No two state budgets are alike. States have different budget cycles, different ways of preparing revenue estimates and forecasts, different requirements concerning their operating and capital budgets, different roles for their governors in the budget process, and different policies concerning the carrying over of operating budget deficits into the next fiscal year. Although no two state budgets are alike, all 50 states have experienced fiscal stress in recent years, especially during FY2009 and FY2010. The national economic recession, which officially lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, led to lower levels of economic activity throughout the nation and reduced state tax revenues. State tax revenues from all sources, including sales, personal, and corporate income tax collections, fell from $680.2 billion in FY2008 to $609.8 billion in FY2010, a decline of 10.3%. The decline in state tax revenue, coupled with increased demand for social services and state-balanced operating budget requirements, created what the National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) characterized as "one of the worst time periods in state fiscal conditions since the Great Depression." States closed nearly $230 billion in state budget shortfalls in FY2009 and FY2010; and $146.3 billion in state shortfalls in FY2011 and FY2012. State fiscal conditions improved during FY2011 and FY2012, and are projected to continue to improve in FY2013. However, states continue to experience fiscal challenges. For example, although state general fund revenue is projected to surpass pre-recession levels in FY2013 by about $13 billion (from $680.2 billion in FY2008 to $692.8 billion in FY2013), total general fund spending is projected to remain below pre-recession levels in FY2013 (from $687.3 billion in FY2008 to $681.3 billion in FY2013). State budget officers predict continuing budgetary challenges in virtually all states in FY2013, in part due to slow state revenue growth, the withdrawal of temporary federal assistance provided through P.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), the need to replenish reserves, and increased costs for health care and other social services. Congressional interest in state budgetary finances has increased in recent years, primarily because state action to address budget shortfalls, such as increasing taxes, laying off or furloughing state employees, and postponing or eliminating state infrastructure projects, could have an adverse effect on the national economic recovery. For example, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Benjamin Bernanke stated on March 2, 2011, that the fiscal problems of state and local governments have "had national implications, as their spending cuts and tax increases have been a headwind on the economic recovery." Also, if states reduce their service levels there could be additional pressure for the federal government to provide those services. As funding from ARRA expires, there could be additional pressure for the federal government to provide additional federal assistance to states. This publication examines the current status of state fiscal conditions and the role of federal assistance in state budgets. It begins with a brief overview of state budgeting procedures and then provides budgetary data comparing state fiscal conditions in FY2008 to FY2011. The data indicate that (1) states reduced their general fund budgets from FY2008 to FY2011, but, because they received increased federal funding, increased their total amount of spending; (2) the share of total state expenditures held by the states' four operating expenditures budgets (general fund, federal funds, other state funds, and bonds) shifted from FY2008 to FY2011, with an increased reliance on federal funds; and (3) states experienced varying levels of fiscal stress from FY2008 to FY2011. This publication concludes with an assessment of the consequences current levels of state fiscal stress may have for the 113th Congress.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) culminated years of effort by state and local government officials and business interests to control, if not eliminate, the imposition of unfunded intergovernmental and private-sector federal mandates. Advocates argued the statute was needed to forestall federal legislation and regulations that imposed obligations on state and local governments or businesses that resulted in higher costs and inefficiencies. Opponents argued that federal mandates may be necessary to achieve national objectives in areas where voluntary action by state and local governments and business failed to achieve desired results. UMRA provides a framework for the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to estimate the direct costs of mandates in legislative proposals to state and local governments and to the private sector, and for issuing agencies to estimate the direct costs of mandates in proposed regulations to regulated entities. Aside from these informational requirements, UMRA controls the imposition of mandates only through a procedural mechanism allowing Congress to decline to consider unfunded intergovernmental mandates in proposed legislation if they are estimated to cost more than specified threshold amounts. UMRA applies to any provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon state and local governments or the private sector. It does not apply to conditions of federal assistance; duties stemming from participation in voluntary federal programs; rules issued by independent regulatory agencies; rules issued without a general notice of proposed rulemaking; and rules and legislative provisions that cover individual constitutional rights, discrimination, emergency assistance, grant accounting and auditing procedures, national security, treaty obligations, and certain elements of Social Security. State and local government officials argue that UMRA has restrained the growth of unfunded federal mandates, but that its coverage should be broadened, with special consideration given to including conditions of federal financial assistance. Reflecting these views, H.R. 373, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2011 (as amended), and H.R. 4078, the Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act: Title IV, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2012, which was passed by the House on July 26, 2012, would, among other things, broaden UMRA's coverage to include assessments of indirect costs, such as foregone profits and costs passed onto consumers, as well as direct costs and, when requested by the chair or ranking Member of a committee, the prospective costs of legislation that would change conditions of federal financial assistance. Other organizations have argued that UMRA's coverage should be maintained or reinforced by adding exclusions for mandates regarding public health, safety, workers' rights, environmental protection, and the disabled. This report examines debates over what constitutes an unfunded federal mandate and UMRA's implementation. It focuses on UMRA's requirement that CBO issue written cost estimate statements for federal mandates in legislation, its procedures for raising points of order in the House and Senate concerning unfunded federal mandates in legislation, and its requirement that federal agencies prepare written cost estimate statements for federal mandates in rules. It also assesses UMRA's impact on federal mandates and arguments concerning UMRA's future, focusing on UMRA's definitions, exclusions, and exceptions which currently exempt many federal actions with potentially significant financial impacts on nonfederal entities.

The Small Business Administration's (SBA's) Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) Program is designed to enhance small business access to venture capital by stimulating and supplementing "the flow of private equity capital and long term loan funds which small business concerns need for the sound financing of their business operations and for their growth, expansion, and modernization, and which are not available in adequate supply." Facilitating the flow of capital to small businesses to stimulate the national economy was, and remains, the SBIC program's primary objective. At the end of FY2012, there were 301 privately owned and managed SBICs licensed by the SBA, providing financing to small businesses with private capital the SBIC has raised (regulatory capital) and funds the SBIC borrows at favorable rates (leverage) because the SBA guarantees the debenture (loan obligation). SBICs pursue investments in a broad range of industries, geographic areas, and stages of investment. Some SBICs specialize in a particular field or industry, while others invest more generally. Most SBICs concentrate on a particular stage of investment (i.e., startup, expansion, or turnaround) and geographic area. The SBA is authorized to provide up to $3 billion in leverage to SBICs annually. The SBIC program has invested or committed about $18.2 billion in small businesses, with the SBA's share of capital at risk about $8.8 billion. In FY2012, the SBA committed to guarantee $1.9 billion in SBIC small business investments, and SBICs provided another $1.3 billion in investments from private capital, for a total of more than $3.2 billion in financing for 1,094 small businesses. Some Members of Congress, the Obama Administration, and small business advocates argue that the program should be expanded as a means to stimulate economic activity, create jobs, and assist in the national economic recovery. Others worry that an expanded SBIC program could result in loses and increase the federal deficit. In their view, the best means to assist small business, promote economic growth, and create jobs is to reduce business taxes and exercise federal fiscal restraint. Some Members have also proposed that the program target additional assistance to startup and early stage small businesses, which are generally viewed as relatively risky investments but also as having a relatively high potential for job creation. In an effort to target additional assistance to newer businesses, the SBA has established, as part of the Obama Administration's Startup America Initiative, a $1 billion early stage debenture SBIC initiative (up to $150 million in leverage in FY2012, and up to $200 million in leverage per fiscal year thereafter until the limit is reached). Early stage debenture SBICs are required to invest at least 50% of their investments in early stage small businesses, defined as small businesses that have never achieved positive cash flow from operations in any fiscal year. This publication describes the SBIC program's structure and operations, including two recent SBA initiatives, one targeting early stage small businesses and one targeting underserved markets. It also examines several legislative proposals to increase the leverage available to SBICs and to increase the SBIC program's authorization amount to $4 billion.

Several federal agencies, including the Small Business Administration (SBA), provide training and other assistance to veterans seeking civilian employment. For example, the Department of Labor, in cooperation with the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, operates the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) and the Disabled Transition Assistance Program (DTAP). Both programs provide employment information and training to service members within 180 days of their separation from military service, or retirement, to assist them in transitioning from the military to the civilian labor force. In recent years, the SBA has focused increased attention on meeting the needs of veteran small business owners and veterans interested in starting a small business, especially veterans who are transitioning from military to civilian life. In FY2011, the SBA provided management and technical assistance services to more than 100,000 veterans through its various management and technical assistance training partners (e.g., Small Business Development Centers, Women Business Centers, Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE), and Veteran Business Outreach Centers). The SBA also responded to more than 85,000 veteran inquires through its SBA district offices. In addition, the SBA's Office of Veterans Business Development administers several programs to assist veteran-owned small businesses. Congressional interest in the SBA's veterans assistance programs has increased in recent years primarily due to reports by veterans organizations that veterans were experiencing difficulty accessing the SBA's programs, especially the SBA's Patriot Express loan guarantee program. There is also a continuing congressional interest in assisting veterans, especially those returning from overseas in recent years, in their transition from military into civilian life. Although the unemployment rate (as of July 2012) among veterans as a whole (6.9%) was lower than for nonveterans (8.3%), the unemployment rate of veterans who have left the military since September 2001 (8.9%) was higher than the unemployment rate for non-veterans. The expansion of federal employment training programs targeted at specific populations, such as women and veterans, has also led some Members and organizations to ask if these programs should be consolidated. In their view, eliminating program duplication among federal business assistance programs across federal agencies, and within the SBA, would result in lower costs and improved services. Others argue that keeping these business assistance programs separate enables them to offer services that match the unique needs of various underserved populations, such as veterans. In their view, instead of considering program consolidation as a policy option, the focus should be on improving communication and cooperation among the federal agencies providing assistance to entrepreneurs. This report opens with an examination of the current economic circumstances of veteran-owned businesses drawn from the Bureau of the Census 2007 Survey of Business Owners, which was administered in 2008 and 2009, and released on the Internet on May 17, 2011. It then provides a brief overview of veteran employment experiences, comparing unemployment and labor force participation rates for veterans, veterans who have left the military since September 2001, and non-veterans. The report then describes the employment assistance programs offered by several federal agencies to assist veterans in their transition from the military to the civilian labor force, and examines, in greater detail, the SBA's veteran business development programs, the SBA's Patriot Express loan guarantee program, and veteran contracting programs. The SBA's Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan program is also discussed.

Small business size standards are of congressional interest because the standards determine eligibility for receiving Small Business Administration (SBA) assistance as well as federal contracting and tax preferences. Although there is bipartisan agreement that the nation's small businesses play an important role in the American economy, there are differences of opinion concerning how to define them. The Small Business Act of 1953 (P.L. 83-163, as amended) authorized the SBA to establish size standards for determining eligibility for federal small business assistance. The SBA currently uses two size standards to determine SBA program eligibility: industry-specific size standards and an alternative size standard based on the applicant's maximum tangible net worth and average net income after federal taxes. The SBA's industry-specific size standards determine program eligibility for firms in 1,047 industrial classifications in 18 sub-industry activities described in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The size standards are based on the following five measures: number of employees, average annual receipts in the previous three years, asset size, annual megawatt hours of electric output in the preceding fiscal year, or a combination of number of employees and barrel per day refining capacity. Overall, the SBA currently classifies about 97% of all employer firms as small. These firms represent about 30% of industry receipts. The SBA has always based its size standards on economic analysis of each industry's overall competitiveness and the competitiveness of firms within each industry. However, in the absence of precise statutory guidance and consensus on how to define small, the SBA's size standards have often been challenged, typically by industry representatives seeking to increase the number of firms eligible for assistance and by Members concerned that the size standards may not adequately target assistance to firms that they consider to be truly small. During the 111th Congress, P.L. 111-240, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, authorized the SBA to establish an alternative size standard using maximum tangible net worth and average net income after federal taxes for both the 7(a) and 504/CDC loan guaranty programs. It also established, until the SBA acted, an interim alternative size standard for the 7(a) and 504/CDC programs of not more than $15 million in tangible net worth and not more than $5 million in average net income after federal taxes (excluding any carry-over losses) for the two full fiscal years before the date of the application. It also required the SBA to conduct a detailed review of not less than one-third of the SBA's industry size standards every 18 months. This report provides a historical examination of the SBA's size standards, assesses competing views concerning how to define a small business, and discusses how the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 might affect program eligibility. It also discusses H.R. 585, the Small Business Size Standard Flexibility Act of 2011, which would authorize the SBA's Office of Chief Counsel for Advocacy to approve or disapprove a size standard proposed by a federal agency if it deviates from the SBA's size standards. The SBA's Administrator currently has that authority. It also discusses H.R. 3987, the Small Business Protection Act of 2012, and H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, which would require the SBA to make available a justification when establishing or approving a size standard that the size standard is appropriate for each individual industry classification within a grouping of four-digit NAICS codes. These two bills also address the SBA's recent practice of combining size standards within industrial groups as a means to reduce the complexity of its size standards and to provide greater consistency for industrial classifications that have similar economic characteristics.