.

Economic Development Administration:
Reauthorization and Funding Issues in the
112th Congress
Eugene Boyd
Analyst in Federalism and Economic Development Policy
January 9, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41162
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008

---

.
EDA: Reauthorization and Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

Summary
The primary focus of the Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration
(EDA) is to help regions experiencing long-term economic distress or sudden economic
dislocation attract private-sector capital and create higher-skill, higher-wage jobs through
investments in public infrastructure, the provision of technical assistance and research, and the
development and implementation of Comprehensive Economic Development Strategies (CEDS).
EDA was created with the passage of the Public Works and Economic Development Act
(PWEDA) of 1965, P.L. 89-136 (79 Stat. 552, 42 U.S.C. §3121).
The 112th Congress may consider legislation to reauthorize and amend PWEDA, whose statutory
authority expired on September 30, 2008. As part of those deliberations, Congress may consider a
number of changes in the structure of EDA assistance programs. At least one bill, S. 782, the
Economic Development Revitalization Act, has been reported by a congressional committee. The
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works reported the bill on May 2, 2011. The bill
includes several provisions intended to encourage regional and interagency cooperation, expand
the role of regional Economic Development Districts, and modify the factors used to determine
the federal share of EDA-funded projects and activities. The bill also includes proposals that
would address a number of programmatic concerns raised by grant recipients, including
provisions that would
• grant eligible entities, including EDDs, administering revolving loan funds (RLF)
greater flexibility in the management and conversion of RLF assets for other
EDA-eligible activities; and
• change the current requirements governing the transfer of federal interest in
EDA-financed construction projects in an effort to encourage local flexibility in
the use of EDA funds.
The Senate began consideration of S. 782 on June 8, 2011. For six days—over a two-week period
that ended on June 21, 2011—the Senate debated the bill. In an effort to end debate and bring the
bill to a floor vote, a cloture motion was filed on June 16, 2011. Successful adoption of the
cloture motion would have limited time for debate on the bill, prohibited consideration of non-
germane amendments, and allowed the Senate to vote on passage of S. 782. On June 21, 2011, the
chamber rejected the cloture motion, 49-51. Currently, the bill has been set aside and may be
considered at a future date in the 112th Congress.
The reauthorization of EDA and its programs will take place within the context of more
prominent policy debates regarding efforts to reduce federal spending to address growing budget
deficits and the national debt; concerns about the duplication, fragmentation, and effectiveness of
federal economic development assistance; and efforts to support economic recovery and job
creation following the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. The Obama
Administration has requested $325 million for EDA activities, including salaries and expenses,
for FY2012. On November 14, 2011, House and Senate conferees reported (H.Rept. 112-284)
H.R. 2112. The bill was approved by both houses on November 17, 2011, and signed into law, as
P.L. 112-55, by the President on November 18, 2011. P.L. 112-55 appropriates $457.5 million in
EDA assistance and salaries and expenses, including $200 million in supplemental disaster
assistance for states and communities in presidentially-declared disaster areas. This report will be
updated as events warrant.
Congressional Research Service

---

.
EDA: Reauthorization and Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
Program Reauthorization Issues ...................................................................................................... 2
RLF Management Accountability and Asset Conversion.......................................................... 3
Relative Needs Thresholds and Federal-Local Cost Share Requirements................................. 4
Federal Interest in Real Property Assets.................................................................................... 6
Legislative Activity in the 112th Congress ....................................................................................... 7
S. 782, the Economic Development Revitalization Act of 2011 ............................................... 7
Economic Distress: Unemployment, Per-Capita Income, and Outmigration...................... 8
Adjustment of Federal Cost Share Contribution to EDA Projects .................................... 10
Exceptions to the Cost Share Schedule ............................................................................. 11
Administration and Conversion of EDA Revolving Loan Funds...................................... 11
RLF Brightfield Demonstration Projects .......................................................................... 12
Termination of Federal Interest in EDA-Financed Construction Projects ........................ 12
Support for Economic Development Districts .................................................................. 13
Regional and Interagency Cooperation and Coordination ................................................ 14
Duplication of Mission of Other Federal Programs .......................................................... 14
Multiyear Authorization for EDA ..................................................................................... 15
Consideration of S. 782 in the Senate ............................................................................... 15
FY2012 Appropriations for EDA ............................................................................................ 16
Administration Request..................................................................................................... 16
House Action..................................................................................................................... 17
Senate Action .................................................................................................................... 17
Final Action, P.L. 112-55................................................................................................... 18

Figures
Figure 1. Counties (Shaded) with Unemployment Rates at Least One Percentage Point
Above the National Average, March 2009- April 2011, or With Per Capita Income 80%
or Less than the National Average ................................................................................................ 9

Tables
Table 1. EDA Maximum Federal Match (Investment Rates) Based on Relative Needs of a
Region as Measured by Criteria Established under 13 C.F.R. §301.4.......................................... 5
Table 2. Federal Matching Fund Requirements for Special Projects............................................... 6
Table 3. EDA Federal Cost Shares in S. 782 ................................................................................. 11
Table 4. EDA Programs and Salaries and Expenses: FY2012 Appropriations.............................. 19

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 19
Congressional Research Service

---

.
EDA: Reauthorization and Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

Introduction
The 112th Congress may consider legislation to fund, reauthorize, and amend the Public Works
and Economic Development Act (PWEDA) of 1965, P.L. 89-136 (79 Stat. 552, 42 U.S.C. §3121).
It will do so within the context of the more prominent policy debates regarding efforts to reduce
federal spending to address growing budget deficits and the national debt; concerns about the
duplication, fragmentation, and effectiveness of federal economic development assistance; and
efforts to support economic recovery and job creation following the worst economic recession
since the Great Depression.
The PWEDA, whose statutory authority expired at the end of September 2008, authorized the
creation of the Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration (EDA).
EDA’s primary focus is to help regions experiencing long-term economic distress or sudden
economic dislocation through grants in public infrastructure, the provision of technical assistance
and research, and the development and implementation of comprehensive economic development
strategies.
EDA funds are competitively awarded to states and local governments, colleges and universities,
Economic Development Districts,1 multi-jurisdictional planning organizations established by the
states, and nonprofit organizations created under applicable state statutes. EDA assistance
programs include the following grants.
• Public Works grants are used to finance infrastructure-related activities that
support job creation, including, but not limited to, water and sewer facilities,
industrial parks and business centers, broadband facilities, port and rail
improvements, and business incubator facilities.
• Economic Adjustment Assistance (EAA) grants are used to fund strategic
planning and implementation activities, including the same activities eligible
under Public Works grants. Assistance may also be used to capitalize Revolving

1 An Economic Development District (EDD) is defined in 13 C.F.R. §300.3 as follows: “Economic Development
District or District or EDD means any Region in the United States designated by EDA as an Economic Development
District under §304.1 of this chapter (or such regulation as was previously in effect before the effective date of this
section) and also includes any economic development district designated as such under §403 of PWEDA, as in effect
on February 10, 1999.” EDDs are designated in 13 C.F.R. §304.1 as follows: “Designation of Economic Development
Districts: Regional eligibility. Upon the request of a District Organization (as defined in §304.2), EDA may designate a
Region as an Economic Development District if such Region: (a) Contains at least one (1) geographic area that is
subject to the economic distress criteria set forth in §301.3(a)(1) of this chapter and is identified in an approved CEDS
[Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy]; (b) Is of sufficient size or population and contains sufficient
resources to foster economic development on a scale involving more than a single geographic area subject to the
economic distress criteria set forth in §301.3(a)(1) of this chapter; (c) Has an EDA-approved CEDS that (1) Meets the
requirements under §303.7 of this chapter; (2) Contains a specific program for intra-District cooperation, self-help, and
public investment; and (3) Is approved by each affected State and by the Assistant Secretary; (d) Obtains commitments
from at least a majority of the counties or other areas within the proposed District, as determined by EDA, to support
the economic development activities of the District; and (e) Obtains the concurrence with the designation request from
the State (or States) in which the proposed District will be wholly or partially located.” Finally, economic distress is
defined in 13 C.F.R. §301.3(a)(1) as follows: “(i) An unemployment rate that is, for the most recent twenty-four (24)
month period for which data are available, at least one (1) percentage point greater than the national average
unemployment rate; (ii) Per-capita income that is, for the most recent period for which data are available, eighty (80)
percent or less of the national average per-capita income; or (iii) A Special Need, as determined by EDA.”
Congressional Research Service
1

---

.
EDA: Reauthorization and Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

Loan Funds (RLFs) targeted to assist businesses in areas experiencing sudden
economic dislocation.
• Planning grants are used for direct and indirect administrative expenses of
Economic Development Districts (EDDs) and Indian tribes or other organizations
charged with formulating and implementing Comprehensive Economic
Development Strategies (CEDS) in EDA-designated distressed areas.
• Technical Assistance grants provide management and technical services,
including conducting feasibility studies for projects located in distressed areas.
• Research and Evaluation grants support research into the practices, principles,
and innovations that guide the effective formulation and implementation of
economic development strategies.
• Trade Adjustment Assistance grants support technical assistance to firms and
communities adversely affected by international trade, to help recipients develop
and implement recovery strategies.
• Climate Change Mitigation grants are used to support projects that promote
energy efficiency and curb greenhouse emissions in economically distressed
communities.
The agency has six regional offices whose primary responsibility is to review requests for EDA
funding by state, provide technical assistance, and administer EDA grants.2
Program Reauthorization Issues
As Congress debates legislation to reauthorize and appropriate funding for the programs of EDA,
it may consider questions such as the following:
• Should grantees administering Revolving Loan Funds (RLFs) be granted greater
flexibility in the management and conversion of RLF assets for other EDA-
eligible activities?
• Should Congress modify the current federal-local cost share thresholds based on
factors intended to measure relative need in order to provide additional assistance
to the most distressed areas?
• Should Congress change the current requirements governing the transfer of
federal interest in EDA-financed construction projects in an effort to encourage
local flexibility in the use of EDA funds?
• Should Congress expand the role of the regional Economic Development
Districts beyond the planning function of developing Comprehensive Economic
Development Strategies?
• Should Congress mandate greater cooperation and coordination across federal
agencies and with state and local governments and other entities involved in
economic development?

2 For a list of the six regional offices see http://www.eda.gov/AboutEDA/Regions.xml.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

.
EDA: Reauthorization and Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

RLF Management Accountability and Asset Conversion
A grantee awarded an EAA grant—as part of its Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
(CEDS)—may use the assistance to capitalize an RLF. An RLF, which requires a matching
contribution from the grantee, allows the grantee to award low-interest loans to businesses that
can demonstrate that they are unable to obtain bank financing. Loan repayments by qualified
businesses to an RLF are used to cover administrative costs of the program and to recapitalize the
RLF in order to make additional loans. Local administrators of RLFs are required to operate the
funds in perpetuity as long as there is a federal interest in assets of the RLF. However, RLFs may
be terminated for cause by EDA. According to EDA, in FY2009, 458 recipient organizations
administered 578 RLFs with total capital assets of $852 million.3 This amount is approximately
three times the size of the EDA total appropriation for FY2010 and represents a significant source
of funding for the recipient organizations.
EDA’s RLF program has not been without controversy, including issues of inadequate monitoring
and reporting. In March 2007, the Department of Commerce’s Office of Inspector General (OIG)
released an audit report that was critical of EDA’s administration of RLFs. The report noted the
following:
EDA (1) failed to ensure efficient capital utilization by RLF grantees, (2) did not ensure
grantee compliance with critical reporting requirements, (3) does not have an adequate
tracking and oversight system, and (4) does not utilize single audit reports to improve
grantee monitoring.4
The report also noted that much of the RLF information available to EDA that would allow it to
administer the program effectively was incomplete or inaccurate. The OIG recommended that
EDA take the following actions:
• develop a plan of action to address the problems in the program;
• require EDA regional staff to provide written evaluations of appropriate capital
utilization percentages for all RLFs with a capital base exceeding $4 million;
• develop policies and procedures that will promote a uniform approach to
sequestering excess cash;
• consistently collect and evaluate grantee financial reports; and
• develop and implement a database and reporting requirements that will allow
EDA to monitor RLF programs effectively.
On January 27, 2010, EDA published in the Federal Register final rules intended to address the
unresolved issues discussed in the OIG report.5 The revised regulations noted that EDA had

3 U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration, “About the RLF Program: How it Works,”
http://www.eda.gov/PDF/RLFWorks.pdf.
4 U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Inspector General, Economic Development Administration: Aggressive
EDA Leadership and Oversight Needed to Correct Persistent Problems in RLF Program, Audit Report No. OA-18200-
7-0001, Washington, DC, March 2007, http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/reports/2007/EDA-OA-18200-03-2007.pdf.
5 U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration, “Revisions of EDA Regulations, Final
Rule,” 75 Federal Register 4259, January 27, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

.
EDA: Reauthorization and Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

developed a web-based reporting system allowing grantees the option of uploading or manually
entering data into the system. The agency also:
• revised its semi-annual reporting forms to allow it to monitor program
performance more closely, including identifying RLFs with high loan default
rates;
• identified specific violations of policies that would cause EDA to suspend or
terminate an RLF program, in an effort to encourage grantees to comply with
program reporting requirements; and
• required each grantee administering an RLF to hire an independent third party to
conduct a compliance and loan quality review of its RLF every three years.
Although EDA has moved to address many of the management concerns identified in the OIG
report, other issues may require congressional action. Of particular concern to local
administrators of RLF programs is the permanent federal nature of RLFs, which they find too
restrictive. Local administrators would like the flexibility of using RLFs to cover the costs of
other EDA-eligible activities. This view was articulated during May 21, 2009, testimony before
the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works by a representative of the National
Association of Development Organizations (NADO),6 who complained that the permanent federal
nature of RLFs inhibits local flexibility and requires RLF grantees to comply with “costly
reporting and audit requirements.”7 The NADO representative recommended that the committee,
when amending the PWEDA, consider provisions that would allow EDA-capitalized RLFs to
relinquish their federal identity after initial funds have been loaned, repaid, and fully revolved.
The economic development analyst argued that this would reduce EDA’s management burden and
allow local grantees greater flexibility in the use of funds than federal regulations currently allow.
It might be argued, however, that recent regulatory changes allow grantees more flexibility. For
example, current regulations allow RLF administrators to use repayments to RLFs to cover the
cost of administrative expenses, including a compliance audit that must be conducted every three
years by a qualified independent third party. In addition, according to EDA, the new streamlined
web-based reporting system eliminates duplication and will “reduce the average paperwork
burden per RLF [semi-annual] report on the RLF recipient from 12 hours to 2.9 hours.”8
Relative Needs Thresholds and Federal-Local Cost Share
Requirements
Currently, the statute governing EDA assistance limits the federal contribution for an EDA-
financed project to no more than 50% of a project’s total cost when the project is located in an
area whose unemployment rate for the latest 24-month period is at least one percentage point

6 NADO is a national organization representing the interest of the nation’s 525 regional development organizations. It
provides advocacy, training, research, and education to and on behalf of its members; see http://www.nado.org/
index.htm.
7 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, National Association of Development
Organizations, written statement of Leanne Mazer, Executive Director of the Tri-County Council for Western
Maryland, 111th Cong., 1st sess., May 9, 2009, p. 3, http://www.nado.org/legaffair/mazereda.pdf.
8 U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration, “Revisions to the EDA Regulations,” 73
Federal Register 62861, October 22, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

.
EDA: Reauthorization and Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

above the national average or whose per-capita income for the latest 24-month period is not more
than 80% of the national average.
Table 1. EDA Maximum Federal Match (Investment Rates) Based on Relative Needs
of a Region as Measured by Criteria Established under 13 C.F.R. §301.4
Maximum allowable federal
investment rates
Projects located in regions in which
(% of a project’s cost)
(A) The 24-month unemployment rate is at least 225% of the
80
national average; or
(B) The per-capita income is not more than 50% of the national
80
average
(C) The 24-month unemployment rate is at least 200% of the
70
national average; or
(D) The per-capita income is not more than 60% of the national
70
average
(E) The 24-month unemployment rate is at least 175% of the
60
national average; or
(F) The per-capita income is not more than 65% of the national
60
average
(G) The 24-month unemployment rate is at least 1 percentage point
50
greater than the national average; or
(H) The per-capita income is not more than 80% of the national
50
average
Source: 13 C.F.R. §301.4.
A community that successfully competes for EDA funds, having met the minimum
unemployment and per-capita income thresholds for eligibility, is required to provide 50% of the
cost of a project from non-EDA funds. For a community whose unemployment rate exceeds or
whose per-capita income falls below the minimum eligibility thresholds for EDA assistance, EDA
may provide additional (supplemental) grants to reduce the community’s 50% cost-share
obligation, resulting in an increase (of up to 30%) in the percentage of a project’s cost covered by
EDA. As directed by the statute, EDA has developed and established in regulations9 a set of
thresholds intended to measure an applicant’s relative need for the purpose of identifying the
maximum amount of a project’s cost EDA will cover by awarding a supplemental grant. EDA’s
cost-share thresholds are based on the extent to which an applicant’s unemployment rate or per-
capita income exceeds the national average (see Table 1).
It might be argued that the thresholds for receiving a higher federal cost share are arbitrary and
artificially high, with the result that few areas qualify for the maximum percentage of EDA
supplemental assistance. For example, of the approximately 750 areas that received grants from
EDA in FY2008, fewer than 100 counties were eligible for the 80% federal cost share. A
provision included in S. 782 would establish in statute lower eligibility thresholds for EDA
supplemental grants. The new thresholds would be a return to those in place before 2006, when
EDA issued final rules governing assistance programs.

9 13 C.F.R. §301.4.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

.
EDA: Reauthorization and Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

In addition, for Indian tribes, presidentially declared disaster areas, and areas where the state or
local governments have exhausted their taxing and borrowing powers, EDA may assume the total
cost of a project (see Table 2).
Table 2. Federal Matching Fund Requirements for Special Projects
Maximum allowable
investment rates
Projects
(percentage)
Projects for Indian tribes
100
For presidentially declared disasters, Economic Adjustment Assistance
100
sought under a supplemental appropriation within 18 months of the date
of the disaster declaration
Projects of states or local governments that EDA has determined have
100
exhausted their taxing and borrowing powers
Public works and economic adjustment assistance projects that have
100
received performance awards
Projects located in an EDD that receive planning performance awards
100
Source: 13 C.F.R. §301.4.
Federal Interest in Real Property Assets
Under current law, EDA retains an interest in property financed and constructed with EDA Public
Works and Economic Adjustment Assistance funds for a period of at least 20 years after the initial
date the EDA grant was awarded.10 EDA may retain its interest in the property for the useful life
of the property, which may extend beyond the 20-year minimum period.11 If an EDA-financed
property is to be sold prior to the expiration of its useful life, the recipient of EDA funds must
repay EDA the full federal interest in the project, based on the current fair market value.12
Recipients of Public Works grants have been critical of the provisions governing the repayment of
the federal interest in EDA-financed projects before the expiration of their useful life. In an effort
to enhance local flexibility, EDA supports:
• changes in the law that would reduce the time horizon before EDA-financed
assets could be sold; and
• changes in the method used to calculate the repayment of EDA interest upon
resale.13
Provisions to reflect these recommendations were included in S. 782, The Economic
Development Revitalization Act of 2011, and are discussed in the next section of this report.

10 42 U.S.C. §3211(d)(2).
11 13 C.F.R. §314.10.
12 If EDA assistance accounted for 50% of the cost of the project and the current fair market value of the property is $1
million when sold, the federal share of the proceeds from the sale is $500,000.
13 U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration, Top 5 Reasons Economic Development
Administration (EDA) Should be Reauthorized for 5 Years, http://www.eda.gov/PDF/
EDAReauthorizationCollateralPiece.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

.
EDA: Reauthorization and Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

Legislative Activity in the 112th Congress
On May 2, 2011, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, reported S. 782, the
Economic Development Revitalization Act of 2011. The bill would reauthorize and amend the
Public Works and Economic Development Act (PWEDA) of 1965.14 S. 782, discussed below,
would addressed issues identified in the previous section of this report, including those relating to
eligibility factors, federal cost shares, the use of RLFs, and the conversion of the federal interest
in EDA projects.
S. 782, the Economic Development Revitalization Act of 2011
S. 782 was introduced on January 10, 2011, by Senator Boxer, Chair of the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works, with the support of the Committee’s ranking Member, Senator
Inhofe. The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works considered, marked up, and
approved, by voice vote, an amended version of the bill on April 14, 2011. The bill includes an
amendment introduced by Senator Inhofe, and approved by voice vote, that would require the
General Accountability Office (GAO) to identify and submit to the Committee within 90 days of
passage of the act, other federal programs that duplicate EDA program activities. The bill was
reported on May 2, 2011 (S.Rept. 112-15), and placed on the Senate calendar.
In general, the bill proposes some significant modifications to existing provisions of the PWEDA
while including technical changes and minor modifications to other provisions. Most of the
substantive changes to existing law proposed by the bill are intended to increase local flexibility
in the use of EDA assistance. In addition to recognizing business incubators as a key strategy for
developing high-skill, high-wage jobs, and fostering regional cooperation through the planning
process, the bill proposes to:
• add outmigration and job losses in specific industry sectors (manufacturing and
information technology) to the definition of economic distress;
• adjust the relative need measures used to calculate the federal-local cost share of
EDA-financed projects;
• allow greater flexibility in the conversion and management of EAA financed
RLFs;
• modify the rules governing the transfer or buyout of the federal interest in
property financed with EDA Public Works or Economic Adjustment Assistance;
• target assistance to communities with the greatest need as measured by economic
distressed;
• encourage regional and interagency cooperation in carrying out economic
development strategies; and

14 A similar bill, S. 2778, the Economic Revitalization Act of 2009, was introduced and reported for Senate
consideration during the 111th Congress. On November 18, 2009, the Senate committee approved S. 2778 by voice
vote, adopting an amendment on behalf of Senator Warner to “in-source”—or promote bringing information
technology jobs from other countries to the United States. The bill, as amended, was reported on January 20, 2010
(S.Rept. 111-114), and placed on the Senate calendar. It was not considered by the full Senate.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

.
EDA: Reauthorization and Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

• authorize $500 million in funding for each of the next five fiscal years for EDA
activities, including an annual minimum allocation for planning assistance grants.
Economic Distress: Unemployment, Per-Capita Income, and Outmigration
In general, areas that have a 24-month unemployment rate that is at least one percentage point
above the national average, or a per-capita income that is not more than 80% of the national
average, might qualify to apply for EDA’s competitively awarded public works or economic
adjustment assistance grants. In addition, assistance under these two grant programs, EDA’s
largest sources of assistance to distressed areas, is also available to areas that EDA has
determined have or is about to experience a “special need” arising from actual or threatened
severe unemployment or economic dislocation.15 Because of these broad parameters for
eligibility, many counties may meet or exceed EDA’s economic distress thresholds.16 According
to a study by Rutgers University,
[c]hanges in the criteria for designating areas eligible for EDA assistance have increased the
number of economically distressed areas over time [....] Unemployment adds little to the
designation of economic distress; nearly 90 percent of qualifying counties qualify on the
basis of income alone. Locations that qualify on the basis of unemployment are more likely
to be urban areas; rural areas qualify on the basis of income.17
Figure 1 identifies all U.S. counties that currently qualify for EDA development assistance based
on an unemployment rate at least one percentage point above the national average for the 24-
month period from April 2009 to March 2011 (the latest period for which data is available) or per
capita income of 80% or less than the national average.

15 42 U.S.C. §3161.
16 Meeting the economic distress requirements is not sufficient to receive an EDA grant. Areas that qualify as
economically distressed must then apply for a competitive EDA grant. If they are successful, they may receive a
minimum 50% federal cost share for the EDA project. As economic distress increases—measured by per-capita income
and unemployment—areas may receive a 60%, 70%, or 80% federal cost share. This discussion specifically refers to
the areas that qualify for the minimum 50% in federal cost share.
17 Robert Lake, Robin Leichenko, and Amy Glasmeier et al., EDA and U.S. Economic Distress: 1965-2000, Rutgers
University, New Brunswick, NJ, July 2004, p. 13, http://www.eda.gov/PDF/
2004JulyEDAandU.S.EconomicDistressReport.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

.
EDA: Reauthorization and Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

Figure 1. Counties (Shaded) with Unemployment Rates at Least One Percentage
Point Above the National Average, March 2009- April 2011, or With Per Capita
Income 80% or Less than the National Average
Economic distress was concentrated in the industrial Midwest, Southeast, upper Northeast Border, the
West, Alaska, and Puerto Rico.


Figure Sources: 2009 Per Capita Income, Bureau of Economic Analysis; 24-Month Average Unemployment
Rates, April 2009–March 2011, Bureau of Labor Statistics. The EDA map is updated quarterly. Last update
5/6/2011. Map available at http://hepgis.fhwa.dot.gov/hepgis_v2/GeneralInfo/Map.aspx.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/lau/maps/twmcort.gif.



Congressional Research Service
9

---

.
EDA: Reauthorization and Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

The bill, S. 782, includes a provision that would authorize EDA to extend Economic Adjustment
Assistance (EAA) grants to communities affected by the loss of information technology,
manufacturing, natural-resource based, agricultural, or service sector jobs to be used to assist
affected communities reinvesting in and diversifying their economies. In addition to the loss of
jobs in these sectors, communities may qualify for EAA grants if they are affected by
international trade, fishery failure, disaster or emergencies, military base closures, realignments
or Department of Energy or Department of Defense-related funding reductions.
The inclusion of additional factors for “economic distress” follows a pattern that has allowed
more areas in the country to become eligible for EDA assistance over the years, even as funding
for the agency has declined. When EDA was first authorized in the mid-1960s, only counties that
had an income not more than 40% of the national income level were eligible. By 1998, this figure
had increased to not more than 80% of the national income level (or an unemployment rate at
least one percentage point higher than the 24-month unemployment rate for the nation, or a
“special need”). According to the previously cited Rutgers University study,
[t]he number of EDA’s designated areas grew in response to both political and economic
realities over the life of the agency, and particularly in the early 1970s. Areas of short-term
unemployment were added between 1965 and 1971. New legislative mandates also expanded
the types of counties that could be assisted. In 1970, 983 areas qualified for EDA assistance;
by 1973, that number had nearly doubled to 1,818 areas [....] By 1998, approximately 90
percent of the counties in each year studied qualified.18
Adjustment of Federal Cost Share Contribution to EDA Projects
The statute governing EDA assistance limits the federal contribution to an eligible project or
activity’s cost and in most instance require a local matching share. S. 782 would adjust the
federal-local cost share requirements for EDA projects based on unemployment and per-capita
income levels.19 The bill would restore the federal cost share rates in place before regulations
promulgated in 2006. As established in program regulations, the federal share of a project’s cost
can run from 50% to 80%, based on where the area’s long-term unemployment rate or per-capita
income falls relative to the respective national average.20 As Table 3 shows, areas with 24-month
unemployment rates 200% higher than the national average or those whose per-capita incomes
are 50% of the national average would be subject to the 80% federal and 20% local matching
fund requirement. Conversely, projects in areas with unemployment rates at least one percentage
point above the national average or whose per-capita incomes are not more than 80% of the
national average would continue to be (as at present) subject to a 50% federal–50% local match
requirement.
S. 782 would include EDA cost-share rates in law (rather than in regulation) and would lower
some of the unemployment and per-capita income thresholds currently in place. The bill would

18 Robert Lake, Robin Leichenko, and Amy Glasmeier et al., EDA and U.S. Economic Distress: 1965-2000, Rutgers
University, New Brunswick, NJ, July 2004, p. 13, http://www.eda.gov/PDF/
2004JulyEDAandU.S.EconomicDistressReport.pdf.
19 U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration, “13 CRR Chapter III, Economic
Development Administration Reauthorization Act of 2004 Implementation, Regulatory Revision; Final Rule,” 71
Federal Register 56657, September 27, 2006.
20 13 C.F.R. §301.4.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

.
EDA: Reauthorization and Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

establish several federal cost-share levels. Four of the levels would determine federal-local cost
shares based on long-term unemployment or per-capita income data (See Table 3).
Table 3. EDA Federal Cost Shares in S. 782
24-Month average
Per-capita income does not
unemployment rate at least
exceed
Federal cost share
1 percentage point above national
80% of national average
50%
average
150% of national average
70% of national average
60%
175% of national average
60% of national average
70%
200% of national average
50% of national average
80%
Source: Section 8 of S. 782.
Note: The bill includes a provision to allow, but not mandate, that EDA develop criteria that would permit EDA
funds to be used to cover 80% of the federal cost share of a project in an area affected by severe outmigration,
sudden and severe economic dislocation, or other economic circumstances.
Exceptions to the Cost Share Schedule
The bill includes exceptions to the cost share schedule outlined in Table 3. S. 782 includes
language that would allow EDA to establish additional eligibility criteria for areas impacted by or
experiencing outmigration or sudden and severe economic dislocation, or other condition;
however, the federal share of EDA assistance awarded to projects in such areas could not exceed
80% of project cost.
Additional Criteria- The Secretary may establish eligibility criteria in addition to the criteria
described in this paragraph to address areas impacted by severe outmigration, sudden and
severe economic dislocations, and other economic circumstances, on the condition that a
Federal share established for such eligibility criteria shall not exceed 80 percent.... Section
503(a) of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3193(a)) is
amended by inserting “outmigration” after “regional unemployment.” (S. 782)
Another provision would change current statutory language governing Indian tribes. S. 782 would
allow EDA to cover between 75% to 100% of the total cost of the project, whereas currently EDA
finances 100% of the project cost undertaken by Indian tribes. Also, for a federally declared
disaster area, EDA could increase the federal share of a project’s cost up to 100%. Other existing
statutory language includes exceptions that allow EDA to cover 100% of a project or activity’s
cost if EDA determines the a state or local government lacks the taxing or borrowing capacity to
cover its share of a project or activity’s cost. The provision also applies to an eligible nonprofit
entity that lack the borrowing capacity to cover its share of a project’s cost.21
Administration and Conversion of EDA Revolving Loan Funds
S. 782 would grant administrators of RLFs the flexibility to convert the assets of RLFs to other
uses. The bill identifies the methods and requirements for conversions, and the conditions under

21 42 U.S.C. §3144.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

.
EDA: Reauthorization and Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

which this could occur. Specifically, the recipient/administrator of an RLF would be allowed to
seek EDA’s permission to convert RLF assistance to other uses on the following grounds:
• the recipient has determined that RLF assistance is no longer needed to achieve
the goals outlined in its comprehensive economic development strategy; or
• given the current economic development needs of the recipient, it could make
better use of the RLF if it were allowed to carry out other activities eligible for
EDA assistance.
S. 782 would allow RLF conversions by one of two means. The administrator of an RLF would
be allowed to sell the assets of the RLF to a third party and use the proceeds to carry out other
PWEDA-eligible activities, or could retain repayments to the RLF in accordance with a strategic
reuse plan rather than relend them.
The changes are sought as a means of helping underfunded EDDs, one of the primary
administrators of RLFs, access additional resources to address budget shortfalls. In addition, the
bill would allow EDA to set aside 2% of the amounts made available for RLFs to develop and
maintain an automated tracking and monitoring system and would direct EDA to solicit input
from the public, RLF grantees, national experts, and federal employees, to improve the
administration of RLFs. This provision is consistent with recommendations included in the 2007
OIG report.22
RLF Brightfield Demonstration Projects
S. 782 includes a provision authorizing an appropriation of $5 million for each of the fiscal years
2011 through 2015 to be used to fund Brightfield Demonstration projects. This program was
previously authorized by the EDA Reauthorization Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-373, 118 Stat. 1756),
but funds were never appropriated. Under S. 782, EDA would allocate funds to projects that
would redevelop brownfield sites to house new ventures for creating jobs through the
advancement of renewable energy technologies, including solar, wind, and geothermal
technologies.23 In addition, the bill includes a provision that directs EDA to support economic
development activities that enhance energy and water efficiencies and that would reduce the
country’s dependence on foreign oil.
Termination of Federal Interest in EDA-Financed Construction Projects
The bill would shorten the period during which EDA could hold a reversionary interest in
property financed with EDA assistance from the current minimum 20 years to 10 years from the
date the grant was awarded.24 It would require EDA—before providing assistance for a

22 U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Inspector General, Economic Development Administration: Aggressive
EDA Leadership and Oversight Needed to Correct Persistent Problems in RLF Program, Audit Report No. OA-18200-
7-0001, Washington, DC, March 2007, pp. 14-15, http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/reports/2007/EDA-OA-18200-03-
2007.pdf.
23 Brownfields are abandoned or underused industrial or commercial sites where future reuse is affected by real or
perceived environmental contamination.
24 Reversionary rights allow EDA to protect its interest in property acquired or improved with EDA funds. Currently,
EDA’s interest in the property is dissolved upon completion of the term of 20 years or the useful life of the property,
which may extend beyond the minimum 20 years established by EDA.
Congressional Research Service
12

---

.
EDA: Reauthorization and Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

construction project—to establish a time frame for the achievement of the project’s economic
development objectives. During that period, EDA would hold an undivided equitable reversionary
interest in the property. S. 782 outlines the methods and conditions under which federal interest in
a property could be terminated.
One provision of the bill would allow EDA to terminate the federal reversionary interest in a
project if the recipient met its obligations and objectives within the time frame established when
the project was first funded. Alternatively, a recipient could initiate a request that EDA terminate
reversionary interest in a property.
• If this request is submitted during the 10-year period starting with date the
assistance was initially provided, the recipient must repay EDA 100% of the fair
market value of the prorated federal share of the project.25
• If the request is submitted after the initial 10-year period, a recipient must pay
EDA the fair market value of the federal share of the project as if that value had
been amortized over a period established for completion of the project, which
might be more than 10 years, based on straight-line depreciation of the project
over its estimated useful life.26 Under this provision, the cost to the recipient of
buying out the federal interest in the property would be discounted based on the
remaining useful life of the EDA-assisted property.
S. 782 would establish 10 years as the minimum period an EDA-assisted property must be held
without the EDA recipient being required to repay 100% of the federal interest in the property.
Support for Economic Development Districts
To support the planning and economic development activities of Economic Development
Districts (EDDs), S. 782 would establish a minimum appropriation of $31 million or 12% of the
amount appropriated for EDD activities for each of the fiscal years 2011 through FY2015. This
amount would increase if EDA received appropriations equal to or greater than $291 million. In
addition, S. 782 would strengthen the role of EDDs. The bill specifies that EDDs are to be
involved in the full range of EDA-funded activities, including coordination of activities related to
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategies (CEDS),27 and implementation activities

25 For example, if the initial project cost of a project was $100,000 and EDA’s share of that cost was 50%, then EDA’s
prorated share would be $50,000. Five years later, if the fair market value of the property assisted by EDA was
$10,000, EDA’s share would be $5,000. This is the amount EDA would be due should the recipient wish to terminate
EDA’s interest in the property.
26 For example, if the initial project cost of a project was $100,000 and EDA’s share of that cost was 50%, then EDA’s
prorated share would be $50,000. Twelve years later, if the fair market value of the property assisted by EDA was
$150,000. EDA’s share would be $75,000. Under the proposed statute, this amount would be discounted based on the
straight-line depreciation schedule (SL) calculated over the useful life (UL) of the property as established by EDA. For
example, if the EDA-established useful life of the property is 20 years, the straight-line depreciation would be
calculated as follows: SL = FMV/UL. EDA’s share of the SL would be $3,750 for each of the 20 years of the UL of the
property. Under this example, because the recipient is seeking to terminate the federal interest in the 12th year, the
repayment (REPAY) to EDA would be calculated as follows: REPAY = FMV - (SL * 12). The repayment to EDA
would be $30,000: REPAY = $75,000 – (3,750 * 12).
27 CEDS are the primary planning document for regions designated as EDDs. The governing and administrative bodies
of these organization are charged with developing and implementing these EDA approved strategic plans. EDA
requires an area seeking EDA public works and economic adjustment assistance grants have an EDA-approved CEDS
EDA provide eligible entities, including EDDs, grant assistance to develop the CEDs planning document and to defray
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
13

---

.
EDA: Reauthorization and Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

involving states and federal agencies, as well as research and planning activities. The bill would
require EDA promulgate regulations to ensure that EDDs arees given an opportunity to review
and comment on proposed EDA-funded projects that might directly impact he region’s economy.
Regional and Interagency Cooperation and Coordination
The legislation seeks to promote intergovernmental and interagency cooperation and coordination
in the development and implementation of regional economic development activities. It would
amend Section 3(8) of the PWEDA by recognizing three new regional commissions in addition to
the four that are currently established. Newly proposed for inclusion are the Southeast Crescent
Regional Commission, Northern Border Regional Commission, and Southwest Border Regional
Commission.28 Inclusion of these organizations would allow them to be eligible for EDA
assistance, including technical assistance grants. In addition, the bill would amend Section 101 of
the PWEDA to include university centers and EDDs as recipients of EDA technical assistance
grants. These grants may be used to encourage the formation of public-private partnerships in
support of regional economic development. Supporters of including regional commissions in
EDA legislation argue that it promotes greater regional and federal cooperation. Detractors,
however, might counter that overlap exists between the work of regional commissions and EDA,
which could lead to duplication and dilution of EDA’s programs.
The bill includes a provision that directs EDA and the Department of Labor to cooperate in
support of economic and workforce development strategies and regional clusters. The provision
also includes language encouraging EDA cooperation and coordination with other federal, state,
local government, and consortia of local governments. In addition, in order to encourage regional
coordination between two or more EDDs, the bill would allow EDA to increase the federal share
of EDA of planning assistance grants or the of total amount of planning grant assistance. The bill
would expand the type of activities eligible for research and technical assistance grants to include
the creation of peer exchange programs intended to promote industry leading practices and
innovations, including those related to regional initiatives of EDDs.
Duplication of Mission of Other Federal Programs
The bill includes a provision requiring the General Accountability Office (GAO) to submit to the
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, within 90 days following the enactment of
the bill, a list of other federal programs that may duplicate the programs administered by EDA,
including programs administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the
Department of Agriculture, and the Small Business Administration. During testimony before the
House Small Business Administration, a representative of GAO stated that the agency had
identified 80 programs administered by the four agencies (HUD, SBA, DOC, and USDA) that
may overlap or duplicate efforts.29 Concerns about duplication and fragmentation among federal

(...continued)
administrative cost.
28 Federally chartered multi-state regional organizations currently included in the stature are the Appalachian Regional
Commission (ARC), Delta Regional Authority, Denali Commission, and Northern Great Plains Regional Authority.
29 U.S. Congress, House Small Business Committee, Economic Development: Efficiency and Effectiveness of
Fragmented Programs Are Unclear, Statement of William B. Shear, Director of Financial Markets and Community
Investment, General Accountability Office, 112th Cong., 1st sess., May 25, 2011, GAO-11-651T, p. 1.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

.
EDA: Reauthorization and Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

assistance programs has become a growing concern as Congress has expressed the desire to
reduce federal spending in an effort to address the federal budget deficits.
Multiyear Authorization for EDA
The bill would establish a multiyear funding level of appropriations for EDA. A total of $500
million would have been authorized for each fiscal year through FY2014. In addition, the
legislation would authorize the use of technical assistance and research grants to support program
evaluation and economic analysis that may be useful in assisting in the location of technology and
manufacturing jobs in the United States or that may aid in understanding, preventing, alleviating,
or mitigating conditions that contribute to unemployment or outmigration.
Consideration of S. 782 in the Senate
The Senate began consideration of S. 782 on June 8, 2011. For six days—over a two-week period
that ended on June 21, 2011—the Senate debated the bill.30 A cloture motion was filed on June
16, 2011. Successful adoption of the cloture motion would have limited time for debate on the
bill, prohibited consideration of non-germane amendments, and allowed the Senate to vote on
passage of S. 782.31 On June 21, 2011, the chamber rejected the cloture motion, 49-51.32 The bill
has been set aside and may be considered at a future date in the 112th Congress. The effort to
adopt a cloture motion was intended to stop what Senator Boxer, floor manager of the bill,
considered the filibustering of the legislation.33 Opponents, such as Senator Coburn, raised
objections about EDA and its programs, including their effectiveness in creating private sector
jobs, and whether they were redundant given other federal programs.34
During Senate consideration of the bill a total of 99 amendments were filed. The majority of these
amendments were not relevant to the underlying legislation—the Public Works and Economic
Development Act of 1965—and were not considered by the Senate during floor debate on S. 782.
Several amendments relevant to the underlying legislation, PWEDA, were introduced during
floor debate on S. 782, including proposed amendments that called for:
• terminating EDA and its programs (S. Amdts. 403 and 449);
• eliminating EDA’s Brightfield Demonstration Program and the Global Climate
Change Mitigation Incentive Fund (S.Amdt. 436);
• reducing the federal cost share for EDA projects (S. Amdt. 447);

30 The Senate considered the bill on June 8, June 9, June 14, June 15, June 16, and June 21, 2011.
31 For additional information on the Senate cloture procedure, see CRS Report 98-425, Invoking Cloture in the Senate,
by Christopher M. Davis and CRS Report RL30360, Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate, by Richard S. Beth, Valerie
Heitshusen, and Betsy Palmer.
32 “Economic Development Reauthorization Act of 2011,” Senate debate, Congressional Record, June 21, 2011, pp.
S3962-S3964.
33 Sen. Barbara Boxer, “Economic Development Revitalization Bill,” Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 157
(June 16, 2011), pp. S3874 - S3875.
34 Sen. Tom Coburn, “Economic Development Revitalization Act ,” Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 157
(June 2011), p. S3647.
Congressional Research Service
15

---

.
EDA: Reauthorization and Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

• transferring EDA functions to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (S.Amdt. 448); and
• eliminating funding for all EDA programs except Economic Adjustment
Assistance (EAA) and authorizing an annual appropriation of $150 million for
EAA activities (S. Admt. 452).
Although these and other relevant amendments were introduced, none were considered and voted
on during Senate debate on S. 782.
In addition to EDA-related amendments a number of non-germane amendments to S. 782 were
introduced and considered. The subject of these amendments included proposals to improve the
regulatory process for small businesses (S.Amdt. 390); to reform electronic debit card
transactions (S.Amdt. 392); to prohibit the use of federal funds for ethanol blender pumps and
facilities (S. Amdt. 782); and to repeal the volumetric ethanol excise tax credit (S.Amdt. 476). Of
the 99 amendments proposed for inclusion in S. 782 only S. 476 was agreed to by a vote of 73
to 27.
S. 782 proposes to amend and reauthorize EDA and its programs at a funding level of $500
million for each of the fiscal years from 2011 through 2015. This level of funding is 50% more
than the $325 million requested by the Obama Administration for FY2012 budget and 76% more
than the $283 million appropriated for EDA for FY2011. Although supportive of EDA and its
programs, the Obama Administration, in its Statement of Administration Policy on S. 782,
objected to the proposed authorization levels and noted that “… the bill would authorize spending
levels higher than those requested by the President’s Budget, and the Administration believes that
the need for smart investments that help America win the future must be balanced with the need
to control spending and reduce the deficit.”35
FY2012 Appropriations for EDA
Administration Request
The Administration’s FY2012 request of $324.9 million for EDA, including salaries and
expenses, represented a 14.6% increase from the FY2011-enacted funding level of $283.4
million, which included $245.5 million for EDA program activities and $37.9 million for salaries
and expenses.36 The FY2012 request would have provided $40.6 million for the salaries and
expenses account and $284.3 million for Economic Development Assistance Programs. The
programs and their requested funding levels included:
• $96.0 million for the 21st Century Innovation Infrastructure program (the
proposed successor to the long-standing EDA Public Works program);
• $84.9 million for the Economic Adjustment Assistance program;

35 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Administration Policy, S. 782 –
Economic Development Revitalization Act of 2011, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, June 7, 2011,
p. 1, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saps782s_20110607.pdf.
36 The FY2011 amounts for EDA programs and salaries and expenses reflect the 0.2% across-the-board rescission
mandated by the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, P.L. 112-10.
Congressional Research Service
16

---

.
EDA: Reauthorization and Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

• $27.0 million for the Partnership Planning Grants Program (the proposed
successor to the EDA Planning program);
• $18.4 million for Technical Assistance;
• $1.5 million for Research and Evaluation;
• $16.5 million for Sustainable Economic Development (proposed successor to the
Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund); and
• $40.0 million for the new Regional Innovation (Growth Zones) Program
established under the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 111-358).
The Administration did not request funding for the Trade Adjustment Assistance programs.
House Action
On July 20, 2011, the House Committee on Appropriations reported (H. Rept. 112-169) H.R.
2596, a bill recommending FY2012 spending levels for the Departments of Commerce and
Justice, and Science and Related Agencies. The House Committee on Appropriations’
recommendation for EDA was 20.7% less than the Administration’s FY2012 request and 9.1%
less than the FY2011-enacted amount. The committee recommended $219.8 million for
Economic Development Assistance Programs, which was $25.7 million below the FY2011-
enacted amount and $64.5 million below the Administration’s request. The committee
recommended $37.9 million for EDA salaries and expenses, which was the same as the FY2011
amount and $2.7 million below the Administration’s request. See Table 4 for a detailed review of
EDA FY2012 funding requests, recommendations, and final appropriations.
Senate Action
The Senate Committee on Appropriations reported S. 1572, its version of the Department of
Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Appropriations Act of FY2012, on September
15, 2011. The bill recommended an appropriation of $392.2 million, including $37.2 million for
salaries and expenses and $135 million for disaster recovery activities targeted to areas included
in 2011 presidential disaster declarations.37 Excluding the $135 million recommended for disaster
recovery activities, the Senate bill recommended $257.2 million for other EDA activities.
Because Congress did not complete action on FY2012 appropriations before the end of FY2011,
short term funding for EDA programs was included in P.L. 112-36, a continuing budget resolution
that expired on November 18, 2011. In an effort to expedite consideration of several
appropriations measures before the expiration of P.L. 112-10, the Senate consolidated three
appropriations measures into a single legislative bill, H.R. 2112.38 The so-called “Minibus” was
approved by the Senate on November 1, 2011.

37 The Senate would later increase its recommended funding level for EDA disaster assistance to $500 million during
its consideration of H.R. 2112, a bill consolidating three appropriations measures into a so-call minibus.
38 On October 13, 2011, Senator Inouye submitted an amendment (S.Amdt. 738) to H.R. 2112, the Agriculture, Farm
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The amendment, which was approved on October 21, 2011, consolidated the
provisions of: the Senate version of H.R. 2112 with: (1) the .Departments of Transportation, Housing and Urban
Development, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act of FY2012, S. 1596; and (2) Commerce, Justice, Science, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act of FY2012, S. 1572.
Congressional Research Service
17

---

.
EDA: Reauthorization and Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2112 recommended $757.2 million for EDA in FY2012,
including $37.2 million for EDA salaries and expenses. The bill, as passed by the Senate, also
included $500.0 million for disaster recovery activities targeted to areas included in 2011
presidential disaster declarations. This was a substantial increase from the $135 million initially
recommended by the Senate Appropriations Committee. During its consideration of the bill, the
Senate passed by voice vote, on October 21, 2011, an amendment (S. Admt. 836) proposed by
Senator Lautenberg that would have increased EDA disaster assistance funding by an additional
$365 million to $500 million. The amendment exempted the additional $365.0 million in EDA
disaster assistance from the sequestration process outlined in the Budget Control Act of 2011.
Excluding the $500.0 million for disaster activities, the Senate recommended $257.2 million for
EDA activities and salaries and expenses. This amount was $500,000 less than the $257.7 million
recommended by the House Committee on Appropriations, $67.8 million less than the $324.9
million requested by the President, and $26.3 million less than the $283.4 million enacted for
FY2011. The bill recommended $20.0 million in support of the Administration’s Regional
Innovation Program, which was $20.0 million less than requested by the Administration. The
House did not include a recommended FY2012 appropriation for this program.
Final Action, P.L. 112-55
On November 14, 2011, House and Senate conferees reported H.R. 2112 (H. Rept. 112-284). The
bill was approved by both houses on November 17, 2011, and signed into law by the President on
November 18, 2011 (P.L. 112-55). P.L. 112-55 appropriates $457.5 million in EDA assistance and
salaries and expenses, including $200 million in supplemental disaster assistance for states and
communities in presidentially-declared disaster areas, and $37.5 million for EDA salaries and
expenses. The act also appropriates $220 million for EDA assistance programs, including $111.6
million for public works projects, $50 million for economic adjustment assistance activities, and
$29 million for planning grants.
The act includes several set asides within the economic adjustment assistance subaccount.
Specifically, the act directs EDA to allocate up to $5.0 million for each of these activities:
• $5.0 million in support of the repatriation of jobs of small to mid-size U.S.
companies, particularly those involved in manufacturing, research, or services;
• $5.0 million in credit subsidies in support of loan guarantees to small or medium-
size manufacturers involved in the use of or production of innovative
technologies; and
• $5.0 million in grants or loan guarantee credit subsidies in support of the creation
of regional innovation clusters.
The act limits the loan guarantee commitments for innovative technologies and regional clusters
to no more than $70.0 million. The conference report accompanying the act directs EDA to
commission a review of the University Centers program funded under the Technical Assistance
subaccount; directs EDA to focus trade adjustment assistance on manufacturers impacted by
trade; and encourages EDA to use a portion of funds allocated for regional innovation program
activities in support of science parks.
Congressional Research Service
18

---

.
EDA: Reauthorization and Funding Issues in the 112th Congress

Table 4. EDA Programs and Salaries and Expenses: FY2012 Appropriations
(in millions of dollars)
House
FY2012
Committee
Senate-
FY2012

Request
Reported
Passed
Enacted
Public Works
$96.0
$123.3
$91.0
$111.6
Economic Adjustment Assistance
84.9
38.6
48.7
50.1a
Planning
Grants
27.0 31.0 31.0 29.0
Technical
Assistance
18.4 9.8 12.0 12.0
Research
and
Evaluation
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Global Climate Change Mitigation
16.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
Regional Innovation
40.0
0.0
20.0
b
Trade Adjustment Assistance
0.0
15.8
15.8
15.8
Sub-total

284.3 220.0 220.0 220.0
Salaries and Expenses
40.6
37.9
37.2
37.5
Disasters Relief Assistance
0.0
0.0
500.0c 200.0
Total
324.9 257.9 757.2 457.5
Source: FY2012-requested amounts and House committee-reported amounts were taken from H. Rept. 112-
169. Senate-passed amounts were taken from S.Rept. 112-78. FY2012-enacted amounts were taken from H.Rept.
112-284.
a. Includes set asides for following activities: $5.0 million for loan guarantees in support of innovative
technologies used or developed by small and mid-size businesses, and $5.0 million for loan guarantees and
grants to support regional innovation program activities.
b. Administration had requested a separate appropriation for Regional Innovation Program activities. Loan
guarantees will be funded under the Economic Adjustment Assistance program.
c. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2112 recommended a total appropriation $500.0 million for EDA
disaster activities, which was designated as being for disaster relief pursuant to Section 251(b)(2)(D) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.


Author Contact Information

Eugene Boyd

Analyst in Federalism and Economic Development
Policy
eboyd@crs.loc.gov, 7-8689


Congressional Research Service
19

---