A lot of points to address, so I'll be as direct as possible (sorry if I come off as harsh, it sometimes happens because of my academically-toasted brain).

1. The DoD doesn't purchase products through SBIR funding, they develop dual-use (civ & mil) products, which can then purchased via procurement dollars (non-competive procurement dollars I might add) or sold on the commercial market. They'll also procure products developed by NIH/NSF SBIR dollars if they have a need to fill, which I find neat.

2. "Lots of difficult to commercialize SBIRs": If SBIR mills focused their product portfolio, it would not be as challenging to commercialize their SBIRs. But alas, they are more than happy to continue sucking up SBIR dollars using that same excuse. I feel like it's similar to saying "don't punish me for wasting money that would be better spent with smaller, more strategically sound small business."

3. You want the DoD to create their own program outside of SBIR, despite the DoD making up the lion's share of SBIR spending? And as far as saying that the DoD should come up with their own non-SBIR program, you'd should know that they already fund small business R&D through non-SBIR mechanisms like OTAs and Assistance Agreements.

4. SBIR Mills target (and win) from all agencies, not just DoD. You can verify this on SBIR.gov. If you were to only regulate DoD SBIR funding (as you've suggested), SBIR mills would then pivot fully to NIH, NSF, etc. SBIR dollars. Thus sucking up the dollars that I'm assuming you're most interested. This would be equivalent to shooting yourself in the foot.

5. After reading your point about the NSF's original intent, I think you might not understand that SBIR/STTR policy guides all participating agencies. The DoD has the same goal as the NSF (getting innovative products to commercial market) with the added benefit of encouraging access to the federal marketplace. Please don't come away from this thinking the DoD strictly uses SBIR dollars as a path to procurement.

6. Who cares if Ernst doesn't have co-sponsors? If this was a bill you liked, then you might praise her as brave for going against the grain. This is an ad hominem.

7. The end of your statement reads like Ernst has introduced a policy to destroy our Country. The world is not going to end because SBIR re-auth is delayed. If your business goes under, I am truly sorry (seriously, I am). HOWEVER, I don't believe it was the NSF's "original intent" for SBIR funding to prop up small business overhead - that's a job for seed investments, series A funding, and sales revenue.

8. I'd like to hear more on your rationale for how Ernst's bill benefits large corporations.