Introduction

Some Members of Congress believe the contributions of small businesses to commercial innovation and economic growth could be enhanced through greater access to growing international markets. According to U.S. Census Bureau data, 166,384 small businesses (i.e., firms with fewer than 500 employees) in the United States currently export, accounting for about 25.8% of all U.S. exports ($341 billion of $1.32 trillion) and 95.9% of all U.S. exporters (166,384 of 173,459 exporters).¹ About 3% of small businesses (with employees) in the United States export.² With roughly three-quarters of world purchasing power and almost 95% of world consumers living outside U.S. borders, more attention is being paid to the potential of small business programs to increase employment in the export sector.³

Advocates of export promotion programs argue that helping small businesses to export will lead to more jobs. A commonly held view is that small businesses are the major source of job creation in the U.S. economy and thus policymakers should try to encourage the growth of small businesses as a means to increase employment. Economists have debated for decades the extent to which small businesses contribute to job creation.⁴ More recent studies indicate that small business owners have different aspirations concerning the growth of their firms and that small, new firms (i.e., startups) are more likely to expand than small businesses generally.

Economists generally do not view job creation as a justification for providing federal assistance to small businesses.⁵ They argue that in the long term such assistance will likely reallocate jobs within the economy, not increase them. In their view, jobs arise primarily from the size of the labor force, which depends largely on population, demographics, and factors that affect the choice of home versus market production.

This report begins with the history, role, and scope of the Small Business Administration's (SBA's) export promotion activities and the creation of SBA's Office of International Trade (OIT). OIT is charged with coordinating SBA's export promotion activities, including management and training programs, grants, and loan programs. Next, the report describes the three major forms of SBA trade-related assistance: (1) export promotion-focused loans, (2) management and training programs, and (3) the State Trade Expansion Program (STEP) grant program (previously known as the State Trade and Export Promotion (STEP) grant program). The report also provides SBA output data and qualitative performance data from other sources.

Lastly, the report discusses three policy issues for Congress. First, are there market barriers impeding smaller firms from exporting? Second, is there a compelling interest for the government to promote exports in the name of national "competitiveness"? Third, are SBA's export promotion policies duplicative of other federal programs? These policy issues could arise in future debates over the size and scope of SBA's international trade programs. This debate will likely be framed by the issues of fiscal responsibility and the promotion of economic opportunities for firms and employees.

SBA's Office of International Trade

SBA provides export promotion and financing services to small businesses through its business loan programs, management and training programs, and other initiatives. SBA's OIT coordinates these activities as it assists with four stages of export promotion: (1) identifying small businesses interested in export promotion, (2) preparing small businesses to export, (3) connecting small businesses to export opportunities, and (4) supporting small businesses once they find export opportunities. SBA also participates in the regional network of U.S. Export Assistance Centers, which are managed by the Department of Commerce's (DOC's) International Trade Administration.⁶

Despite its name, OIT primarily encourages export promotion rather than international trade, generally. None of OIT's programs have a specific goal to help small businesses gain access to lower-cost or specialized imports, such as for use as inputs in their production processes. This export-oriented focus is consistent with other federal agencies.⁷

OIT's programs are funded through a combination of the SBA's appropriations for business loan programs (i.e., subsidy costs) and for salaries and expenses. Congress does not directly provide an appropriation amount for each of the SBA's three export-focused loan programs or for trade-related counseling provided through SBA's management and training programs.

Table 1 provides OIT international trade promotion program costs from FY2007 through the FY2023 presidential budget request and STEP program costs from FY2012 through the FY2023 presidential budget request. Total program costs include obligations covering the full cost for administering these programs. This includes direct costs from the operating budget plus compensation and benefits; agency-wide costs, such as rent and telecommunications; and indirect costs, such as agency overhead (e.g., financial management).

STEP appropriations from FY2012 through the FY2023 presidential budget request are also presented.

In terms of scale, OIT and STEP's combined total program costs of $41.0 million in FY2022 accounts for approximately 0.14% of SBA's total program obligations for the year (not including disaster assistance).⁸

Before December 2010, OIT was a division within SBA's Office of Capital Access. It was led by the director for International Trade, who reported to the associate administrator (AA) for Capital Access. The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-240) raised the office's profile within the SBA by requiring the SBA administrator, within 90 days of enactment (by December 26, 2010), to appoint an AA for International Trade who reports directly to the SBA Administrator.

SBA is one of several federal agencies that assist in the promotion of small business exports and in export promotion more generally.⁹ SBA's website provides a table of federal programs that help to finance small business exports.¹⁰ Most of these federal programs are located within other organizations, such as the Export-Import Bank of the United States, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.

SBA is also member of the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC), an interagency committee whose objective is to coordinate and set priorities for federal agencies involved in export promotion. The TPCC then proposes a unified export promotion budget to the President. The TPCC is composed of 20 member agencies, including DOC, Export-Import Bank, SBA, Department of State, U.S. Trade Representative, and Department of the Treasury. The Secretary of Commerce chairs the TPCC.¹¹

SBA's Export Promotion-Focused Loan Programs

SBA identifies small businesses interested in export promotion through a combination of informational and financial programs. Technically speaking, all of the SBA's loan programs can be used by small businesses looking to begin exporting or expand their current exporting operations. Indeed, as discussed below, many of SBA's loan programs contribute to this mission.

SBA has three loan programs that specifically focus on export promotion:

• Export Express loan program, which provides working capital or fixed asset financing for small businesses that will begin or expand exporting;¹²
• Export Working Capital (EWCP) loan program, which provides financing to support export orders or the export transaction cycle, from purchase order to final payment;¹³ and
• International Trade loan program, which provides long-term financing to support small businesses that are expanding because of growing export sales or have been adversely affected by imports and need to modernize to meet foreign competition.¹⁴

Table 2 summarizes the key features of SBA's three export promotion-focused loan programs.

In many ways, SBA's export promotion loan programs share similar characteristics to other SBA loan programs. For example, the Export Express program resembles the SBAExpress program. The SBAExpress program shares several of the characteristics of the standard 7(a) loan guaranty program except that it has an expedited approval process (which increases the risk of loan losses), a lower maximum loan amount, and a smaller percentage of the loan guaranteed (both of which reduce SBA's exposure to potential losses).¹⁵ Similarly, the Export Express program shares several characteristics with the standard International Trade loan program, such as an expedited approval process in exchange for a lower maximum loan amount ($500,000 compared with $5 million) and a lower percentage of guaranty.¹⁶

Fee Waivers and Reductions

From time-to-time, the SBA has exercised its authority to reduce its fees to encourage lending to specific types of small businesses or for specific types of loans (e.g., for veterans, borrowers in rural areas, smaller loans, etc.).¹⁷ Congress has also provided fee relief. For example, the Veterans Entrepreneurship Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-38) authorized and made permanent the SBA's practice of waiving the SBAExpress loan program's one time, up-front guaranty fee for veterans (and their spouse) beginning on or after October 1, 2015, except during any upcoming fiscal year for which the President's budget, submitted to Congress, includes a subsidy cost for the 7(a) program, in its entirety, that is above zero.¹⁸ P.L. 116-136, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), among other provisions, eliminated the zero subsidy requirement to waive SBAExpress loan fees for veterans.

Most recently, Congress waived fees for both the 7(a) loan guarantee program (which includes SBA's three export promotion-focused loan programs) and the 504/Certified Development Company (504/CDC) loan guarantee program in FY2021 as part of its effort to assist small businesses adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic (P.L. 116-260, the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, Nonprofits, and Venues Act (Division N, Title III of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021)).

Other SBA Lending Programs of Interest

In addition to the SBA's three export promotion-focused loan programs, other types of 7(a) loans and 504/CDC loans can also be used to support small business exporters. As shown in Table 3, the amount of SBA export-related loans has generally declined in recent years.

In terms of scale, SBA export-related loans accounted for about 1.92% of 7(a) loan amounts, 1.87% of 504/CDC loan amounts, and 1.91% of total SBA business loan amounts in FY2021.¹⁹

Export-Related Aspects of SBA Management and Training Programs

SBA provides trade-related counseling to small business owners through its management and training programs as well as through its participation in interagency counseling programs. Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs) are the largest SBA source of trade-related counseling. SBA also offers counseling through other programs, such as Women's Business Centers (WBCs) and SCORE (previously known as the Service Corps of Retired Executives).²⁰

In addition, SBA partners with other agencies to provide small business export counseling. For example, SBA provides a small business counselor training certification program and engages in counseling services to small business in partnership with DOC-led U.S. Export Assistance Centers (USEACs). In FY2021, SBA trained 5,130 lenders and counseled 2,803 small business owners on export finance.²¹

SBA Management and Training Programs' Survey Responses

SBA's Office of Entrepreneurial Development used to sponsor an annual survey of a stratified random sample of clients participating in the SBA's three largest management and training programs: Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs), Women's Business Centers (WBCs), and SCORE (previously known as the Service Corps of Retired Executives).²² The survey asked questions about several aspects of the client's experiences with these programs, including the programs' impact on their staffing decisions and management practices. The last survey, published in September 2013, was sent to 29,957 SBDC clients, 2,997 WBC clients, and 25,183 SCORE clients in March 2013 to "provide an analysis of client attitudes toward their counseling experiences and client perceptions of the impact of that counseling on their businesses."²³ Of the 58,137 surveys sent, researchers received 9,459 responses (a 16% response rate).²⁴ The survey labels these three SBA-supported entities as "resource partners."

In general, the surveys indicated that these programs assisted small businesses at all stages of development. They also indicated that most of the small business owners who participated in these programs and responded to the survey found the programs useful and changed their management practices or strategies as a result of their participation in the programs.²⁵

Relatively few survey respondents reported that they had sought information and counseling related to international trade. Among all of the survey participants, interactions with SBA resource partners most often led to a business plan (54% of survey respondents), a marketing plan (45%), or changes to general management (35%). In contrast, 4% of survey respondents reported that SBA resource partners delivered assistance concerning international trade (up from 2% in the 2012 survey).²⁶

Given the few trade-specific questions in this SBA-commissioned survey, it is difficult to draw conclusions concerning the low shares of international trade-related outcomes among clients of the largest SBA management and training programs. One interpretation could be that few small businesses have the desire to export, thus few small businesses sought out counseling on how to increase exports. An alternative explanation could be that the focus of performance management analysis of international trade programs should be on small business exporters rather than SBA's small business clients more generally.

State Trade Expansion Program (STEP) Grants

P.L. 111-240, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, authorized SBA to establish a three-year State Trade and Export Promotion (STEP) pilot grant initiative. P.L. 114-125, the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, renamed the initiative the State Trade Expansion Program (STEP) and provided STEP explicit statutory authorization.

Congress initially provided STEP appropriations for two years: $30 million in FY2011 and $30 million in FY2012. Congress did not fund the program in FY2013. Congress provided STEP $8.0 million in FY2014, $17.4 million in FY2015, $18.0 million in each of FY2016 through FY2019, $19.0 million in FY2020, $19.5 million in FY2021, and $20 million in FY2022 (see Table 1).

The SBA awarded 51 STEP awards in FY2011, 52 in FY2012, 24 in FY2014, 40 in FY2015, 44 in FY2016 and FY2017, 47 in FY2018, 41 in FY2019, 48 in FY2020, and 29 in FY2021.²⁷

The SBA is authorized to competitively award STEP grants to the 50 states, District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands.²⁸ In most cases, the SBA provides 75% of total project costs and states provide 25% of the sum of the federal award and the recipient match amount (33.3%). However, for the top three states in value of exports as determined by the U.S. Census Bureau's export data (California, Texas, and New York), the SBA provides 65% of total project costs and these states provide 35% of the sum of the federal award and the recipient match amount (53.8%).²⁹

STEP awards are currently for two years, a base year and an option year. The option year is at the SBA's discretion, but is routinely awarded "after taking into consideration satisfactory performance and use of prior year funding."³⁰ STEP grant amounts range from a minimum of $100,000 each in the base and option year to a maximum of $900,000 each in the base and option year. In addition, the 10 states "with the highest number of small business exporters" as determined by DOC's latest data available may not receive more than 40% of available funds. In FY2020, these states were California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas.³¹

STEP's objective is to assist eligible "small business concerns" with exporting.³² Specifically, STEP is designed to increase (1) the number of small business concerns that export, (2) the dollar value of exports, and (3) the number of small businesses exploring significant new trade opportunities.³³ STEP awards may be used for

• foreign trade mission participation;
• foreign market sales trips;
• DOC subscription services;
• website fees foreign language translations, foreign market localizations, and search engine optimizations;
• international marketing media designs;
• trade show exhibitions;
• training workshop participation;
• reverse trade missions that bring foreign buyers to the United States to meet with potential suppliers of U.S. manufactured goods and services; and
• other export initiatives as determined by the AA for SBA's OIT.³⁴

The SBA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) audited the STEP program for overall management and effectiveness during the program's initial year of operations (FY2011).³⁵ The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 required the SBA to report to Congress "the effect of each grant on exports" in the state receiving the grant. The OIG emphasized that the SBA did not establish baselines to measure changes in a state's small business exporters or exports and that the program's performance goals were not specific and results-oriented.³⁶ The OIG also found that some states focused on goals that did not directly increase the number of small business exporters or the export volume of existing small business exporters. Following SBA's comments on the study, OIG determined that SBA management was responsive to nearly all issues raised in the report as SBA prepared its FY2012 round of STEP awards.³⁷

Recent STEP Legislation

As mentioned, the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-125) renamed the STEP program as the "State Trade Expansion Program." The act also reformed some of the program's procedures.³⁸ For example, the act authorized the Associate Administrator (AA) for International Trade to give priority to STEP proposals from states that have a relatively small share of small businesses that export or would assist rural, women-owned, and socially and economically disadvantaged small businesses and small business concerns.

During the 116^th Congress, H.R. 6133, the Step Improvement Act of 2020, would have required the SBA to conduct an annual survey to solicit feedback on the program and to collect data on certain performance metrics such as the (1) total number of small businesses assisted by the program, (2) total dollar amount of export sales by participating small businesses, and (3) number of small businesses that have created new jobs through their participation in the program.

Also, P.L. 116-136, the CARES Act, among other provisions, authorized the SBA to reimburse STEP award recipients for financial losses related to a foreign trade mission or trade show exhibition that was cancelled solely due to a public health emergency declared due to COVID-19 if the reimbursement does not exceed the recipient's grant funding. The act also authorized the SBA to use amounts made available for STEP in FY2018 or FY2019 through the end of FY2021.

In addition, the House-passed version of the Build Back Better Act (H.R. 5376) would provide $31.71 million in FY2023 and in FY2024, with each appropriation to remain available until September 30, 2027, for additional STEP grants.³⁹

Issues for Congress

This section of the report introduces three policy issues for consideration as Congress looks to the future size and scope of SBA's export promotion activities: (1) are there barriers to exporting or market failures impeding smaller firms from international trade? (2) is there a compelling interest for the government to promote exports in the name of national trade competitiveness? and (3) are SBA's export promotion policies duplicative of other federal programs? These issues will likely be framed by the rising concerns about fiscal responsibility and sustained economic recovery.

Small Business Barriers to Exporting and Possible Market Failures

Proponents of federal support for small business exports argue that small businesses face inherent barriers to participating in international trade. Some of the commonly cited barriers in academic literature include

• insufficient capacity to export,
• not enough information or lack of awareness of services available,
• logistical difficulties in international distribution,
• challenges in export marketing,
• difficulties in obtaining export financing,
• no perceived demand abroad,
• bureaucratic processes and regulations (i.e., red-tape), and
• no desire to export.⁴⁰

Restricted access to credit is also indicative of a barrier to small business exports. A survey of the empirical literature suggests that access to finance and the cost of credit not only pose barriers to small business trade financing in many countries (including the United States) but also constrain small businesses more than large firms.⁴¹ Smaller firms often find it difficult to obtain commercial bank financing (especially long-term loans) for a number of reasons, including lack of collateral, difficulties in proving creditworthiness, inadequate credit history, small cash flows, higher risk premiums, underdeveloped bank-borrower relationships, and high transaction costs.

In general, economic theory suggests export promotion programs increase economic inefficiencies and reduce national welfare. Specifically, economic theory indicates that in most instances firms and workers will locate to the most efficient and productive areas to do business in the long run, without the assistance of government policy. From this perspective, government policies, such as export promotion programs, that create incentives to engage in one form of economic activity, potentially at the expense of another, result in net social loss of economic efficiency because finite resources are not being used to produce their maximum output for the lowest cost.⁴² Economic theory indicates that these policies create a distortion in the market, such that resources are directed from an area of higher productivity to an area of lower productivity.

At the same time, most economists believe that some government assistance could be justified in the presence of a market failure, in which the market is unable to efficiently allocate resources on its own. If there is indeed a market failure, then there could be an economic basis for small business export promotion programs (assuming the costs of these programs were less than the aggregate increase in economic activity).

Although studies indicate that smaller firms face barriers to exporting, many of these conditions are not necessarily indicative of a market failure. Higher risk profiles for small exporters could be justified by their higher rates of failure and compounded by their ability to absorb risks associated with international transactions (e.g., currency fluctuations, transportation costs). Incomplete information among small businesses concerning the benefits of internationalization and how to internationalize their business could be indicative of a market failure, though, particularly if more information could allow small businesses to operate more efficiently and increase competition.

Small Business Exports and U.S. Trade "Competitiveness"

There has been an ongoing debate among economists and business experts about the theoretical basis linking trade competitiveness to economic outcomes. Most economic policy experts agree that the major determinant of economic growth is domestic productivity growth (e.g., net increases in investment, labor supply, or technology that allows for a more efficient use of capital or labor). However, other experts are divided concerning the merits of encouraging the development of sectors that produce tradable goods and services as a means to improve net exports, increase jobs, and encourage productivity growth.

Proponents of national trade competitiveness theory believe individual countries have a compelling policy interest to increase the real (inflation-adjusted) income of their citizens, often through promoting growth in specific, tradable sectors.⁴³ Supporters of trade competitiveness theory are largely focused on strategies that guide individual businesses in the marketplace.⁴⁴ These firm-level strategies are then applied to the national level to inform public policy. Specifically, government policy can either reduce a business's profit (e.g., through national regulations) or increase a business's bottom line (e.g., by subsidizing production) such that domestic firms in the near term can have a greater financial profit in a head-to-head "competition" with their international competitors. Loss of competitiveness, these advocates claim, will lead to the loss of American jobs, the movement of U.S. business operations overseas, and reduced investment by foreign businesses in the United States, among other outcomes.

Some view a strong network of small businesses as being critical for U.S. economic competitiveness in the international market. In part, this notion comes from the belief that small businesses are the primary source of job creation in the United States and that access to international markets could further increase the number of jobs created by small businesses. In a related argument, proponents of small business exports say that small businesses are critical for innovative, international supply chains. For example, in an article for the Washington Post, then-SBA Administrator Karen Mills described small businesses' supply chain networks with larger firms and small businesses' innovations in production as being important in the promotion of U.S. international economic competitiveness.⁴⁵

In contrast, economic theory generally does not support international competitiveness as a national policy goal. A 1994 article by economist Paul Krugman provides an argument against trade competitiveness theory based on the economic theory of comparative advantage.⁴⁶ In summary, Krugman argues that firms might compete with one another, but countries trade with each other. To support this statement, Krugman says that firms go out of business when they fail to compete in the marketplace, but countries do not. When a country fails to be competitive in a particular industry, national resources (e.g., capital, labor) are then used toward production in a different industry. Krugman argues that this process allows for a more efficient allocation of resources because countries are guided by market signals to specialize in the industry in which they possess a comparative advantage instead of using government resources to provide incentives for economic activity in an industry in which they are relatively less efficient in production. In summary, Krugman reaffirms traditional economic theories that contend that government policies that promote employment in certain sectors redirect employment from other sectors and that productivity gain (in the form of higher wages) for workers in the higher-valued industries is passed along to other workers in the form of higher prices (and lower productivity).⁴⁷

Even if other countries are providing government incentives for their national small businesses to export, some economists would still say that Krugman's thesis holds. According to this logic, the United States should not engage in policies that lead to an inefficient allocation of resources and net loss in national welfare because its trading partners do so. Others expand upon Krugman's theoretical reasoning by arguing that the drive for national competitiveness, relative to another country, could be used to justify trade protectionism, restrict capital or labor mobility, increase unemployment by sending political signals of support for certain industries, or engage in "beggar-thy-neighbor" policies of international retaliation that consume national resources.⁴⁸

Duplication of Services

In the past, Congress has passed legislation to increase export promotion programs targeting small business across various federal agencies. For example, Congress has increased minimum percentage targets of the Export-Import Bank's (Ex-Im's) aggregate loan, guarantee, and insurance authority for financing exports by small businesses over the past 30 years.⁴⁹ The Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-438) required the president of Ex-Im to establish and maintain a Small Business Division. As previously mentioned, Congress elevated the goal of export promotion within SBA when it established an associate administrator to head the OIT in the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-240).

More recently, though, the possible overlap and duplication of services across federal agencies that support export promotion programs for small business has become a concern for some Members of Congress. These concerns are largely driven by desires for more efficient delivery of government services, reductions in spending, and elimination of duplicative programs.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has identified overlap of services between SBA's export promotion activities and other federal agencies. GAO has compared SBA's programs with those at Ex-Im and various parts of DOC.⁵⁰ Particularly, GAO noted that SBDCs and Commerce provide some similar one-on-one counseling services to small businesses and that SBA and Ex-Im offer overlapping loan guaranty programs through similar lending institutions. SBA and Commerce responded to these claims by saying that each agency tends to target different audiences by specializing in areas in which it has more experience. For example, Commerce works more with existing small business exporters to expand their range of products and services to more markets, whereas SBA works more with small businesses that are looking to begin exporting.

After interviewing government officials and private-sector representatives, a 2013 GAO report concluded that overlap in services led to confusion for some small businesses. SBA and Commerce noted that both agencies have begun to clarify counseling roles and responsibilities through an interagency communiqué.⁵¹ GAO recommended that SBA consult with Ex-Im and Commerce more closely to provide specific guidance regarding the agencies' export promotion counseling to small business and to identify ways to share client information. SBA has been responsive to some of GAO's concerns, but it has noted that legislation generally prevents SBA from sharing specific client information outside of the agency without prior consent.⁵² GAO also recommended that SBA and Ex-Im may be able to explore options to harmonize export financing products and assist lenders in more easily adapting to the rules for both agencies' products. In any case, co-location of some of these services (in the form of U.S. Export Assistance Centers) could help to reduce the burdens on small businesses in obtaining comprehensive export counseling assistance.

Improving export program efficiencies has been the focus of several recent bills and could also become a larger issue if Congress grants the President the authority to reorganize certain business- and trade-related offices (and entire agencies) across the federal government under a single agency. In his FY2015 budget recommendation, President Obama included SBA as one agency whose trade-related functions could be consolidated under a single agency for trade promotion.⁵³ In the 112^th Congress, the Reforming and Consolidating Government Act of 2012 (S. 2129) would have provided the President with much of this authority.

In the 113^th Congress, several bills were introduced to help small businesses exporters, including the following:

• The Export Coordination Act of 2013 (H.R. 1909) would have helped to clarify the role of each federal agency in each part of the export process. More specifically, the bill would have revised the duties of the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC) and expanded its membership, and it would have required the Secretary of Commerce to make available more information on trade missions, trade fairs, and related activities.
• The TRADE (Transparent Rules Allow Direct Exporting) for Small Businesses and Jobs Act (H.R. 1916) would have assisted small businesses in increasing their exports and entering new markets by helping companies better understand foreign regulations and directing trade agencies to monitor and collect up-to-date information on changes to tariff and nontariff laws, regulations, and practices and to display this information in a clear and easy-to-read format.⁵⁴
• The Small Business Export Growth Act (S. 1179) would have encouraged greater coordination between state and federal resources by creating a working group on the TPCC to streamline efforts among state and federal export promotion and assistance agencies, identify opportunities to consolidate unnecessary government offices, and require SBA to conduct greater export outreach to small businesses.
• The State Trade Coordination Act of 2013 (H.R. 1926) would have required increased representation and integration of state trade programs into federal trade promotion programs and established information sharing and reporting metrics between the states and the federal government.

In the 114^th Congress, P.L. 114-125 enacted provisions that were similar to versions of the bills from the 113^th Congress, above, or subsequent versions of those bills introduced in the 114^th Congress. In particular, Sections 504 and 505 of P.L. 114-125 contained provisions that are intended to increase coordination of federal export promotion programs, reform the Export.gov web portal to be more accessible to small business exporters, integrate state trade programs into federal trade programs, and clarify the role of the TPCC in promoting state and federal export promotion programs. Both the SBA's AA for International Trade and the Secretary of Commerce have various roles in these trade promotion reforms, and the act mandates that these agencies produce plans for carrying out the reforms as well as a set of reporting metrics. These deliverables to Congress could inform the debate about small business trade promotion policy in the 117^th Congress, and be possibly subject to congressional oversight hearings.