don't want
them to be selling into China or selling around the world. They
would like their companies to win.
And so it really is an existential question. We have got a
lot of small companies in manufacturing. We are the backbone of
American manufacturing. A lot of them are run by people who are
about to retire. If those companies go out, we lose not just
the companies but the knowledge that those companies held onto
for decades. It will be much harder for America to
reindustrialize, which is the President's priority, if we lose
those companies.
Ms. SIMON. So it never happens to me, but I have a whole 1
minute and 39 seconds left. And I know a lot of my colleagues
are in other hearings. This hearing, as our Chair mentioned, is
literally on top of a number of other hearings on the floor
today.
So, if you could, Dr. Doshi, for the next, you know, 35
seconds--and then I will yield my time back to the Ranking
Member--I would love--you know, I know other Members had other
questions for you. So, sir, are there other thoughts that you
would like to extend to the Committee?
Mr. DOSHI. Yes, ma'am. I think the last thing I will say is
that one of the things that China has done very well is, it has
packaged a lot of these benefits together--supply-side
benefits, demand-side benefits, regulatory benefits.
Ms. SIMON. Uh-huh.
Mr. DOSHI. It makes it much easier for companies to have a
one-stop shop.
The Taiwan Economic Ministry does the same thing, by the
way.
So a lot of our competitors, a lot of our allies, have
programs that are very integrated. Presenting a package of
goods, a package of benefits, to these companies--it is not all
about spending money--can make their lives easier and can make
it so that they are more competitive. That is how the Chinese
do it. It is, again, how our allies do it. It is how we can do
it too.
And I think we should think about the SBA having a
credentialing program for high-technology companies so we can
better incentivize the flow of capital. And think about this: A
company that gets that designation, as in China, will be a much
safer bet for the private capital markets too. I think we can
do that.
Ms. SIMON. Thank you, sir.
I appreciate all of you.
I will yield my time, my whole 30 seconds, back to the
Ranking Member.
Mr. DOSHI. Thank you, ma'am.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlewoman yields back.
The Ranking Member has nothing.
I now recognize Ms. King-Hinds from the Northern Mariana
Islands for 5 minutes.
Ms. KING-HINDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to all of the witnesses for your testimony
today.
So, as the Chairman has stated, I represent the CNMI, which
literally sits on the front line of a lot of these strategic
geopolitical conversations. And, you know, for those who are
not familiar with where the CNMI is, we are closer to China
than we are the United States.
And so, you know, my community is struggling economically.
I am concerned about any type of foreign investment coming into
the CNMI. As a matter of fact, we have been having
conversations with the legislature as to how do we provide the
necessary support to the local government and connect them with
an entity like CFIUS, for example, right? Because, you know, we
ardently object to malign CCP influence, right?
And I am really glad, Mr. Lyons, that you distinguished
between, you know, regular folks and the regime, right? So I
appreciated that comment.
And I kind of--in reading your testimony, Mr. Murphy, you
know, I was sad for you. And I don't want something that has
happened to you to happen to any small businesses, especially
folks out in a remote region where, you know, the government
doesn't have the resources and just folks don't have the
resources, right?
And I kept hearing a common theme amongst all of you, and
that is due diligence.
And as I was preparing for this hearing, I saw that there
is no connection between the SBA, who, you know, is in charge
of lending capital, with CFIUS under the Department of
Treasury. And so I kind of wanted to further flesh out, you
know, that piece that you focused on with regards to due
diligence so that we prevent what happened to Mr. Murphy.
And I will just open it up.
Mr. PAHUTSKI. Maybe I could take that. I used to be the
DOD's lead representative for CFIUS, so I am very familiar with
the authorities that are granted to that.
That is not, I would say, the appropriate tool. At that
part of spectrum, CFIUS is typically reactionary, to some
degree, because those transactions are being bought. The
problem is well left of that. It is when we talked about when
small businesses are faced with capital decisions, partner
relationships, equity decisions. That is really at the point of
no return, where the decision-making needs to happen.
CFIUS is a great measure to protect things through the
national-security lens, but maybe his transaction didn't
present a national-security threat, and therefore it might
necessarily be reviewed through those authorities.
Ms. KING-HINDS. So I ask that question because any
investment right now in the CNMI is viewed as a national-
security threat if it is a foreign investment. And I want to be
able to help my community, given the fact that we are just
going through an economic decline. As a matter of fact, I think
it is in economic free-fall at this point.
And so I think you are absolutely right that CFIUS is
reactive. How do we change it so that we ensure that what
happened to Mr. Murphy doesn't happen? Because CFIUS is the arm
of the federal government that is supposed to review foreign
investments for national-security risks. And so how do we
bridge that gap?
And I see Mr. Lyons there nodding his head.
Mr. LYONS. Thank you, Congresswoman.
I think that it is a complex problem, but one thing to
address first is that there is nothing illegal about PRC
investment into companies. And so that means that our law
enforcement mechanisms have no tools here.
It does require--it does require background checks, due
diligence, and I don't think it is always appropriate for the
government to be involved in that, because the government
simply doesn't collect on these issues. As a former
intelligence officer, we focus on bigger things, I would say--
on weapons systems, plans, and intentions. We don't focus on
mergers and acquisitions or, really, much in the economic
realm.
So, for that reason, there has to be partnerships on that
front. I think SBA pushing out threat briefs could help. I
think tax incentives--I think tax credits--to allow companies
to take advantage of that, from a tax standpoint, so that they
can build a CI program or a cyber program. There is a limited
amount of funding available from the SBA today that goes
towards funding cyber programs, and we need to expand programs
like that.
Ms. KING-HINDS. Thank you.
Mr. Doshi, you can chime in for the rest of the time I
have.
Mr. DOSHI. Thank you, Congresswoman. Let me just offer one
additional point, because I agree with what everyone else has
said.
I think there is some value in helping small companies
recognize that, if they take investment from Chinese sources
and that they are in their cap table, it might make it a lot
harder for them to get access to certain government benefits,
from the [inaudible] to Department of War, et cetera. And I
think getting people to understand that there is a risk, not
just a legal risk but a reputational risk potentially, in
having these investors is critical.
And I will end with this. We need corporate transparency.
We need to know the beneficial ownership of some of these
vehicles. If we know that, we can do better due diligence in
the open-source.
Ms. KING-HINDS. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize Ms. Scholten from the great State of
Michigan for 5 minutes.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Ranking Member.
And thank you so much to our witnesses for being here
today.
It seems like our questions this morning have kind of been
going back and forth and questioning, to a certain extent,
whether China actually is a problem or trying to point out how
it is.
I think we all agree, China is a problem, right?
You agree?
You agree?
Yes. All heads are nodding.
The question is, what are we going to do about it?
Dr. Doshi, in your questions, you talk about the rapid pace
at which China is investing in its small businesses. At the
same time, we have seen major scaling back of our small-
business programs.
Can we continue at the same pace and expect different
results? To our entire panel, I mean, yes or no, can we
continue--no, we cannot. No. No. We cannot.
I think that this is the central question, you know. And
the oversight of this Committee is--if we take nothing more
away, if we are all in agreement that China is a threat, we
cannot continue at the same pace of scaling back our programs.
Yes, there are other multiple things that we need to do, but
making sure that we are putting our money where our mouth is
and addressing this problem head-on is essential.
I have a few other questions particular to west Michigan,
but I really wanted to emphasize that point.
So west Michigan is home to world-class innovation. I have
had the privilege of touring small businesses in my district
who are at the forefront of research and development that will
enhance everything from medical treatments to new defense
technologies. Many of these businesses were SBIR/STTR award
recipients. We had 11 businesses receive awards in 2024, 4 more
recipients in 2025.
I was proud to vote in favor of the Small Business
Innovation and Economic Security Act last week, which passed
the House and would reauthorize those programs.
With specific reference to these programs, as we talk about
the importance of investment, Dr. Doshi, how will these
programs, specifically, help our tech leadership?
Mr. DOSHI. Thank you very much, Congresswoman.
And, as you know, of course, the Midwest is home to a
disproportionately large number of our high-tech
manufacturers--small businesses, disproportionately.
And so I think for these companies, access to low-cost
capital is a challenge. Bigger companies can get better terms
from big banks. Our smaller companies struggle. They may not be
as well known. They are not as credible, perhaps. They have got
other challenges.
The government can step in, as they do in China, but it
doesn't have to be a big cost to the government. That is the
benefit of some of our programs.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Right.
Mr. DOSHI. And if you look at the track record, our
programs tend to do quite well. They end up creating huge
economic benefits. Sometimes even major companies emerge from
SBIR and STTR.
So I think the question for us is, do we want to support
these companies in high tech? Because if we don't want to
support them, China is going to support it, so we have to get
even with them.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. That is exactly right. Thank you.
Dr. Doshi, your testimony highlights--I want to talk about
small manufacturers and exporters, specifically, who rely on
technical assistance to build up and keep an edge over their
overseas competitors.
The MEP program--my district has benefited significantly
from the State's work there. The Michigan Manufacturing
Technology Center, in addition. In the past 3 years, MMTC has
assisted 145 manufacturing companies just in my district
alone--145--impacting over 16,000 employees. I mean, the impact
is just so huge. And I know Michigan is, you know, a little
outsized there, with, you know, our huge auto manufacturing
sector, but this is a big deal to us.
Moreover, MMTC is working to establish a new AI Lab to help
keep Michigan ahead of the AI curve.
Dr. Doshi, the Trump administration has withheld $19
million in MEP funding, causing major staffing layoffs and
hiring freezes within most MEP centers. How is this harmful to
our domestic manufacturers? It almost goes without saying, but
we are here to take the testimony today, so please do say it.
Mr. DOSHI. Well, thank you, Congresswoman.
I think it is disastrous. I mean, a lot of these programs
are now seriously damaged. It will take, you know, months, if
not years, for them to scale back up again.
I am not really sure why. The President is very committed
to reindustrialization. His team believes in
reindustrialization. I think probably somewhere there has been
a disconnect. And the team that he has that cares about this
should re---should make sure that these programs have the money
that need.
Because the Chinese are investing, right? They do technical
assistance, and we don't. They do technical from their SOEs,
from the universities, state research centers, on a industrial
scale.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Yeah.
Mr. DOSHI. And we shouldn't pause ours.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Yeah.
As a State that is also home to some of the leading
universities in the country, I worry about the brain drain, not
from people leaving this country, necessarily, but from not
pursuing these advanced degrees in technology because they are
not seeing, you know, the opportunity for themselves there as
well.
So thank you. I am out of time. I thank you all for your
testimony today. It has been, you know, incredibly helpful.
Mr. Lyons, I especially appreciated some of your remarks,
so thank you.
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back.
And I think--do we have any more here in the hearing?
I would like to thank our witnesses. This has been a great
hearing. And this is a bipartisan subject we all agree with--99
percent, I am sure; maybe even better.
But, without objection, Members have 5 legislative days to
submit additional materials and the written questions for the
witnesses to the Chair--and before I finish that, somebody from
California just walked in.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. California time.
Chairman WILLIAMS. And I yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. CISNEROS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Sorry. I had a briefing that I had to pop into, and I just
got out in time. And I couldn't have my watch or anything, or
my phone or anything, to let me know what time it was, so--I am
here now.
So thank you all for being here today, and thanks for your
time. And I guess I am the last one here before you can all go,
but--so I will be quick.
Mr. Doshi, the 2026 National Defense Strategy and National
Security Strategy have shifted our focus as it relates to
China. The NDS places an implicit bet on outproducing China but
hardly mentions technology, as you laid it out in your
testimony.
China is prioritizing its small business, particularly in
manufacturing and technology. How should Congress scale and
invest in programs that boost American small business in
manufacturing and technology?
Mr. DOSHI. Well, thank you very much, Congressman, for the
opportunity to talk a little bit about that.
My view is that the SBA has a number of tools. Some of them
have lapsed and can be reauthorized, and some of them can be
expanded.
In many cases, a lot of those instruments that the SBA has
can be packaged together to give small companies a one-stop
shop so that they can get demand-side support, supply-side
support, and regulatory support.
But the key point I want to emphasize is this: China takes
its small businesses very seriously as manufacturing
competitors. It gives them enormous amounts of resources. It
gives them patent support, expedited access to stock-market
listings. And it even forces the state companies and its
government to buy from them.
We are not going to replicate their system, but we have to
put together a program that is not just individual projects and
individual initiatives but packaged together to make sure our
companies are competitive.
Mr. CISNEROS. All right. Thank you.
You mentioned the SBA. So the SBA is creating barriers for
many small businesses to access resources, such as changing
eligibility for programs, threatening to pull offices from
major metropolitan hubs, and withholding funds from programs
and resource partners that support small businesses.
Are these counterproductive to the investments we need to
be making in our small businesses for their resilience on the
global stage?
Mr. DOSHI. Congressman, I do worry that some of the current
efforts are counterproductive. In particular, as we have
discussed in this hearing, some of the key programs have lapsed
or have been reauthorized but that has not fully gone through
within the administration.
That can change quickly. We know that the President is
committed to reindustrialization, so there may be a disconnect
within his team, but it should be possible to make progress.
As for, you know, offices closing that are part of the MEP
program, that is disastrous. I mean, when those offices close,
it can take a long time for them to staff back up. In the
meantime, our companies lose important connections to the
assistance that they need.
Mr. CISNEROS. Thank you for that response.
Mr. Lyons, you highlighted the lack of awareness in
security by small businesses against cyber intrusion in your
testimony.
If a small business wanted to improve their cybersecurity,
what federal education, legal, or technological resources are
available to them?
Mr. LYONS. Thank you, Congressman, for the question.
I think that the SBA has a cyber program that allows them
to take--allows small businesses to take advantage of some
subsidized offerings there. I think that should be expanded.
I think that CISA also puts out routinely updated
information regarding how small businesses can protect
themselves.
A lot of this is free.
Mr. CISNEROS. Uh-huh.
Mr. LYONS. A lot of this--I think tax credits would help
bolster defense and bolster awareness. But a lot of this is
also out there on sites like CISA or the NCSC.
Mr. CISNEROS. Can I ask just one followup on that? I mean,
the resources, you said, are free and are provided by CISA,
SBA. But when it comes to the actual financial cost of having
to fight this, how are small businesses able to keep it up? Or
can they?
Mr. LYONS. Sir, they are not.
Mr. CISNEROS. Yeah.
Mr. LYONS. They simply--in conversations that we have had
with numerous small businesses, oftentimes economic espionage
is ignored because of the legal costs associated.
I would point to my written testimony of a few examples but
also of some possible legislative initiatives that could change
something like that.
Mr. CISNEROS. Mr. Doshi, you are shaking your head ``yes,''
so I will let you respond to that as well.
Mr. DOSHI. Well, thank you, Congressman. I just want to add
one additional factor.
When our company is the victim of cyber espionage and they
lose their IP and it goes to a Chinese manufacturer, who then
makes the same things and sells it back to us, it should be
easier for us to stop the importation of that infringed-upon
export.
Right now, it is really hard. Those small companies have to
hire lawyers; they have to go through a process. We should make
it easier for our companies to protect their IP from foreign
manufacturers that have taken it essentially illegally.
Mr. CISNEROS. All right.
Thank you all for your testimony.
And, with that, I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Mr. Bresnahan from the great State of
Pennsylvania for 5 minutes.
Mr. BRESNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Ranking
Member.
And thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
The influence of the Chinese Communist Party is no longer
something we can ignore or afford to underestimate. It is a
real threat to our economy and everyday life happening right
now, and our small businesses are on the front lines.
The CCP knows exactly what kind of leverage it holds, and
is not afraid to use it, whether that means undercutting
American businesses, stealing intellectual property, or
flooding our markets with cheap and inferior products.
COVID-19 made that crystal-clear. It exposed just how
vulnerable we are and how reliant we had become on China to
keep our economy and supply chains running. That should have
been a wake-up call, but that dependence still exists today,
and it remains a direct risk to both our economy and our
national security.
That is why this Committee must continue working with the
administration and the SBA to bring manufacturing back home and
prioritize American production over CCP entanglement.
That starts with being clear about what the CCP involvement
means for our American entrepreneurs and their intellectual
property.
Starting a business is already a heavy lift. It takes risk,
capital, long hours, just to get off the ground. We have seen
it happen too many times: when the American entrepreneur puts
everything on the line to build something from the ground up,
only to have a CCP-linked company steal that idea, copy it
using cheap labor, and flood the markets with knock-offs that
undercut them at home.
That is unacceptable and a fundamental threat to the
American Dream. We have a duty to protect American innovation
from that risk.
Mr. Murphy, you know this reality of the situation all too
well, and what your company went through is something no
American business should ever have to face.
So my first question, for Mr. Murphy: Looking back now,
what would you tell a small-business owner who was considering
taking on foreign investment? And what do you wish you had
known before making that decision?
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman and Congressman, we have talked a
little bit about this--obviously, due diligence, expedient
access to capital, the type of capital.
And the one theme that I have heard here from the panel
that I think I just want to highlight is this. And I don't know
anything about the ``Little Giants'' program in China, but
something similar.
I mean, we are--our motto is ``free markets and
competition.'' It is not outside of our SBA to have a packaged-
up, competing program where an entrepreneur or business like
mine can feel confident and empowered to go to the SBA and have
this package of diligence, access to capital, trusted vetted
capital partners, and the like. That seems like something we
can and should do to compete.
Mr. BRESNAHAN. At what point in the process, Mr. Murphy,
did you start to feel that something was wrong, or what was the
first indication that you had some kind of China influence
taking over your business? Was there, like, an antenna moment
or an a-ha moment that caught your attention?
Mr. MURPHY. Congressman, yes, there was. There was--as we
were breaking ground, one day, several individuals just arrived
at the site. They showed up at the gate, they wanted to be
seen, and they said that they had come over from Asia. And
then, once we started putting the pieces together, we realized,
no, they came from China, and who were they.
And then it got back to--and we heard this term from Dr.
Doshi--who is the ultimate beneficial owner? We did not know.
And it turned out to be somebody different than the people that
were on site, and it turned out to be the person who had sent
these individuals.
So it was that, when they showed up, that----
Mr. BRESNAHAN. Totally unannounced.
Mr. MURPHY. Unannounced. And that is----
Mr. BRESNAHAN. And you had no recourse----
Mr. MURPHY.--when I said--and I said, ``Stop. Something is
going on here.'' And that is when I, in my mind, started
realizing, there is something afoot.
And then more came. And then when bitcoin miners showed up,
this, you know, millions and millions of dollars of bitcoin
mining machines showed up just on a dime--you know, 30 trucks,
boom, into Cheyenne--that is when I said, we are going to start
documenting, you know, every email, every conversation.
And then it was shortly after that that they said, ``Hey,
we want to renegotiate our contract. Basically, you guys go
from your operational role in our contract that was this to a
very small role and basically be our Wyoming guys to protect us
in this State.'' And that was when we sued them.
Mr. BRESNAHAN. That is absolutely abhorrent and
unacceptable.
One more followup question. What could we be doing in
Congress to prevent things like this from happening in the
future to other entrepreneurs and other businesses?
Mr. MURPHY. Yes, Congressman. We have heard a lot of those
good ones, ideas, today in testimony. But I think it goes back
to--and I think, with this Committee, it is the SBA, right?
That that is where entrepreneurs--right now, as an
entrepreneur, I wouldn't even have thought to go to the SBA. To
get a loan? To get a $10-million debt loan? Doesn't make any
sense.
But for that to be a resource that entrepreneurs and small
business can turn to that actually helps with capital,
diligence, and all these pieces, that, I think, makes the
difference.
Mr. BRESNAHAN. Thank you for being here.
Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
And I now want to repeat myself and say what a great
hearing this has been.
Thank you guys for taking time to do that.
And, without objection, Members have 5 legislative days to
submit additional materials and written questions for the
witnesses to the Chair, which will be forwarded to the
witnesses. I ask the witnesses to please respond promptly.
So, if there is no further business, without objection, the
Committee is adjourned, and thank you again.
[Whereupon, at 11:28 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Mr. Andrew Pahutski did not respond to QFR's in a timely
manner.]
A P P E N D I X
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]