U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

48–412 PDF 2009

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 

ADMINISTRATION 

REAUTHORIZATION: RATING PAST 

PERFORMANCE AND SETTING 

GOALS 

DURING AN ECONOMIC CRISIS 

(111–12) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 10, 2009 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia, Chairwoman 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania, 

Vice Chair 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Clark, Robert, Executive Director, Northern Maine Development Commission 42 

Coleman, Denny, President and CEO, St. Louis County Economic Council 

and Secretary-Treasurer of the Board, International Economic Development 

Council .................................................................................................................. 31 

Dekle, Carolyn, Executive Director, South Florida Regional Planning Council . 42 

Juon, Sharon, Executive Director, Iowa Northland Regional Council of Governments and President, National Association of Development Organizations ....................................................................................................................... 31

Molnar, Lawrence A., Director, Economic Development Administration University Program, University of Michigan ........................................................... 42 

Sallet, Jonathan, Former Assistant to the Secretary and Director, Office 

of Policy and Strategic Planning, U.S. Department of Commerce ................... 42 

Sastry, Srikant, Partner, Grant Thornton, LLP ................................................... 25 

Walters, Sandra R., Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic 

Development, Economic Development Administration, accompanied by Dennis Alvord, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic 

Development, Economic Development Administration ..................................... 7 

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 53 

Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, of the District of Columbia ................................. 54 

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 58 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Clark, Robert ............................................................................................................ 61 

Coleman, Denny ....................................................................................................... 70 

Dekle, Carolyn ......................................................................................................... 85 

Juon, Sharon ............................................................................................................ 89 

Molnar, Lawrence A. ............................................................................................... 112 

Sallet, Jonathan ....................................................................................................... 120 

Sastry, Srikant ......................................................................................................... 132 

Walters, Sandra R. .................................................................................................. 137 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Clark, Robert, Executive Director, Northern Maine Development Commission, 

responses to questions from the Subcommittee ................................................. 66 

Juon, Sharon, Executive Director, Iowa Northland Regional Council of Governments and President, National Association of Development Organizations, responses to questions from the Subcommittee ...................................... 102 

Molnar, Lawrence A., Director, Economic Development Administration University Program, University of Michigan, responses to questions from the 

Subcommittee ....................................................................................................... 116 

Sallet, Jonathan, Former Assistant to the Secretary and Director, Office 

of Policy and Strategic Planning, U.S. Department of Commerce, responses 

to questions from the Subcommittee .................................................................. 128 

Sastry, Srikant, Partner, Grant Thornton, LLP, responses to questions from 

the Subcommittee ................................................................................................. 134 

Page

VI 

Walters, Sandra R., Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic 

Development, Economic Development Administration, accompanied by Dennis Alvord, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic 

Development, Economic Development Administration, responses to questions from the Subcommittee .............................................................................. 143 

vii 


Insert offset folio 1 here 48412.001
viii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 48412.002
ix 


Insert offset folio 3 here 48412.003
x 


Insert offset folio 4 here 48412.004
(1) 

HEARING ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION REAUTHORIZATION: RATING 

PAST PERFORMANCE AND SETTING GOALS 

DURING AN ECONOMIC CRISIS 

Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC

BUILDINGS AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:17 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Eleanor 

Holmes Norton [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Ms. NORTON. Welcome all, especially today’s distinguished witnesses. We look forward to their important testimony as we consider the reauthorization of the Economic Development Administration. 

This Subcommittee has jurisdiction over the authorization and 

oversight of programs promoting economic development in communities suffering long-term economic distress, including jurisdiction 

over the EDA which is part of the Department of Commerce. 

The Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, which 

created EDA, authorizes partnerships between the federal government and state and local development entities to alleviate substantial and persistent unemployment in economically distressed areas 

and regions. 

One of the most important goals in national economic development activities is to enhance community success in attracting private capital investment and good job opportunities. The work of the 

Economic Development Administration is a small but highly visible 

part of Federal efforts to enhance economic opportunity nationwide 

by increasing the overall productivity of economically distressed 

and poor communities and their share of the Country’s general 

prosperity. 

EDA’s primary operation is a public works grant program designed to aid economically distressed communities by developing 

infrastructure in order to attract new industry that will create 

long-term private sector jobs. Projects funded through the program 

include the construction of access roads, port improvements, business incubator buildings and water and sewer facilities. 

It is no coincidence that President Barack Obama chose economic 

development, that is to say not economic development but infrastructure development as the primary engine for job creation in the 

2 

recently passed stimulus bill. Data from across the spectrum of 

economists and the EDA’s own work confirm that public infrastructure building is more effective in stimulating the economy than any 

form of public expenditure during economic downturn. 

EDA was created to address issues of poverty, high unemployment, and geographic isolation by identifying distressed counties 

and setting aside the bulk of investment dollars to ameliorate these 

drastic conditions. Distressed counties, generally, under the EDA 

standard definition, have an unemployment rate of 1 percent greater than national average for the most recent 24-month period or 

per capita income of 80 percent or less than the national average. 

The Federal government, acting in partnership with States, private 

businesses and localities, has shown that persistent and substantial poverty can be reduced and eliminated. 

An important part of EDA’s efforts are grants for public works 

and development facilities and access to technical assistance and 

planning grants. The Subcommittee is particularly interested in 

the revolving loan fund and its ability to assist local development 

authorities. The revolving loan fund finances investments that capitalize an intermediary to make loans to local businesses that otherwise could not access commercial credit. 

Many regions across the Country continue to experience high 

poverty, areas of significantly higher than average unemployment 

rates, limited access to capital, low per capita income, and high job 

loss regardless of the state of the national economy. Consequently, 

in the 110th Congress, we reauthorized two economic development 

commissions and created three more. The five commissions are the 

Delta Regional Commission, the Northern Great Plains Regional 

Commission, the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, the 

Southwest Border Regional Commission and the Northern Border 

Regional Commission. 

These areas are among many which have expressed a desire to 

create regional economic development commissions similar to the 

structure of the Appalachian Regional Commission to provide additional funding for projects that stimulate regional economic development and to promote the character and industries of the region 

without supplanting existing institutions and programs that provide funding such as EDA, State agencies and local development 

organizations. 

In today’s troubled and uncertain economic times for the entire 

Country, the nuts and bolts of economic development for undeveloped areas take on vast importance. Job deficiencies reduce the tax 

base which, in turn, reduces the ability of governments to provide 

public infrastructure, which then reduces the ability to create and 

attract jobs and new industries. Thus, the circle must be broken, 

and the Economic Development Administration does indeed this 

cycle. It has a solid track record in leveraging public investment 

into private development. 

A recent independent report by Grant Thornton and ASR Analytics found the EDA’s public works program generates up to 5 jobs 

per $10,000 of public investment. This metric covers a wide variety 

of projects. 

One of the more common investment examples was an EDA investment of $560,000 to build sewer, water, transportation and 

3 

fiber optic/broadband infrastructure in an industrial park in 

Okemah, Oklahoma in order to induce a private corporation to locate there. This project has already created approximately 110 jobs 

and is expected to produce at least 40 more in private investment. 

An example from a big city was the EDA investment of $4.5 million in the Apollo Theater in Harlem, New York, the historic cultural anchor of the Harlem community. Though the investment 

produced only 28 jobs, less than 6/10th per $10,000, it played an 

outsized role in the revival of Harlem’s major commercial strip, 

125th Street. 

Recently, EDA also provided funding to help preserve one of the 

most historic structures in the District of Columbia when the Eastern Market, one of the oldest markets in the United States, was 

damaged by fire, causing significant loss of economic activity and 

an institution that has defined the entire Capitol Hill residential 

community for more than a century. 

EDA has approved funds for brownfields redeveloped as industrial parks, funds for an upgrade of a city’s wastewater system to 

make it suitable for agricultural production facilities and funds for 

buildings with the infrastructure to support high-tech companies 

and many other types of cutting-edge development. 

With this hearing, and after four decades of EDA’s work in job 

creation, the Subcommittee is in a position to analyze the Federal 

role, the extent of the building and sustaining of the relationships 

at the State and local levels and, importantly, with businesses, citizens and civic organizations as well and to consider the increasing 

necessity of focusing on metropolitan as well as rural areas and retaining the public trust with special emphasis on economic development results. 

We also will examine existing grant programs for economic adjustment assistance, research and evaluation and technical assistance. We will scrutinize how funding decisions are made and how 

past funding decisions reflect the efficiency of the agency. 

This morning, we are very pleased to hear from experts with 

deep experience with EDA, who can help the Subcommittee assure 

that the agency performs at peak levels during this time of economic uncertainty. 

I am very pleased to ask the Ranking Member, Mr. Diaz-Balart, 

if he has any opening remarks. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you. Let me first start by thanking you, 

Madam Chairwoman, for holding this important hearing today on 

the Economic Development Administration and its reauthorization. 

I also want to welcome all our witnesses that are here today, including a couple dear friends of mine, Carolyn Dekle who is the Executive Director of the South Florida Regional Planning Council. 

We have known each other for a few years. We would rather not 

talk about how long. 

With her is Isabel Cosio Carballo, who I affectionately know as 

Chintu. We won’t go into why. 

Anyway, thank you all for being here and all the witnesses. 

In 2000, the EDA granted the South Florida Regional Planning 

Council the authority to operate a revolving loan fund to create 

jobs and to strengthen the economic base of South Florida, and I 

4 

look forward to hearing your testimony today. I actually do know 

what you have been doing. 

The EDA, as we all know, was established in 1965. At that time, 

Congress recognized that there were areas in our Country that 

were experiencing chronic high unemployment and out-migration, 

low per capita incomes, et cetera. 

In addition, Congress also recognized that there were communities impacted by sudden and severe economic dislocations because of closing plants and natural disasters, for example. So the 

EDA was created to help spur jobs and growth in those economically distressed areas of the Country in which Federal funding 

could be a catalyst in attracting private sector investment, and that 

is key, attracting private sector investment. 

Today, unfortunately, economically distressed communities are 

still prevalent, and they continue to be there. Continuing strategic 

investment is particularly important today when you look at the 

economic climate that we are living in. So the EDA programs obviously are intended to provide a balanced approach in the use of 

Federal dollars. 

These programs effectively leverage Federal dollars to encourage 

investments by the private sector and to help local communities. 

Often, EDA funds help a local community fill in the gap needed for 

economic development projects become a reality. Without that 

money, a lot of times, those projects would not take place. 

For example, in fiscal year 2007, EDA investments under its 

public works assistance program, revolving loan fund program and 

the construction and disaster recovery components of the Economic 

Adjustment Assistance programs totaled $209 million and were expected to create or retain 52,000, actually, 52,134 jobs, to be exact. 

In addition, the EDA investments that year created or retained American jobs on an average cost of $4,000 per job, and the EDA 

leveraged over $26 in private sector capital investment for every 

taxpayer dollar that was invested. 

Now contrast those numbers that I just told you, that I just read, 

with a return on investment expected from the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act that Congress recently passed. Taking the 

Administration’s best estimates, their own numbers, the $787 billion appropriated in the so-called stimulus bill will create or save 

3 to 4 million jobs. That is a cost of nearly $200,000 per job as opposed to $4,000, which is what we had talked about a little while 

ago. 

The EDA grants, on the other hand, maximize each Federal dollar spent and create lasting investment in communities. They 

spark job growth and lay down the foundation for economic investment in distressed communities. 

EDA grants have assisted communities devastated by natural 

disasters including, for example, the area of Homestead in South 

Florida, which I have the privilege and the honor of representing. 

Those grants facilitated private sector investment and helped to 

create or retain more than 700 jobs, and the results are there for 

everyone to see. 

In 2004, President Bush signed into law the Economic Development Administration Reauthorization Act of 2004 which reauthorized the EDA’s economic development assistance programs through 

5 

September of last year. Now legislation to reauthorize these programs was not enacted last year, and the programs were extended 

through a continuing resolution, a CR. In addition, $150 million was included for EDA in the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

EDA has managed to do much with very, very little, with relatively little. As we move through these challenging times, it will 

be crucial, absolutely crucial, that EDA has the funding and authority it needs to help distressed communities in our Nation. 

I hope that we will be able to move forward on reauthorization, 

and I thank the Chairwoman once again for this hearing. I hope 

we can strengthen this important program, and I look forward to 

working with the Chairwoman on this important issue. 

I thank the witnesses once again for coming here to speak to us, 

and I am looking forward to this hearing. 

I thank you again, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Diaz-Balart. 

Are there members who have statements? 

Ms. Markey of Colorado. 

Ms. MARKEY. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. 

As a Representative of rural Colorado, I have heard a lot about 

the problems facing these communities in today’s tough economic 

times. Having said this, I am pleased to read that the Grant 

Thornton study of the EDA concluded that when the EDA invests 

in a rural area the investment has a strategically significant impact on employment levels. 

I know that the EDA has done a lot of work in Colorado and that 

the City of Pueblo in my colleague, John Salazar’s district won the 

Excellence in Economic Development Award for 2006. 

The EDA has an important and noble mission in assisting both 

rural and urban economically distressed areas. I commend the EDA 

for its work, especially in my own State, and look forward to discussing its reauthorization and working with them in Colorado’s 

Fourth Congressional District. 

Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. If there is no one on the other side, Mr. Arcuri. 

Mr. ARCURI. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to thank you 

for holding this hearing, and I look forward to working with all my 

colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reauthorize the EDA bill 

this year. 

Specifically, I hope that this reauthorization will provide assistance to counties and municipalities that want to study ways to 

streamline local government, recapitalize EDA revolving loan funds 

and maintain EDA’s current bottom-up approach to economic development. 

I think what makes EDA programs so successful, and the revolving loan fund in particular, is that the projects that receive funding 

are conceived at the local level. This ensures the projects that receive funding are the highest priority of the local government. 

Along those lines, local economic development must be approached from the standpoint of getting the most out of scarce 

funding resources, consolidation and shared services can play a key 

role in making local governments more efficient and should not be 

dirty words to local communities. 

6 

In some areas of my district that I represent, there are village 

boards, town boards, county boards, water districts, sewer districts, 

fire districts and nearly as many law enforcement entities. This 

makes economic development very difficult. 

But consolidation can work, and there is a place for it, but it 

must not be forced upon local communities. It should be something 

that we in the Federal Government help local communities implement if they so choose. 

The fact of the matter is that there are communities that could 

benefit from working together without reducing the quality of services. But in order to be accepted, they need money to conduct studies, and plans must originate at a local level. The role for Congress 

in economic development administration should be to provide funds 

for local governments to study and, where necessary, implement 

consolidation if that is what the local communities believe is in 

their best interest. The Economic Development Agency could help 

in this regard. 

Another critical economic development initiative is expanding our 

Nation’s broadband infrastructure. Universal high-speed internet 

access is critical to revitalizing the economy in our Nation’s rural 

and industrial cities. It is essential to creating new jobs, extending 

tele-medicine services to rural communities and ensuring our Nation’s children are equipped with the skills they need to compete 

in a global economy. 

Now, in the 21st Century, we face the challenge of promoting 

construction of a new kind of infrastructure, one that will guarantee every family in the United States high-speed broadband 

internet access. 

I am also committed to strengthening and recapitalizing EDA’s 

revolving loan fund. The previous administration seemed to think 

the revolving loan fund model was outdated and should be converted to a one-time grant program and liquidated. I couldn’t disagree more. 

EDA’s revolving loan funds are the perfect example of the Federal Government providing the necessary funding to implement locally initiated projects. Better still, as these loans are repaid, additional funding is available for new initiatives. It is critical that 

EDA have the necessary funding to recapitalize the revolving loan 

funds in order to better assist growing communities all across 

America with their economic needs. 

The public works program and the revolving loan fund provide 

countless examples of the positive impact EDA has on local communities, and I want to talk today about just one possible success 

story. 

The district that I represent is home to two separate military facilities that were realigned after completion of the BRAC in 1993 

and 1995. In Rome, New York, the closing of Griffiths Air Force 

Base resulted in a loss of 5,000 military and civilian jobs, greatly 

impacting the economy. 

On the other side of my district lies the former Seneca Army 

Depot which occupies more than 10,000 acres in Seneca County. It 

was used as a munitions storage disposal facility for the United 

States Army. The property has since been transferred to the local 

industrial development agency. 

7 

The Office of Economic Adjustment was created to assist base 

closure communities. OEA provides funding to base closure communities for economic and community development, land use planning, real estate redevelopment, Federal real property programs 

and military programs and worker adjustment. 

However, there is currently a 50 percent matching fund requirement for EDA funding assistance. Many communities are unable to 

raise the required matching funds. 

As we look ahead to reauthorization, I believe the Committee 

should consider allowing base closure communities to apply for 

funding trough EDA with a less burdensome matching requirement. This will truly help communities that have already suffered 

job losses from base closures regain their economic footing and redevelop these sites to attract new employers. 

Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this hearing today. Again, 

I look forward to addressing these and many other pressing issues 

facing our communities as we attempt to rebuild and, hopefully, 

achieve economic success. 

Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Arcuri. 

If there are no other members that wish to make remarks, let 

us proceed to our first panel and ask Acting Assistant Secretary of 

Commerce for Economic Development at the EDA, Sandra Walters, 

to come forward. She is accompanied by the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development, Dennis 

Alvord. 

Please take your seats, and we are pleased to receive a summary 

of your testimony. Ms. Walters or Mr. Alvord, each, you decide. 

TESTIMONY OF SANDRA R. WALTERS, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION ACCOMPANIED BY DENNIS ALVORD, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION 

Ms. WALTERS. Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member DiazBalart and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of the Economic Development Administration. 

EDA’s mission is to lead the Federal economic development agenda by promoting innovation and competitiveness, preparing American regions for growth and success in the worldwide economy. 

Through our grants, we help local governments create jobs and 

generate private investment. Our investments create the conditions 

in which jobs are created, often in the midst of economic hardship 

or adjustment. 

We are proud of the Agency’s accomplishments and believe we 

can assist American communities in the current economic climate. 

Our focus on planning is critical to the Agency’s success. While 

economic development planning is often overlooked, EDA’s work 

with our partners in the field, designated Economic Development 

Districts, has proven invaluable in ensuring that communities 

think holistically about their economic futures. EDA has consistently found that projects which result from effective planning and 

8 

significant local support tend to have more positive impacts on 

communities. 

EDA currently has 378 EDDs designated nationwide. 

EDA’s expertise has proven to be extremely valuable in responding to sudden and severe economic dislocations through our Economic Adjustment Assistance program. Whether dislocations result 

from a major employer closing a plant or a defense facility or from 

a natural disaster, EDA is able to assist communities in responding 

to the loss of jobs. Last year, Congress allocated $500 million in 2 supplemental appropriations to EDA in response to the natural disasters. With this 

additional funding, EDA has assumed the role of secondary responder and is working closely with disaster-affected communities 

to help rebuild their economic bases. To date, EDA has invested in 

the redevelopment strategies of 11 States severely impacted by last 

summer’s Midwest floods and continues to develop, review and 

fund applications from communities affected by hurricanes, 

wildfires and other natural disasters. 

In addition, EDA received $150 million as part of the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. EDA is ahead of the curve 

in its implementation of the Act and anticipates publishing a Federal Funding Opportunity Notice this week and will get the funds 

disbursed quickly to assist communities. 

As EDA has celebrated its successes, it has also aggressively confronted its challenges, most specifically the administration of its revolving loan fund program. 

In response to the Department of Commerce Office of Inspector 

General’s September, 2007 report, EDA developed an action plan 

and published an interim final rule implementing many of the 

plan’s milestones. EDA has successfully implemented six of the 

OIG’s seven recommendations. EDA has made excellent process towards implementing the final recommendation. 

In an effort to evaluate the Agency’s strengths and weaknesses. 

EDA recently funded a study focused on assessing the economic impacts and Federal costs of the Agency’s construction investments. 

The study showed that EDA investments in rural areas had a statistically significant correlation with increased employment levels 

in the communities in which they were made. Moreover, the study 

supported EDA’s strategic focus on innovation and entrepreneurship by showing that EDA investment in business incubators were 

more correlated with job growth than other project types. 

Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member Diaz-Balart and members 

of the Subcommittee, thank you for your time today and for inviting me to give an overview of EDA’s programs. 

With me today is Dennis Alvord, the Acting Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Economic Development, who oversees EDA’s six regional offices. 

We look forward to answering any questions you may have and 

working with the Subcommittee on legislation to reauthorize the 

Agency. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Ms. Walters. 

We recognize the Agency hasn’t had the appointments that it will 

get, but we are anxious to begin the reauthorization process and 

are pleased to have your testimony. 

9 

Could I ask you or Mr. Alvord, you have received $150 million, 

not a bunch of cash, I must say, because some of us recommended 

more than that. But you have gotten $150 million under the new 

stimulus act. How do you intend? What kinds of projects? What 

methodology are you going to use for choosing how you will spend 

that money? 

Mr. ALVORD. Thank you, Madam Chair. EDA is pleased to have received the $150 million in Recovery Act 

appropriations. 

Ms. NORTON. By the way, has it come through yet? 

Mr. ALVORD. It has. 

Ms. NORTON. Just checking. 

Mr. ALVORD. And we have been working very closely with our six 

regional offices to devise a strategy for the investment of those dollars that will achieve the greatest possible economic outcomes. 

EDA intends to use its traditional process of allocating that funding out to its regional offices to make investments that will be consistent with the Bureau’s established funding priorities and policy 

guidelines. 

Ms. NORTON. Yes. But the bill had at its major focus for the 

kinds of spending you concentrate on, which is public infrastructure, creating jobs. So we are interested in how much of a focus on 

job creation. 

There are lots of things you can do with money, particularly in 

these communities. But if the entire Country is underwater in unemployment, I can’t even imagine. I just can’t imagine if you are 

already distressed, what unemployment even means. 

I am trying to get an idea of how one goes about creating jobs 

when a community doesn’t have, didn’t have jobs to begin with. So 

it is not that the business has lost jobs. It doesn’t have as many 

businesses. 

That is why your focus is on infrastructure because the theory 

has been apparently proved out that if you focus there, the link to 

jobs will come, and, importantly, you create jobs on the ground. So 

jobs will come from the infrastructure produced plus the people 

who in fact are building the infrastructure from the local community, and the jobs are being produced in that way. 

So we are interested in this, in how this money. When you say 

the usual process, I don’t know if it will go to help an incubator, 

which is one of the things that is always talked about, or what direction the central EDA will give to people who all of a sudden got 

some money. 

Now, if you just say spend it in the usual way, how is the Administration going to be assured that its target figure of jobs is going 

to be met? 

Mr. ALVORD. Madam Chair, consistent with the Act, our FFO 

will establish a funding priority to those areas in the Country that 

have experienced some type of sudden and severe economic dislocation or job loss that results from corporate restructuring. We are 

certainly acutely aware and cognizant of the very severe economic 

distress being confronted by many areas around the Country. 

When we design our investments, we are very fortunate that we 

have a very robust network of multi-county economic development 

districts that establish in an annual planning process that helps to 

10 

identify prospective investments for their regions. So we are able 

to fairly readily piggyback off the good work that has been done by 

those districts to identify infrastructure projects that are ready to 

move forward in the near term and create the very types of jobs 

that you are talking about, both in terms of the near-term construction jobs created by the infrastructure investment as well as 

the longer-term jobs that we hope to realize. 

And those come in a variety of formats. They may be in the form 

of infrastructure to support science and technology parks that will 

help the Country be a leading innovator in the future. It could be 

infrastructure and support of business incubators and other types 

of activities as well. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I tell you what, Mr. Alvord, first of all, I understand the great difference between EDA and some other agencies. If you are doing infrastructure for a big city or a State, you 

are working through an agency and just tell them what to do. 

Therefore, it is harder. It is harder here because the local community is in charge. This is the whole wonderful concept. 

On the other hand, this is not loose change. 

So you have a much more difficult job, it seems to me. You do 

not have a statutory mandate about the number of days to be on 

the ground that all of our local jurisdictions have or the money 

passes on. 

But I tell you I believe that this Subcommittee has to insist upon 

some comparable discipline consistent with the local control, and I 

don’t think that is impossible because at the end of the day every 

Subcommittee is going to have to show that jobs were created, and 

it they should have to show it. 

We are working very closely with our other agencies under our 

jurisdiction to be as specific as we can, and we recognize the hurdle 

here. But I have to say that as responsive as the local communities 

have been to EDA, I am not sure anybody had funds that were 

given with a specific mandate. This is funds you would not have 

but for national unemployment. 

I am going to have to ask you to get within 30 days something 

more specific about how you will inform the local communities that 

this is job creation money and how you will offer them guidance. 

I am very concerned that this is just another $150 million, that it 

simply goes into whatever programs are there. It should, but in 

choosing which ones should get priority, there is an additional 

mandate here. We have to show that some jobs were created. 

As difficult as that is, I would like you to get us some sense of 

what that methodology would look like, to sit down and try to figure out because we certainly cannot. You know the regions. You 

now the localities. You would have to work with the regions. But 

I do not believe that an open-ended here is $150 million, put this 

into your existing work, as important as that is and as valuable as 

it is, would be sufficient to an extra—and that is what this has to 

be seen as—an extra $150 million. 

Mr. ALVORD. We would certainly be happy to get you additional 

detail on our plan for the expenditure of the stimulus funds. 

Just to clarify, you know EDA is very acutely focused on the 

issue of job creation, and we have seen since originally receiving 

these funds and expect that the vast majority of the funding will 

11 

go out in the form of infrastructure spending that would be directly 

related to job creation. That is our intent and our mandate, and I 

think all of our regional offices that will be responsible for the oversight and administration and project selection are also aware of 

that. 

But we would certainly be happy to provide some additional detail. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, again, I think people need directions when 

they get extra money that they wouldn’t have gotten anyway with 

a mandate from on high. 

Let me ask you one other question about money, and then I am 

going to go to the Ranking Member. 

You are getting funds in the omnibus as well as the 2010 budget. 

What will be your approach to those funds? 

Mr. ALVORD. Well, we anticipate that we are very pleased with 

the funding levels that have been provided in the House mark of 

the bill, and we expect to see in the omnibus. 

Ms. NORTON. Do you recall the amount? 

Mr. ALVORD. As I recall, it is approximately $240 million for 

EDA’s Economic Development Assistance programs and $32.8 million for salaries and expenses which represents a small increase in 

EDA’s salaries and expense account, allowing us to at least keep 

up with our adjustment to base costs. The Economic Development 

Assistance program funding level is down slightly, but will certainly allow us to maintain all of our core programs at a very robust level in the coming fiscal year. 

We foresee establishing and putting on the street an FFO as 

soon as the omnibus has been passed, a Federal Funding Opportunity, so that we can get those funds out and working in communities on various job creation activities right away. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. 

Mr. Diaz-Balart. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I couldn’t 

agree with you more. I think you are right on target, as usual. 

Again, thanks for being here, both of you. 

There was a study completed by Grant Thornton in September, 

2008, that provided a breakdown of the estimated number of jobs 

created by cost per job and also provided a methodology for EDA 

to measure performance. Has EDA been using this study and other 

tools to measure the impact of its funding? 

Mr. ALVORD. EDA has been relying on a study that was done by 

Rutgers University and a consortium of other academic institutions 

in 1997. Now that the Grant Thornton study has been released and 

is final, we will be converting over to the Grant Thornton methodology for our future estimates. We are very pleased with the Grant 

Thornton study and we believe that it adds a new level of 

robustness to EDA’s job targeting methodology, and we are looking 

forward to utilizing that in the future. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Kind of following up on the Chairwoman’s 

question, that study also noted a range by project type of the cost 

per job created. Interestingly, the lowest cost per job related to 

business incubators, and the highest cost per job related to community infrastructure. Do you agree with these figures, and, if so, how 

might this impact your priorities, your prioritization? 

12 

Mr. ALVORD. Well, I think we do agree with the figures. I think 

the methodology is very sound, and we will be hearing more about 

that from the Grant Thornton witness later today. 

I think we were pleased to see these results because we found 

them to be very consistent with the EDA funding priorities and 

methodologies that we have been pursuing. I think that among 

EDA’s funding priorities for the last several years has been a focus 

on innovation and entrepreneurship and encouraging that at a regional and local level. And what we have seen most recently is a 

2010 administration budget blueprint which puts a focus on the 

support for business incubators and those types of activities. 

So we think that all of those things are very consistent and will 

help EDA to achieve, hopefully, even more robust job outcome figures and results in the future. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Good, good. There have been some concerns 

raised about the rules requiring that the revolving loan fund be in 

compliance with Federal requirements even after there are no Federal dollars involved, no Federal funding involved. Any thoughts on 

that and would you propose any changes to deal with that? Should 

we be changing anything to deal with that? 

Mr. ALVORD. Well, I think since we don’t yet have our new leadership on board, that would be an item that would be left to their 

policy prerogatives when they arrive. These are issues that have 

come up in the past with regards to EDA’s revolving Loan Program, and we certainly look forward to revisiting them in the context of EDA’s upcoming reauthorization. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Last question, Madam Chairwoman. 

Five hundred million dollars was appropriated to EDA in response to hurricanes and floods and other natural disasters that occurred in 2008. How is EDA managing these funds and how will 

these funds be allocated? How much of them have been allocated 

and how will they be allocated? 

Mr. ALVORD. That is correct. EDA received two supplemental appropriations in 2008, $100 million on June 30th and $400 million 

on September 30th. Those funds were targeted to the various natural disasters that occurred throughout the course of the fiscal 

year. 

I am very pleased to report that all of those funds have been allocated out across EDA’s six regional offices and that EDA is doing 

quite well. In fact, we are about where I would hope that we would 

be in developing projects, long-term recovery projects to respond to 

those disasters. 

EDA is not a first responder in the case of natural disasters. We 

come in after the initial cleanup and repairs have been done to 

help to lay the foundation for long-term economic recovery. 

As such, I would note that our Denver Regional Office has done 

a very good job developing a very robust pipeline of projects in response to the Midwest floods that occurred over the summer and, 

in fact, has a pipeline that exceeds their available allocation of 

funds for that disaster. Likewise, our Austin Regional Office has 

also developed a very robust pipeline in response to the hurricanes 

and other disasters that occurred over the fall months. And we continue to solicit applications for available funding across all six of 

13 

EDA’s regional offices and are continuing to develop disaster response projects on a daily basis. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Great. Thank you. 

No further questions, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Diaz-Balart. 

Mr. Michaud has questions. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Ranking 

Member for having this hearing, and I want to thank our two panels for testifying this morning. 

I have just one quick question. As you know, in the Economic Re- covery Act that was just passed, there was set aside $50 million for 

regional commissions. I would like your cooperation in ensuring 

that this funding would help support the new regional commissions 

that this Committee has supported and Congress passed to ensure 

that they get some funding consistent with the economic stimulus 

package and Congress’ intent. 

Mr. ALVORD. Yes, Congressman. Good to see you again. 

Thank you very much for the question. I think we are certainly 

cognizant of your interest in this issue. 

As you may expect, these matters are cleared through a number 

of entities, and they are currently passing our spending plan 

through the appropriate officials and the departmental and OMB 

levels to get approval for the disposition of those funds. But we certainly look forward with working with you in the future on this 

issue. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Michaud. 

Mr. Arcuri. 

Mr. ARCURI. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

That was one of my questions, and I would like to closely associate myself with the comments of Mr. Michaud in terms of urging 

you to sub-allocate that funding to these commissions. They are 

very important to development throughout the Country. So I would 

strongly urge that and hope that you do it. 

My second question is in some sense related to what Mr. DiazBalart asked, and that is this. My experience in the last two years 

with the EDA was that they didn’t really like working with revolving loan funds, and I always had a sense that there was some desire to see to it that the revolving loan funds somehow ended and 

the money that was disbursed throughout the community. 

I have had an opportunity over the years to work on a revolving 

loan fund, and I have had the opportunity to see the kind of money 

that a revolving loan fund can leverage, private sector money, in 

helping some projects that sometimes people would consider maybe 

marginal projects but end up being very successful with the help 

of a good revolving loan fund. 

I would just like to know what the sense is or what your sense 

is of the future of the revolving loan program with the EDA. 

Mr. ALVORD. Thank you, Congressman. 

I think we see the revolving loan fund as a very important tool 

in EDA’s economic development toolbox, and it is a program that 

I think is incredibly necessary in the times that we are in where 

we are seeing a very severe contraction in the capital markets and 

14 

the need for greater levels of capital access in economically distressed regions throughout the Country. 

The program has been confronted by a variety of challenges. 

EDA has stepped up and aggressively confronted those challenges. 

I think we have come a long way towards setting the program on 

the course that it needs to be so that we can again proactively use 

the program in the manner for which it is intended. In fact, we 

have seen a significant uptick in the number of recapitalizations 

and new revolving loan fund capitalizations, particularly as a result of EDA’s disaster response work over the last several months. 

In 2009 alone, EDA has capitalized or established eight new revolving loan funds. 

Mr. ARCURI. Just a point I would like to make is I think very 

often in recent times we think of revolving loan funds as helping 

in the time of distress, and they certainly do, but I would just like 

to point out they are also very beneficial. 

I think it is probably obvious, but I would like to state the obvious for the record. It is so important. They so help to generate private investments in projects, and that is, I think, what we try to 

do on a local level. So I strongly urge that we continue the revolving loan fund program and in fact recapitalize some of the existing 

funds that are out there. 

Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Arcuri. 

Mr. Perriello of Virginia. 

Mr. PERRIELLO. Thank you, Chairwoman Norton. Thank you, 

Ranking Member. Thank you all for your time. The statistics that I have seen suggest that for every $10,000 of 

incremental funding to EDA in rural communities we can see 2.2 

to 5 jobs created. Is that consistent with the new metrics that you 

are using, would you say? 

Mr. ALVORD. Yes, it is. Those are the results of the new study 

that was performed for EDA by Grant Thornton, and those are the 

ranges that were presented as a result of that study. I should add 

that, anecdotally, we did some testing of urban areas and found 

consistent results as well. 

Mr. PERRIELLO. What, if any limiting factors are there for you 

with the additional funding to implement? In particular, does the 

small increase for staff and salary allow you to move these at the 

pace that you feel necessary and are there any other barriers to 

that? 

Mr. ALVORD. Well, we are very pleased that Congress has recognized the salary and expense needs of the Bureau, and I think that 

it will go a long way towards helping us to achieve robust outcomes 

in a timely manner. It is going to take us a little time to focus and 

get ramped up, but we are well on the way to doing that. 

Mr. PERRIELLO. Thank you. I yield back. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Perriello. 

Could I ask you about the status of funds you received in two 

supplemental appropriations in 2008? 

A $500 million appropriation to the EDA, as we understand it, 

for the Midwest floods and after Hurricane Ike, what is the status 

of those funds? Is there any unobligated balance? What projects 

were funded? 

15 

Mr. ALVORD. Madam Chair, EDA is well along in its administration of those funds. The Bureau has obligated a small portion. I 

could find out what the exact amount is for you. But we are about 

where we hoped that we would be in terms of developing. 

Ms. NORTON. What projects? I am trying to get a sense of what 

your work. 

We have jurisdiction over FEMA as well. We have been very disappointed in the funds going quick enough to the communities that 

need them. 

You got some FEMA-type funds, and we need to know where 

they went, what areas they went to, what the status of those 

projects are. You say you have obligated only a small amount of 

this money. Why is that? 

Mr. ALVORD. Well, the reason for the lag in obligations really has 

to do with EDA’s role. We pick up where FEMA and other agencies 

leave off. So, after they have provided the initial funds, EDA becomes a second responder and comes in and helps to create an economic foundation for a robust economic recovery in the affected 

areas. 

Essentially, what we do is take a phased approach . The initial 

awards that EDA has made, that small amount of obligations that 

I referred to, is really focused on the front end, at creating strategies for recovery and helping to get disaster recovery coordinators 

on the ground, working with our Economic Development Districts 

and the affected communities to identify the larger construction 

and other investment projects that will be necessary to help with 

the economic recovery. 

That work is taking place and is progressing very well, and both 

of our regional offices that received the largest amounts of disaster 

supplemental appropriations have very robust pipelines of infrastructure investments that are starting to queue up and work their 

way through. 

The next wave of assistance has come in the form of RLF capitalizations and recapitalizations, so that for those communities that 

were affected where there are needs to provide either gap financing 

for businesses or individuals, we have those RLFs in place that can 

provide that type of disaster recovery gap financing. 

Now the next wave will come in the form of the larger infrastructure investments. Both our Denver regional office which has been 

most active in responding to the Midwest floods as well as our Austin regional office which has been very active in the Gulf Coast 

have pipelines of projects that meet or exceed their available allocations under those disasters. 

Ms. NORTON. First of all, I certainly endorse the approach you 

are taking. As you told the Ranking Member, you are not the first 

responder, and Congress means you to come in and help with the 

more permanent rebuilding, but I am concerned what happens to 

this money if it is not obligated. 

I mean it was in a supplemental. It was not obligated. What happens to it? 

Mr. ALVORD. I believe, and I will confirm this, that the money 

was no-year money. 

16 

Ms. NORTON. Oh, important. In light of our larger jurisdiction 

over FEMA, we would like to be kept abreast of the use of this 

money in particular and what areas, what projects were funded. 

Let me ask you about the revolving loan fund. What did the IG 

report in 2007 say as to problems that were associated with the revolving loan fund? 

Mr. ALVORD. The IG report outlined a number of management 

issues over the revolving loan fund program and, in particular, 

highlighted the need for EDA to be able to identify where cash 

needed to be sequestered and whether that when cash was sequestered, whether interest was then being remitted back to the treasury. It highlighted the need to have an annual single audit of revolving loan fund projects and a variety of other factors. 

EDA has made very good progress. We put in place an extensive 

audit mitigation plan. We have achieved most of the milestones of 

that plan. 

Ms. NORTON. I don’t understand the audit mitigation. What is 

that? 

Mr. ALVORD. Essentially, what we did is we went through the 

recommendations from the IG on the RLF audit, and we identified 

specific actions that EDA should take in order to mitigate the 

issues that were identified. 

There were seven specific recommendations in the IG audit. EDA 

has now completed six of those, and the final one is the creation 

of a revolving loan fund management system that will allow EDA 

to better handle the reporting that occurs by the revolving loan 

funds and oversee the status of each of the different EDA revolving 

loan funds and the portfolio as a whole. 

The portfolio is quite large. It includes a capital base of $826 million and 571 different reporting units. So it is a big task for EDA 

to oversee this portfolio on an ongoing basis. 

We believe that the balloon payment at the end of this process 

will be the stand-up and creation of this revolving loan fund automated reporting and management system and that when we have 

that system fully in place—and we anticipate that we will be using 

it before the end or we will have it ready to stand up and start 

using it so that RLFs can report in an automated fashion at the 

end of this fiscal year, beginning in October—that we will be well 

on the way to setting this program on course and again making it 

a very important and vibrant investment tool in EDA’s portfolio. 

Ms. NORTON. There was no fraud noted in this report, this IG report, no problems of that kind found. 

Mr. ALVORD. That is correct. 

Ms. NORTON. That is remarkable and excellent when you consider that this program runs these revolving loans in communities 

through private banks. Isn’t that for the most part? 

Mr. ALVORD. They are primarily housed within nonprofit organizations. 

Ms. NORTON. Like credit unions? 

Mr. ALVORD. Local governments. 

Ms. NORTON. Oh, local governments? 

Mr. ALVORD. Local governments and multi-county economic development districts, quite often, oversee these funds and then work 

17 

with prospective applicants that have been rejected by banks for 

loans. 

Ms. NORTON. What is the rate of repayment of the loans? 

Mr. ALVORD. I will have to confirm that number for you. I don’t 

know it off the top of my head. 

Ms. NORTON. Please get us that number. It had been low. We 

would like to know, particularly during this period, what is the 

rate of repayment. We might expect there would be some issues 

today since there are issues with almost everyone in this economy. 

Now the State contributions. One of our members mentioned in 

some circumstances he thought it should not be 50 percent. What 

is your view of the 50 percent in light of whether States seem readily to step up and match it? 

Mr. ALVORD. I am sorry. The 50 percent requirement for the 50 

percent local share? 

Ms. NORTON. The State contribution percentage. 

Mr. ALVORD. EDA’s authorizing statute provides the Bureau with 

flexibility. Generally, we do start at a 50 percent matching rate. 

Depending in the level of economic distress, EDA has the ability to 

go up to an 80 percent matching rate. In special circumstances 

where a special need can be established or it can be demonstrated 

that taxing and borrowing authority of the jurisdiction has been exhausted, EDA can even go, in some instances based on Assistant 

Secretary approval, above 80 percent. 

Ms. NORTON. Now in our stimulus package, there is no match, 

is there? 

Mr. ALVORD. Standing matching rates apply to the funds provided through the stimulus. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, let me ask you whether you think States are 

going to be able to match your 50 percent requirement or will there 

be adjustments? 

Should there be adjustments made so that perhaps during this 

period the 80 percent or some such percentage, taking account of 

the state of State finances, would be in order? 

Mr. ALVORD. This is something that we are certainly hearing a 

lot about, the inability of local jurisdictions to meet matching requirements. We are certainly acutely sensitive to those local needs. 

I think that, regrettably, given the dire economic circumstances, 

many communities may qualify for more than a 50 percent share 

based on the economic metrics. For those that don’t, we do have the 

provision that will allow us on a case by case basis to review those 

applications and consider whether they have met the threshold of 

exhausting available taxing and borrowing authority such that we 

can exceed even the 80 percent grant rate in some cases. 

Ms. NORTON. This is my final question. Given the experience 

since the last reauthorization, have you any recommendations to 

this Subcommittee on changes we should make? 

We depend upon the operating agency to know more about that 

than anyone. Based on what you hear from your regions, what you 

hear from the States, from private businesses who have been involved, do you have any suggestions for changes you would make, 

statutory changes, since this would be the opportunity during this 

reauthorization period? 

18 

To add, delete, would you just maintain it as it is? What would 

you do? 

Mr. ALVORD. I would say that I think that things are operating 

fairly well at this time but that, given that EDA does not have any 

leadership on board at this time, I would defer to their policy prerogatives when that leadership arrives. I certainly think it would 

be a worthwhile process to engage in an open discussion about 

many of the ideas that have been put forward regarding EDA reauthorization and that we should solicit input when that leadership 

is on board from EDA’s regional offices and career staff that are 

involved in the program. 

We would certainly look forward to working with you on those 

items, moving forward. 

Ms. NORTON. I will alert you of this. We have held this reauthorization hearing, and I don’t know when this bill will be marked up 

or moved forward, and reauthorization occurs once in a blue moon. 

I understand your deferral to the absent Chair of EDA, but if 

there are any urgent matters or any matters of some importance 

I would urge to be in touch with staff while we are considering 

changes of our own. We, obviously, would want you to know about 

our own changes and comment on them, but we would welcome 

your input. 

I wonder if any other member has questions. 

I would like to ask the Chairman who is responsible for the EDA, 

so I am particularly pleased to see him here because you are seeing 

the man who, if anyone can be said to have literally created the 

Agency, there he is, sitting before. So I think I should ask him if 

he has anything to say to you. 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for 

those kind words. 

Senor Diaz-Balart, thank you, Mario, for being here and for your 

interest and participation. 

Yes, I was present at the creation of EDA. Actually, it started 

under President John F. Kennedy as an experimental program 

called the Area Redevelopment Act, ARA. It was limited to a number of States. After it had a four-year run, it was clear there was 

much more needed, and President Kennedy had committed to expanding on the basis of additional reports. 

That was about the same time that Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr. 

completed his assessment of the needs in Appalachia. So we 

merged the two ideas. 

We brought them out in separate bills, the Appalachian Regional 

Development Act and the Public Works and Economic Development 

Act of 1965, signed by President Johnson on August 9, 1965. I have 

one of the green pens that he used to sign that bill into law. 

And I have watched EDA over all the years. Then after I was 

elected Chair of the Economic Development Subcommittee and the 

Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee, I held extensive hearings on the operation and effectiveness of the programs of EDA. 

What has been remarkable to me is that although various administrations have proposed to cut back or even to repeal EDA, it 

has survived all those assaults not because so much of the astuteness of members of Congress but because of the people in the comVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:43 Mar 12, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\48412 JASON
19 

munities served by EDA. The economic development boards that 

consist of small businessmen and women, local elected government 

leaders, county and city and township, all who participate in shaping the projects that ultimately are approved for funding by EDA, 

show that it is a grassroots program. It works from the bottom-up. 

It doesn’t get its direction from the top-down. 

That character has brought significant bipartisan support. Democrats and Republicans alike, supported the Area Redevelopment 

Act and the Public Works and Economic Development Act in all of 

its subsequent iterations. 

I was disappointed, frankly, over the last eight years that there 

were so many political appointees in this very small agency. It once 

was much larger than it is today, almost double the personnel size. 

But for an agency of roughly 400 people to have 9 political appointees overseeing its operation, I thought was unnecessary. It 

was wasteful. It was just a place to park political pals. And they 

are gone, aren’t they? 

They are all gone, aren’t they? Yes? Good. 

It will start afresh, and I will insist with this incoming Administration: You need an administrator. You need an assistant administrator. Maybe you need a congressional relations person but not 

much more than that. 

We need to revitalize the economic development representative 

staff. The EDRs have been cut back, and that has not been by accident or neglect. The EDR is the person in the field who is the filter, 

the filter between those who want to do something good but it may 

not be the right thing and may not be done in the right way and 

the EDA regional office and the headquarters office and their congressional delegation. 

If the EDR does his job right, members of Congress don’t get that 

last minute urgent appeal: save this project from the clutches of 

these evil people, and the EDA don’t understand our needs. 

Well, if the EDR is doing his or her job well, they do understand 

the needs and what is being proposed is maybe not always the 

right one. So, filtering out those projects and guiding local interests 

on preparing their proposal in the right way. 

But various administrations, the Reagan Administration starting, and then Bush I and Bush II realized that the way to kill the 

EDA is to kill the EDR, and they cut back that staff substantially. 

Madam Chair and Mr. Diaz-Balart, when we do the authorization, we need to rebuild that economic development representative 

staff. They are skilled economic development professionals. They 

are doing their job. They are out in the community with the business community, with the bankers, with the local government personnel, with local economic development teams in communities, in 

regional settings. We need that to reestablish that expertise in the 

program. 

I think, frankly, if it had been up to me and Ms. Norton to write 

the economic recovery bill, I think we would have had EDA at the 

center of it. We would have had a lot of Republican support for 

that. EDA actually had over $465 million in the House version of 

the bill. It should have had a billion dollars. 

20 

There are projects that are ready to go, industrial parks that are 

ready to go to contract, to build, to develop. And if the purpose of 

recovery is to create jobs, who does it better than EDA? 

I remember when Mr. Klinger, a Republican of Pennsylvania, 

was the ranking Republican on our Committee. Previously to being 

elected to Congress, he had been Chief Counsel at EDA. Bill 

Klinger really knew the programs and the operation of EDA very 

well. 

We launched into a 6-month long inquiry into the operation and 

effectiveness of the programs, the result of which was that for the 

billion dollars that had been invested up to that time in EDA 

projects, every year, $6.5 billion in taxes were being paid to Federal, State and local governments from the jobs created by EDA. 

Every year, six times the investment was being repaid in taxes by 

businesses and individuals in jobs created by EDA investments. 

You don’t get that kind of a turnover in the stock market, and that 

is a net national benefit. 

So, reestablishing the EDRs and expanding their number, 

strengthening the regional offices, I think, is important for the future of EDA. I think we ought to also have a loan program. 

In the beginning, EDA was a full package operation. The community would come in with their project for the industrial park or a 

grant for the industrial park for water and sewer and access road 

and electricity lines and so on. 

And then, the business coming in and saying, well, this is new 

to the area. We need to train people. So EDA could provide training assistance. 

The company didn’t have working capital often. So EDA would 

provide working capital assistance. 

And it all would turn out to be a complete package. 

Or technical assistance, which still survives, but technical assistance not to do basic research but to take the project or product to 

market operation. 

I think we ought to bring back those basic effective principles of 

EDA. 

I don’t think that EDA should create a new staffing for loans, but 

I think that should be, in effect, outsourced to the Small Business 

Administration but operating under different principles, under ones 

that we will establish for EDA. 

I think the job training, which is such an important component 

of new economic development initiatives, could be done by the 

Labor Department but again under EDA funding for it. 

A community doesn’t have to go shop to SBA to get help for one 

thing, go to the Labor Department for something else, go to somebody else to get technical assistance but do it all within EDA as 

we once did, but not creating new staffing to do this except perhaps 

a handful to oversee the channeling of funds and have the ability 

to command the resources of the Small Business Administration, 

Department of Labor, technical assistance funding and to cooperate 

with local and regional initiatives. There are many university research and development, testing, training centers whose resources 

can be brought to bear on the needs of economic development. 

We learned in the Appalachia program. We learned in Eastern 

Kentucky and in Southwestern Virginia or like the Rust Belt of IlliVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:43 Mar 12, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\48412 JASON
21 

nois, Northern Indiana, Ohio, the Pittsburgh area of Pennsylvania 

that you have an area that has gone through 100 years of decline. 

You don’t bring it back overnight. 

And it takes more than just an industrial park. You also have 

to have drinking water and wastewater treatment, and you have 

to have advanced wastewater treatment, and you have to have 

transportation access in many of these places. 

I will never forget going into West Virginia on our hearing, Mr. 

Klinger and I, Madam Chair. We went to a small town in which 

the mayor was also the chair of the local economic development 

committee, and he was a witness at the hearing. 

He brought us on a walking tour of the town, and we stopped in 

his shop. He told a story: 

Year after year, we would get prospects coming to our community 

and want to locate a manufacturing facility or a processing or an 

assembly plant. And they would ask, well, how is your river access? 

Well, we don’t really have access to a river. We don’t really have 

a river. 

How about rail service? I tell you the railroad just doesn’t come 

up to our town. And how about your airport? How is air service? 

Well, we don’t have an airport, so we don’t have air service. 

How is your truck service and your highways? Well, we got this 

one-lane road in, and we got the one-lane road out. Then you would 

see them wilt, and they would go away and never come back. 

But on the wall in back of the cash register was a little sign that 

read: God never put nobody in a place too small to grow. That 

should be the motto of EDA because it helped places so small as 

that to grow. If we do it right, it will give a helping hand, so people 

can pull their bootstraps, pull themselves. That is what EDA is all 

about. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

By the way, you heard the Chairman use the words, ready to go. 

Mr. Chairman, I cautioned our witnesses that while they didn’t 

have the same statutory mandate, that this was a job creation bill 

and that some oversight of their own regions was necessary for this 

$150 million. 

And you heard it straight from the Chairman’s mouth. It is he 

who set the standard, and there is a tough standard for States and 

localities in terms of numbers of days. You don’t have that problem. 

Instead, you have the discipline of this Subcommittee that needs 

to know about what is the nature of your discipline within 30 days. 

The Chairman also mentioned States’ revenue or States benefitting which reminded me that I should have asked you about how 

much tax revenue is added to local budgets for every million dollars 

of EDA investment in, for example, a public works project. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Before the witness responds, may I ask the Chair 

a question? When is going to be the opening of the Eastern Market 

EDA project? 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I prominently mentioned Eastern 

Market as an example of a beneficial EDA project. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Good. 

Ms. NORTON. The Chairman brought to my attention the old O 

Street Market and suggested that the Eastern Market might well 

22 

fit the guidelines, and, lo and behold, they did. I think 25 percent 

of the project is being paid for by an EDA grant, much to the great 

joy and delight of the community. 

This is a very interesting treasure because obviously it is a local 

treasure, but it is also a tourist treasure. When you have one of 

the oldest outdoor markets in the United States and people come 

to Washington, D.C. to see the Monument, well, they will also come 

to the Eastern Market. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Exactly. It is a national historic treasure. It is 

being rebuilt. There is supposed to be a grand opening. 

Ms. NORTON. Coming this summer. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. This summer. Good. 

Ms. NORTON. The Chairman actually went with me to inspect the 

damage. The community was in mourning, and some of the vendors 

were there. He spoke to the vendors and raised everybody’s hopes. 

It is taking shape. It is very important. 

The EDA grant was very important, Mr. Chairman, because 

when a historic structure burns you just can’t slap some bricks 

back up there. It has to be redone in the fashion that it was before 

as nearly as possible, so the EDA grant. 

Now, here we are in a big city. You don’t think of us as an EDA 

jurisdiction, but the fact is the grants can go and the community 

did in fact meet the guidelines. And so, members have to be alert, 

as I was not, but as the Chairman reminded me when the burning 

occurred. 

In any case, could you report on the tax revenues for every million dollars invested? 

Mr. ALVORD. Tax revenues that result as a result of EDA’s investments are not a metric that we currently collect, although I 

would be happy to go back and have a discussion with some of my 

research staff and see whether we do have any data available on 

that that we can share with you. 

Ms. NORTON. I think the Subcommittee is going to need to look 

into how we can make sure. In a real sense, that is the whole 

point. Jobs, yes. But, yes, the business begins to pay taxes to the 

community. People pay taxes because they have jobs, and it is all 

part of the same bundle. 

The Chairman asked about these EDRs. The eyes and ears, as 

I see them, the real links, field reps kind of personnel. How many 

are there now at the EDA? 

Mr. ALVORD. We currently have 20 field-based economic development representatives. 

Ms. NORTON. What has been the high point? 

Mr. ALVORD. I believe the high point was about 47 economic development representatives. 

Ms. NORTON. My goodness, that is a cut of more than half. 

Mr. ALVORD. It is a significant decrease. 

Ms. NORTON. When was it at that high point? What year? 

Mr. ALVORD. I would have to find out. It goes back several years 

now, probably a decade or more. 

Ms. NORTON. Have your appropriations been raised annually? 

Mr. ALVORD. The issue, Madam Chair, has been that during that 

time period EDA’s salary and expense appropriations have stayed 

relatively static, which represented an erosion of available reVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:43 Mar 12, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\48412 JASON
23 

sources due to increased costs. As a result, as staff retired or 

moved on, EDA was unable to continue to backfill behind in many 

of these positions. This occurred both among the EDR staff as well 

as at the regional office level and at headquarters. 

Ms. NORTON. Could you supply within 30 days to this Subcommittee a personnel chart of everyone, every category on the 

EDA payroll? 

Mr. ALVORD. We would be happy to do so. 

Ms. NORTON. Field, regional and, of course, headquarters. 

I have no further questions. 

Mr. Carnahan, do you have questions? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank 

you for holding this hearing and our Ranking Member. 

I am new to this Subcommittee, although I have been on Transportation since I came to Congress after the 2004 elections. So, 

looking forward to this. 

I hail from St. Louis. So I am especially glad to see Denny Coleman from back home here on the panel today. 

We have very much benefitted in our communities in St. Louis. 

In particular, after the floods in 1993 and 1995, EDA was a critical 

partner in rebuilding. They have been critical in funding some of 

our incubator projects there that have been great for growing new 

businesses and new jobs and recently funding a project in St. Louis 

for a Midwest hub for U.S. and Chinese commerce. 

So, again, we have had some very good successes working with 

the EDA, and we look forward to continuing that work. 

I guess to get into a few questions, one of the things as I learn 

more and more about the EDA and its history—and certainly it is 

great to have Chairman Oberstar here to educate all of us on 

EDA’s history—we also have some questions on how maybe we can 

use the substantial funding that goes through EDA, better and 

smarter, particularly in these tough economic times. 

It has been there in economic downturns before to provide targeted funding for areas that truly need it. We certainly need that 

now more than we have in a long, long time. So, a couple of questions in terms of how we can use that money better and smarter 

and getting really the funding out to communities that really need 

it and can put it to work quickly. 

I like your thoughts in particular in terms of reducing or waiving 

matching fund requirements, how much of an obstacle that has 

been to get projects that may be ready to go in their communities, 

but that has been an obstacle. 

The other would be we have had substantial funding. I think 

over $150 million in disaster funding for floods during the Spring 

of 2008 and with Hurricane Ike. We have been told that EDA funding can only be used for flood-related projects, but that seems to 

be counter to what the EDA has done in the past, which is using 

disaster funding for more long-term economic adjustment. 

Also, using funds, traditionally, they have been limited to building construction and program planning grants. Has there been any 

additional thought to expanding eligibility for the use of funds, 

again, to give a little more local creativity in terms of how we get 

those out there? 

24 

So I would like you to address the current limits that are on getting funding out there and ways that maybe we can be wiser about 

maybe knocking down some of those barriers, especially given the 

times that we are in. 

Mr. ALVORD. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. 

I think that with regards to general matching requirements, we 

are certainly sensitive to the needs of local jurisdictions in these 

very difficult and trying economic times. Generally, EDA matching 

share starts at 50 percent Federal, 50 percent local. 

We do have discretion under our authorizing statute to go up to 

a 80 percent Federal share in the case where the community has 

higher levels of economic distress under the two main criteria that 

we look at, which are unemployment and per capita income. 

We also, in dire circumstances, have the ability to go beyond that 

and to look for a demonstration that the local jurisdiction has exhausted its effective taxing and borrowing authority, and therefore 

we can exceed those grant rates under our special need criterion. 

I think with regards to the disaster supplemental assistance, we 

do have a little bit more flexibility in the grant rate there. Where 

generally EDA has been providing a 75 percent Federal share to 

areas impacted by the natural disasters, which is consistent with 

what some of the other agencies that are responding to those disasters have been doing, under statute, we have flexibility to go up to 

a 100 percent grant rate with those investments. 

We do have a fair amount of flexibility in the administration of 

those funds, but we can only work in areas that have received a 

designation pursuant to a FEMA disaster declaration pursuant to 

the Stafford Act. So, if you are hearing that communities have to 

be in flood-impacted areas, it is likely that what the regional office 

is conveying is that the county must be designated, and that may 

be through flooding or some type of other natural disaster that occurred in fiscal year 2008. 

We do try to make investments with an eye towards long-term 

economic development outcomes and prospects. So, even in our disaster recovery work, what we are trying to do is establish a robust 

foundation for economic recovery with an eye towards long-term 

economic development. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. The third part of my question was about expanding the eligibility for use of the funds. 

Mr. ALVORD. Were there particular areas that were found to be 

ineligible that you were interested in? 

As I said, we do have a fair amount of flexibility in the administration of those funds. We are funding activities such as technical 

assistance grants. We are funding disaster recovery coordinators, 

the recapitalization of revolving loan funds as well as infrastructure investments to try to bolster the economies of the disaster-impacted areas. 

We would certainly be open to exploring other types of activities, 

provided that they are eligible under EDA’s mother statute. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I guess, finally, do you have any sort of measurement or any way to quantify the funding that is out there, allocated, but maybe being held up because of some of the existing requirements that ought to be revisited? 

25 

Mr. ALVORD. I can’t think of anything that comes to mind immediately that may be slowing funding and EDA’s response. 

I feel like we are about where we would expect to be, given that 

EDA is not a first responder. We are really a secondary responder 

to natural disasters, but we do have a very robust pipeline of 

projects that is moving forward in a phased manner. I think that 

our response has been quite timely, and we are certainly doing everything that we can within the resources that we have available 

to move that funding as quickly as possible. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I appreciate your being here today, and I will follow up with you and with our local folks, Denny Coleman and others, in terms of existing projects and requests that are out there 

to be sure that in our region, that if we have some needs and we 

need to look at some of those barriers to getting the funding out, 

that we are overcoming those. 

So, thank you very much. 

Mr. ALVORD. Thank you. I would be happy to work with you on 

that. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Carnahan of Missouri. 

Mr. Cao of Louisiana. 

Mr. CAO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I just have one quick question to ask of you. Are you presently 

funding any projects in the New Orleans Metropolitan Area, the 

Second Congressional District in Louisiana? 

Mr. ALVORD. I would be happy to look into exactly what projects 

EDA is funding. 

I know that EDA has had a very robust portfolio of projects that 

we have moved forward in the Gulf Coast, really ever since Katrina 

and Rita hit several years ago. In addition, we had a very robust 

and I think timely response to Hurricane Gustav when it struck 

the Gulf Coast, and pursuant to the September 30 disaster supplemental of $400 million we will be making a large number of additional investments throughout the Gulf Coast. 

I would be happy to provide additional information about some 

of the projects that we are working on to you. 

Mr. CAO. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Cao, and I thank both of you for 

this important testimony. 

We are ready for the next witness. We want to hear quickly from 

Srikant Sastry, Partner, Grant Thornton. 

TESTIMONY OF SRIKANT SASTRY, PARTNER, GRANT 

THORNTON, LLP 

Mr. SASTRY. Chairwoman Norton and members of the Committee, it is an honor to appear to discuss Grant Thornton’s work 

assessing the impact of the EDA’s construction program. 

My name is Srikant Sastry, and I am a principal with Grant 

Thornton’s Global Public Sector practice in Alexandria, Virginia. I 

was the principal in charge of Grant Thornton’s study for EDA, and 

sitting behind me and joining me today are Mr. John Adams, who 

led the study for Grant Thornton, and Dr. Peter Arena, founding 

principal of ASR Analytics. ASR was our partner on this project, 

and Dr. Arena was the study’s principal investigator. 

26 

In April, 2007, EDA contracted with Grant Thornton to develop 

a methodologically rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness of EDA’s 

construction program. We accomplished this objective through application of econometric methods, collaboration with EDA, consultation with key stakeholders such as OMB and GAO, discussions 

with other Federal grant-making agencies and independent review 

from a panel of academic experts. 

Our review focused on job creation that resulted from EDA’s construction grants. The complete history of our work is documented 

in the study itself, copies of which are available today for the members’ inspection. 

I would like to request that a copy of the study be included in 

the official hearing record. 

Ms. NORTON. So granted. So ordered. 

Mr. SASTRY. Thank you. 

One purpose of our study was to refresh the analysis conducted 

for EDA in 1997 by a team from Rutgers University and Princeton 

University known as the Rutgers Study. The Rutgers team used direct observation of impacts of a sample of projects completed in 

1990 to estimate the impacts of EDA’s construction grants. The 

Rutgers Study found statistically significant impacts related to 

EDA construction grants. 

Given the age of the Rutgers Study and the data it was based 

on, EDA asked us to review, validate and, where possible, improve 

upon it. 

Our approach differed from the Rutgers Study’s approach. We relied on public use data, specifically, jobs reports from the Bureau 

of Labor Statistics. This provided an external and unbiased source 

of data about employment levels. 

We developed regression models that examined the correlation 

between EDA construction grant dollars and changes in employment at the county level. By design, we developed multiple models 

and presented ranges of results in our report. This was done to 

maximize the credibility of our estimates by not tying them specifically and necessarily to a single model reflecting a single theory of 

economic development. 

The models we developed corroborated the results of the Rutgers 

Study, showing that EDA grants have statistically significant impacts in the non-urban communities in which they are made. Specifically, EDA construction grants generate between 2.2 and 5.0 

jobs for every $10,000 of EDA investment. 

To address urban impacts more directly, we supplemented our 

models by conducting 24 direct observation visits to primarily 

urban sites of completed projects funded in part by an EDA construction grant. Based on data obtained during these site visits, we 

developed jobs impacts estimates for each project. As documented 

in our report, the site visits yielded indicative results consistent 

with our non-urban area models and with the Rutgers Study. 

Our models also showed that project type makes a difference. We 

classified EDA programs into one of five project types: roads and 

other transportation projects, commercial structures, industrial 

park infrastructure, community infrastructure and business incubators. Our models showed that each project type had its own 

unique range of impacts, each resulting in job growth. 

27 

We believe the methods and tools we developed in this study and 

adopted by EDA represent an effective and repeatable approach to 

measure job growth. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address the distinguished members of this Subcommittee. 

My full testimony has been submitted for the record. We hope 

our participation is helpful, and I would be happy to answer any 

questions you may have. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Sastry. 

I am not trying to work up any business for you or any other consultant, but I was a little surprised to note that Congress has gone 

almost a decade without any assessment or evaluation of EDA. 

Now try to give me your most objective to this question, but I am 

trying to find out what time frame. Given the resources, this is not 

the most expensive agency in the government and given the nature 

of the beast, it is not all centralized, how often do you think EDA’s 

work should be evaluated? 

Mr. SASTRY. That is a good question, Madam Chairwoman. 

The way we set the model up, using public use data, makes it 

very cost-effective to update the models. So the process of doing so 

would not be an elaborate study, perhaps as was done in the Rutgers Study or even in the study that we did. 

Ms. NORTON. Because you actually used a different methodology? 

It was so long ago. 

Mr. SASTRY. That is right. 

Ms. NORTON. Should the studies all use the same methodology? 

I note that you came to approximately the same conclusion. 

Mr. SASTRY. Right. 

Should they use it? We believe it is a very sound methodology, 

and, in fact, given the use of Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the 

models can be updated however often that EDA deems necessary 

or the Subcommittee deems necessary for purposes of reporting. 

There is a risk of updating it too often. You have noise in terms 

of too many data points. Certainly, annually or biannually could be 

a target for update especially since it is cost-effective to do so. 

I would also suggest that as significant variances in funding 

occur would be appropriate times to refresh the impacts of the 

study because the study itself is nonlinear. 

Ms. NORTON. The variance here was going down. 

Yes, I see what you are saying. For example, the Census is to 

the point now that it will give you something every couple years 

because they got a base from which to work. 

Mr. SASTRY. Right. 

Ms. NORTON. We will simply to evaluate that. 

I know one thing, 10 years of funding right out of the Federal 

Treasury, even for an agency with this reputation, bothered me 

when I looked at it. You know we are not going to tell the GAO 

to go in there every other year. So we are trying to do something 

cost-effectively that gives us some feedback. 

Now I think that feedback becomes, unless you think we are 

going to rise up and resurrect ourselves out of this recession, as we 

politely call it. 

On reauthorization, I am looking very closely at EDA in a wholly 

different way. I mean this Agency was reauthorized at the height 

28 

of the economy expanding, and we got used to what I think will, 

I hate to say it, but I just think everybody has to understand it will 

never happen again. That is to say there are a whole bunch of 

structural changes happening in the world that are dividing up lots 

of what has been centralized in this Country. 

And so, I am trying. As I have said earlier, I am trying to imagine in my own district which has been, for example, more protected 

from recessions than others because its major employer can’t move 

out of town. Yet, high unemployment. 

So I have a hard time fathoming how areas like this go through 

recessions except with horrible suffering—that is the only word I 

can use for it—that doesn’t even meet the eye because they are in 

the byways and the parts that the media and the whole world just 

don’t cover. 

Now you can help me understand something because it has been 

used over and over again. I have looked at your chart, Federal Cost 

per Job. If you look at it, Federal cost as against the estimated 

local jobs generated, you will see everyone’s and one indeed you 

chose to evaluate, infrastructure, roads and other transportation, 

falling. 

Well, let me just give you the figure: 4.4 to 7.8 local jobs generated per $10,000. That is for roads. Federal cost per job, $1,291 

to $2,293. Now explain what cost Federal cost per job means? 

This was thrown around all during the stimulus debate. What is 

included in that figure and why is it, for example, so much higher 

than estimates? 

Let’s look at business incubators: 46.3 jobs to 69.4. Cost, is this 

$144 to $216 per job? 

Mr. SASTRY. Yes, ma’am. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. How do you explain? 

Mr. SASTRY. Right. 

Ms. NORTON. I am looking at those figures, and I don’t think 

anybody on the floor in another debate knew what they were talking about. They just quoted these figures like this. 

If you could disaggregate those numbers and why would people 

engage in infrastructure if it costs so much more than, I don’t 

know, business incubators? 

Mr. SASTRY. Right. If I might, Madam Chairwoman, could I ask 

that Dr. Arena address this question, specifically? 

Ms. NORTON. Please. It could really help me a lot on this one. 

Mr. ARENA. Good morning. 

Ms. NORTON. Good morning. 

Mr. ARENA. The chart that you refer to that has the variation in 

the different project types and the cost per job, this was based on 

a methodology that we presented to EDA to be able to disentangle 

some of the differences in the ways that their expenditures were 

put out. This was something that helped them align the methodology for measurement with their strategy for releasing funds in 

this program. 

While we did come up with the variation in the number of jobs, 

it was outside the scope of our project to actually investigate why 

those differences exist. 

Ms. NORTON. There has to be an explanation for this. 

29 

We continue to regard the same thing for industrial park infrastructure. Let’s just use rough figures: 5 to 7 local jobs generated, 

$1.377 million to $1.999 million of Federal cost, also high, consistent with roads and transportation. 

Now included in that is something that somebody needs to explain because members up here see those figures, and I know we 

don’t understand what we are talking about when we are speaking 

from these. I know we do not understand what is included. 

Mr. ARENA. Sure. 

Ms. NORTON. I don’t know if it is the material. I don’t know what 

in the world is included, but unless there is some explanation for 

this you are going to hear people demagogue even something that 

has been accepted for generations as the best way to make jobs, 

which is infrastructure building. 

Mr. ARENA. Right. 

Ms. NORTON. Outside the scope? Well, how? I mean how do you 

know, therefore, that it is cost-effective since you looked at public 

infrastructure to begin with? That is the main feature of your 

study. 

Mr. ARENA. That is right. 

Ms. NORTON. How can you tell us that this is the right thing to 

do, given what you found with business incubators? We know you 

didn’t study them as closely as you did infrastructure, but you certainly studied them closely enough to see these differences. I am 

bewildered. 

But it didn’t begin with you. It began with the infrastructure 

stimulus bill which everybody, by the way, was for except when 

specific costs came down. People threw these out because we don’t 

understand them. 

Mr. ARENA. Okay. I can explain the relationship of the jobs that 

we estimated and the funding expenditures by EDA. 

To simplify our models, what we did is we looked at the total 

amount of spending by EDA in these categories in the localities in 

which they made investments and then measured that against the 

jobs created in a statistical model that allowed us to look at the 

input, which is EDA dollars spent in a community on a particular 

project type, and looking at what the statistical outcomes were for 

the jobs that were created in that community. 

Ms. NORTON. First of all, you are looking at the jobs created in 

doing the roads and doing the other transportation. I have a feeling 

that in understanding the value one would have to get beyond the 

jobs created at that moment. 

That is to say if the whole point of our stimulus and of EDA’s 

work is to do infrastructure which then enables all kinds of other 

things to happen. Roads, bridges and so forth don’t just happen because we want them pretty. 

There has to be something in this to make people understand it. 

I tell you if you all got paid for this, you are going to go back and 

find out for me what this is all about. 

Yes, it was your model. But the fact is it is every model I see. 

We paid for this model. Somebody has to make me understand 

these figures. 

These figures are consistent with the figures that were thrown 

out for stimulus, high cost. It made it look like it costs a gazillion 

30 

dollars to build a highway in order to get a few jobs relative to that 

gazillion dollars. 

Now something else is involved in this calculation. We are not 

equipped to make it, and I am not going to deal with a program 

whose major focus is public infrastructure without finding it out on 

my own. Here, you are dealing with, forgive me, a former academic. 

So it is hard for me to deal with what I don’t understand. 

But, for example, in writing my own statement, staff had given 

me figures to show that the Apollo Theater. I am a native Washingtonian who had the great joy of spending part of my adult life 

as a New Yorker and living in Harlem. So, that figure and they 

said it cost $4.5 million and it was like 0.6 jobs per whatever, 

$10,000, and produced 28 jobs. But, see, I know the Apollo and I 

know 125th Street and what has happened to it. 

So I indicated what I happened to know, that when you keep the 

Apollo from becoming a dead icon in the middle of your major commercial strip, that is 125th Street, and it comes alive again with 

all of that fabulous history, all of the great entertainers of black 

America who passed through that. I know why 125th Street looked 

the way it did. 

I am not saying it was the sole generator, but if I had to make 

a decision in New York about how do I go about regenerating 125th 

Street to what it was at the height of its center as an entertainment center, I would start with the Apollo. There is nothing else 

on 125th Street that even begins to have that stature. 

Then, you know things of more stature begin. Shops of more stature gradually begin to move up. Now a lot of this happened during 

the Great Expansion. So I added that with no metric simply out of 

personal experience. 

Now I can’t do the same for these differences. 

If we are going to reauthorize what amounts to a public works 

agency, we have to understand it. Be able to explain it. Be able to 

understand rather than parrot people who say and they tell us this 

time and again: You want to stimulate an economy, you start with 

infrastructure. Then you go to other things. 

Tax cuts, all the rest of it, all the economists say that pales beside provide infrastructure. 

Then I see these costs, and I am mystified. So somebody has to 

explain it to me. 

Mr. SASTRY. Madam Chairwoman, in the interest of giving you 

a full answer to your very important question, we would like to be 

able to submit a detailed written answer for the record. 

Ms. NORTON. I ask that you do that for me, please. 

Mr. SASTRY. Sure. 

Ms. NORTON. It is very important for me to be able to respond. 

We are very pleased with this Agency. We know what it has done. 

We know why we continue to focus on infrastructure. 

I want to, finally, just ask you a question concerning you limited 

this to construction jobs, essentially. 

Mr. ARENA. The construction projects. 

Ms. NORTON. Yes. I am sorry. 

Mr. ARENA. The jobs are jobs created in all industries. 

Ms. NORTON. I mean construction projects. 

31 

Mr. SASTRY. But the jobs growth numbers reflect jobs created 

across industries, not simply the construction industry. 

Mr. ARENA. These are permanent jobs that are created in the 

local economy due to the project that was undertaken by EDA. 

Ms. NORTON. It seems to me you went to the right thing because 

that is what the Agency is all about. 

Mr. ARENA. Right. 

Ms. NORTON. But the jobs created from the infrastructure, you 

say, went across the economy. 

Mr. ARENA. All industries, yes. 

Ms. NORTON. So, you were able to say that when you do certain 

kinds of infrastructure you have an effect and to point to that effect 

well beyond the jobs, the infrastructure jobs, created? 

Mr. ARENA. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I certainly wonder whether that has something to do with this cost per job because if that is the case I don’t 

understand why the cost per job, the estimated number of jobs generated and the Federal cost per job are what they are. I just don’t 

understand it. 

So I ask you to do it and within 30 days. If you need more time, 

that will be granted. But we are in a reauthorization. We are not 

going to the floor and have these numbers flung around without 

being able to respond to them. 

I think I am going to let you go because that is really the most 

important thing you could do for us. Thank you very much for the 

study. 

Mr. SASTRY. Thank you very much. 

Ms. NORTON. Could I ask the other very important witnesses to 

come? 

The next witnesses really are, in a real sense, more important to 

us than others, without trying to be invidious here, because this 

gives us on the ground understanding of what this work is all 

about, and I am pleased to welcome Sharon Juon, Iowa Northland 

Regional Council of Governments and the National Association of 

Development Organizations, and Denny Coleman who is the President and CEO of the St. Louis County Economic Council and also 

representing the International Economic Development Council 

which are the two organizations that represent the development organizations. 

I ask you to proceed to summarize your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF SHARON JUON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, IOWA 

NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS AND 

PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DEVELOPMENT 

ORGANIZATIONS, AND DENNY COLEMAN, PRESIDENT AND 

CEO, ST. LOUIS COUNTY ECONOMIC COUNCIL AND SECRETARY-TREASURER OF THE BOARD, INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL 

Ms. JUON. Thank you. Good morning, Chairwoman Norton, 

Ranking Member Cao and members of the Subcommittee. 

Again, my name is Sharon Juon. I currently serve as President 

of the National Association of Development Organizations and Executive Director of the Iowa Northland Regional Council of Governments, an EDA-designated Economic Development District. 

32 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on issues related 

to the performance and reauthorization of the Economic Development Administration. I would like to make four main points this 

morning. 

First, Madam Chair, EDA has proven time and time again, both 

in independent research evaluations and in real-world situations, 

that it is a results-oriented, partnership-driven agency that works. 

Whether it is through infrastructure grants, strategy planning assistance or business development capital, EDA investments are 

uniquely positioned to promote economic development in impoverished areas. 

Even in the best of times, our Nation has hundreds of communities struggling to overcome chronic poverty or more sudden and 

severe economic dislocations caused by global trade, national disasters or corporate restructuring. Without EDA’s resources, it would 

be nearly impossible for many of these distressed areas, especially 

in smaller urban and rural regions, to rebound and pursue new opportunities. 

Therefore, we urge this Committee and Congress to enact a 

multi-year reauthorization bill for EDA that is aimed at helping depressed areas of the Nation. This includes reducing the local match 

rate for the most highly distressed areas. The previous Administration had significantly increased the local match as part of the 2005 

rulemaking even though Congress had not addressed the issue in 

the previous authorization bill. 

Second, NADO urges Congress to incorporate the roles and responsibilities of EDDs into law and to increase funding for EDA’s 

planning program from $27 million to $37 million. This would provide the stability and resources needed for the nationwide network 

of 381 Economic Development Districts to thrive in today’s new 

economy. 

The EDA planning program is the only Federal program of its 

kind that allows local governments along with private and nonprofit sector leaders to collaborate on a region-wide basis to 

proactively prepare for their economic future. Without the assistance and expertise of Economic Development Districts, most of our 

local communities, particularly those in small metropolitan and 

rural regions, would not be able to package infrastructure and development deals. 

Increased funding would allow our EDDs to more aggressively 

pursue regional job creation strategies, comply with EDA’s significantly expanded program mandates and ensure underserved communities across the Nation are better positioned to overcome a new 

generation of obstacles brought on by global economics. 

Third, Madam Chair, we urge Congress to strengthen local control of EDA’s revolving loan fund program. The RLF program is one 

of the most successful and powerful economic development tools for 

addressing the credit needs in distressed and underserved areas. 

RLFs are managed by public and private nonprofit organizations 

to further local economic development goals by lending their capital 

and then re-lending funds as payments are made on the initial 

loans. Locally managed RLFs have provided business capital to 

thousands of new and existing companies that have difficulty securing conventional financing. Over the years, EDA has provided 

33 

grants to more than 500 RLFs with net assets approaching $850 

million. 

EDA’s RLF program has a unique distinction of being the only 

Federal grant program that never loses its Federal identity. The 

initial RLF grant and any income or interest derived from it is considered Federal property. RLF operators are forced to continually 

comply with expensive and burdensome reporting and audit requirements in perpetuity. 

Ownership of EDA’s RLFs should be fully transferred to the local 

intermediary once all of the initial funds have been loaned out, repaid and fully revolved. In some cases, RLF intermediaries have 

been operating their EDA funds for more than 30 years, yet they 

still need to comply with an ever changing list of EDA requirements and paperwork. 

Finally, Madam Chair, we believe there is a need to provide 

stronger and broader incentives to foster regional collaborations 

and partnerships among local governments, private sector, educational, nonprofit and philanthropic institutions through the national network of EDDs. While the 2004 reauthorization bill established 2 new performance award programs, these initiatives are 

very limited in scope and have demonstrated minimal impact. EDA 

would benefit from much broader and more aggressive policy incentives and approaches related to regional economic collaboration 

similar to the Agency’s former EDD bonus program. 

In closing, Madam Chair, EDA is an agency with outstanding 

performance, especially for its modest size. As clearly demonstrated 

in the new Grant Thornton study, EDA is an efficient and cost-effective agency that has earned its reauthorization. As a regional 

economic development professional, EDA is an important and unmatched partner in resource for my region in Iowa. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I would welcome any questions or comments. Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Ms. Juon. That was brief 

and to the point. 

Mr. Coleman. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Good afternoon. Chairwoman Norton, Ranking 

Member Diaz-Balart and members of the Committee, thank you for 

having me here today to testify. 

My name is Denny Coleman. I am the President and CEO of the 

St. Louis County Economic Council and also Secretary-Treasurer of 

the Board of the International Economic Development Council. 

I am speaking here today on behalf of IEDC, the world’s largest 

membership organization serving the economic development profession. We are a not-for-profit organization on the front lines of helping economic developers, from public to private, rural to urban, 

local to regional and even international, do their jobs more effectively. 

Our members are currently faced with the greatest economic 

challenge in decades, and they have communicated clearly to us the 

urgent and necessary role that EDA plays in helping them confront 

the local downturns in their economies, the diminishing jobs, the 

struggling small businesses and the high rate of foreclosures. 

I am here to share with you the vital role the Economic Development Administration plays in aiding distressed communities reVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:43 Mar 12, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\48412 JASON
34 

build and revitalize their local and regional economies and to express the support of the International Economic Development 

Council for the bill before you reauthorizing EDA through 2013. 

You have heard many statistics here today, and you know them 

well, on EDA’s national successes. What I would like to do, if you 

will allow me just a moment, is talk about what EDA has meant 

to my home town of St. Louis. 

I have been in this profession for 34 years, at my current job 

with the Economic Council of St. Louis County for 19, and we have 

had extensive experience using EDA resources. 

EDA has been a partner in helping us expand our international 

trade capability through the World Trade Center, St. Louis. It has 

helped us spawn entrepreneurship through our St. Louis County 

Enterprise Centers, and it has helped develop and commercialize 

technologies. It also helped us train impoverished youth for careers 

in growth industries through our Metropolitan Education and 

Training Center. More recently, EDA has awarded $1.7 million to help St. Louis 

develop as the Midwest hub for U.S. and Chinese commerce, increasing our exports to China and creating new jobs in communities throughout the Midwest. 

Obviously, St. Louis County and our region are not the only recipients and those receiving help from EDA. From Aurora, Colorado to Albuquerque, New Mexico to New Orleans, Louisiana and 

communities throughout our country, EDA has assisted in making 

targeted discrete investments in projects that have really helped 

communities attain creative economies for the economies of the future. 

I would like to finally share with you a few thoughts about recommendations for EDA. 

I would like to say that we think there is enough money in the 

system. There isn’t. Just in St. Louis County, we have ready 

projects to be built that would utilize one-third of all economic 

stimulus monies allocated for the Nation. These are projects in 

international trade development, technology commercialization, entrepreneurship and others. So, funding is very important throughout the entire gamut of the programs available through EDA. 

And just a few other suggestions in addition to monetary: EDA 

should revisit its criteria for distressed communities. Virtually 

every State in the Union is in recession. We believe that is distress 

criteria enough. EDA should lower or waive matching requirements 

by communities, particularly during the next three to five years as 

we rebuild out of this economic crisis. 

EDA needs to be reinvigorated with resources and staffing sufficient to wisely invest and manage these crucial funds. As Chairman Oberstar said before, just the EDRs that used to be available 

to us in each and every State were tremendous technical assistance. 

And, finally, EDA needs to do more to support regional initiatives. We recognize at the regional level that economies do not respect local political jurisdictions, and therefore we would like to see 

EDA support initiatives that foster regional coalitions of economic 

developers around critical technology clusters and new innovative 

business ideas. 

35 

In conclusion, on behalf of communities around the Country 

working hard to stay competitive in this challenging global economy, I urge you to reauthorize the Economic Development Administration for another five years, and we look forward to partnering 

with EDA to generate and retain jobs and stimulate commercial 

and industrial growth. 

Together, we build strong communities. Together, we build a 

stronger America. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you both very much. 

Let me proceed first with the mention you just made, Mr. Coleman, of decreasing the match. You heard me ask that question 

about decreasing the match, the 50 percent match. You heard me 

ask that question, and you heard the EDA representatives respond 

that they, in fact, do this on a case by case basis. 

Is this being done today, and on a case by case basis what would 

that mean in your region and in others? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Well, EDA has been very responsive to our needs 

to date, to be as flexible as possible within the laws allowable. 

Ms. NORTON. So they are already doing it, you think? 

Mr. COLEMAN. They are being very helpful to try to do that. 

I would just suggest that in this particular economic crisis we do 

that just across the board and increase that flexibility. 

Ms. NORTON. So do you think case by case essentially means 

when they look, they are going to see? 

You know some of these are in very much richer States than others, even though the part of the State has a very poor region in 

which it has not chosen to invest. Because of the great need, it 

would be plowing so much of its resources there. 

Are you suggesting that, and this is what we really need to know 

from you and Ms. Juon, is the case by case basis, which is perhaps 

a standard of due diligence, producing the kind of results you think 

it should in an economy like this? 

Mr. COLEMAN. To date, we would have to say that the responsiveness of EDA has been excellent in that regard. But, as we move 

forward with a deepening recession and more job cuts, we would 

like to make sure that flexibility remains. 

Ms. NORTON. So what has it been up until now, Mr. Coleman? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Pardon me? 

Ms. NORTON. What has it been up until now? Do they eliminate 

it? Do they reduce it from 50 to something else? Give us some 

sense. 

Mr. COLEMAN. What we have typically seen is they have made 

sure that when we are eligible, that our projects are shifted from 

grant matches of 50 percent to the 25 percent, from public works 

to economic adjustment assistance, from flood recovery matches to 

economic adjustment assistance. So they have had some degree of 

flexibility, and they have done that. 

Ms. NORTON. Usually, when we see an agency, they know that 

if they did something like across the board they would also have 

to answer to us on what was the basis for that. 

I must tell you I would have a hard time. I have a hard time seeing how rich States come up with the match, but you see we required it, and I am not sure there is any relaxation of that in the 

36 

States on the match in terms of the match, for example, for the 

funds that we released. I am not sure that there is that flexibility. 

Now when you ask for an increase in funding and it is not for 

jobs, I have to ask you about the increase. NADO wants an increase in planning grants, pretty substantial, from $27 million to 

$34 million. What would be done with that increase? 

What is being done now with the planning grants, Ms. Juon? 

Ms. JUON. Yes. The planning grants are used to fund the capacity, the staffing at the local level to work with the businesses, with 

the communities, with the organizations to help them package the 

program that works for them for the job creation goals. Over the 

years, the requirements to have the capacity to provide that staff 

assistance have increased, and we have not been able to keep up 

with the staffing that we need that has that expertise to provide 

the assistance to those communities. 

So, primarily, it is a staffing issue. While this may not be appropriate, we have not had an increase in many years, and so our ability to staff and provide the staffing and expertise necessary has 

lagged behind. It is hard to keep up. 

Ms. NORTON. I will tell you why this doesn’t fall on deaf ears. We 

are going to put money out there without the staff to do the necessary work to help communities who, after all, are disempowered 

communities in the first place, who don’t have the expertise on the 

ground or else they wouldn’t need us. If we are going to put the 

money out there without the staff, I wonder if that isn’t penny-wise 

and real pound-foolish. 

Everybody wants more staff, but I must say when we heard that 

reduction in the EDRs we were flabbergasted. So we are looking 

very closely at these agencies which have been bled of the necessary staff precisely where you think they would be most needed. 

Mr. Coleman, when I hear the word, FEMA, you will always 

catch my eye. You mentioned the difficulty your region has had recovering from the 1993 floods and the 2008 floods. So I would like 

to know what role FEMA played in your recovery and whether the 

EDA programs fit with the FEMA role and what suggestions you 

would have in that regard. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Well, our agency had very little direct relationship 

with FEMA. FEMA was obviously involved in rebuilding levees, 

but EDA helped us rebuild our economy. 

EDA was there to help with small business incubator development in two of our flood-impacted communities. 

They were also there to help us mitigate the effects of sort of the 

manmade catastrophe that hit us with the defense downsizing. We 

lost 27,000 jobs out of one company, McDonnell Douglas, and 

60,000 jobs in the defense industry, region-wide. EDA was there to 

help us across a broad spectrum of programs that helped us diversify and strengthen our regional economy. 

So, FEMA obviously is there to help rebuild certain aspects after 

a flood, but EDA really is the only agency we were able to turn to 

from economic development perspective. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, of course, FEMA is not there for that purpose. 

Mr. COLEMAN. That is correct. 

37 

Ms. NORTON. The baton handoff role, was it appropriate as far 

as you are concerned, so that when FEMA got through it seemed 

that you were ready to do with the EDA programs what was necessary? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam Chairwoman, from our perspective, we 

dealt directly with EDA. Other elements of county and State Government dealt with FEMA in terms of that piece of the recovery, 

but we dealt directly with EDA in terms of the flood recovery and 

also with a consortium of Federal agencies: EDA, the Department 

of Labor and the Office of Economic Adjustment in the Pentagon 

for the defense industry cutback conversion projects. 

Ms. JUON. Chairwoman Norton? 

Ms. NORTON. Please. 

Ms. JUON. May I address that as well? 

Again, I am from Northeast Iowa. We were hit severely in the 

flood of 1993, floods of 1999 and, most recently, the floods of 2008. 

Because we represent 60 cities in 6 counties, we have worked very 

directly with FEMA on behalf of our cities and counties. FEMA has 

been fantastic in coming in and providing assistance, whether it is 

personal assistance in the housing arena or whatever the assistance, infrastructure. 

Right now, we are going through the process of determining the 

buy-out. So it hasn’t been completed. FEMA is very much still 

present in our area, and we are working with them very actively 

including in their long-term recovery planning process. 

What I will say, though, that has been so critical with EDA’s 

support, we received $300,000 from EDA to fund 2 full-time staff 

positions for 2 years as flood coordinators. These positions have 

been critical because there are so many organizations coming in to 

help our cities and counties, and yet no one is there to coordinate. 

Even FEMA, whom we have enjoyed working with, has so many 

contractors, and the contractors don’t communicate to each other. 

And so, we have provided through our EDA funding that communication link that even FEMA appreciates. 

So we have been that glue that kind of holds all the different organizations, whether it be FEMA or SBA, whoever. The EDA has 

definitely come in through these funding positions to help bring all 

of those tasks together. 

Now we have been awarded an RLF from the disaster recovery 

program, and that will go that next step beyond what SBA has 

done, beyond what HUD is doing. If we are going to have a focus 

of helping the businesses recover that were most directly impacted 

by the flood but then, beyond that, just building the recovery, as 

Mr. Coleman talked about, EDA has been critical. 

We have worked with FEMA. It has been a great opportunity. 

But EDA has, again, been the one to bring all the resources to the 

table and help everyone understand everyone’s role. 

Ms. NORTON. We understand. I mean I don’t want to leave the 

impression that we believe FEMA should have. We are just trying 

to meld our understanding of what FEMA does with our understanding of what EDA does. 

I want to ask Mr. Cao for any questions he may have. 

Mr. CAO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

38 

It seems to me that based on your testimony that Federal agencies are not communicating with each other in order to work with 

each other to rebuild a devastated area, and I can assure you I can 

use New Orleans as an example. 

It seems to me that there is very little EDA presence in new Orleans, post-Katrina. The issues that we have dealt with are more 

specifically FEMA-related issues. 

When the Nation is faced with the devastation of the size of 

Katrina, it seems to me that Federal agencies should communicate 

and work with each other in a unified way in order to address 

many issues in the rebuilding process. Three and a half years after 

Katrina, most of the Second Congressional District is still very 

much devastated and lacks the economic development that the area 

requires. 

Are there any conversations between your agencies—when I am 

talking about your agency, I am talking about EDA and FEMA— 

or maybe other Federal agencies to have a more concerted effort to 

help these areas? Rather than, you doing your part and then 

FEMA is doing their part and then at the end we don’t really have 

a comprehensive plan. There is really not a focus, a path to direct 

and to lead these communities out of their problems. 

It seems to me that the Federal agencies are just doing patchwork, and the pieces aren’t fitting together. There is a lack of focus, 

a lack of direction, and oftentimes the devastated communities they 

are left to themselves with respect to where are we going to go 

from step one to step two. 

Can either of you elaborate on that? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Sure. Congressman, you make several good points. 

I will respond to two of them at least. 

One is in terms of EDA’s response to the Gulf Coast, I was privileged to be part of an IEDC team, the International Economic Development Council, from across the Country that was sent to New 

Orleans, post-Katrina, to actually aid in the economic development 

planning to create a new agency, a public-private agency in the 

City of New Orleans that would really direct its economic recovery 

not only in the short term but the long term. And I know EDA has 

made several grants both to the State of Louisiana and New Orleans for some implementation projects as well. 

So I believe EDA has been responsive both in terms of direct financial support and technical support through IEDC for New Orleans and the entire Gulf coast. 

I would add that, to your point about Federal agency collaboration, as I alluded to before, OEA in the Defense Department played 

that role during the defense adjustment era of the early and mid1990s for us. 

As Chairman Oberstar mentioned, it appears to me that EDA is 

primed to take that role on behalf of the Federal agencies, dealing 

across a broad spectrum of issues facing the Country right now, be 

it flood recovery in the Gulf Coast or through the spring floods in 

the Midwest or just the overall economic crisis that faces our country and our communities. 

OEA played sort of a quarterbacking role for us, dealing with the 

Department of Labor, SBA and other agencies that we needed in 

a coordinated fashion in our regions. We dealt with the issue of tryVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:43 Mar 12, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\48412 JASON
39 

ing to get out of our silos at the local level so that we could cooperate and really bring resources to bear where they were most needed in our communities. 

It would be extraordinarily helpful to the local communities if 

the Federal Government agencies would also work to get out of 

their silos, and I think that will only happen if we have a strong 

agency with the full backing of Congress and the Administration 

helping to lead that charge on our behalf. 

Ms. JUON. I totally agree with Mr. Coleman’s comments, and I 

would like to add that, at least through our three experiences with 

disasters, EDA has been the only agency that has come in that totally recognizes the need for all of the different responders to work 

together. 

I would remiss if I didn’t mention that not only this last time, 

in response to the disaster of 2008, EDA funded our agency personally for two full-time staff for two years. But they also were the 

only one that had the foresight and perhaps the vision to realize 

the State of Iowa needed the same type of coordinating funds, and 

they awarded $3 million to the State of Iowa to create what has 

now become the Rebuild Iowa Office. It has staff people from all 

of the different State and Federal agencies come in and work together and have joint meetings where they try to address what 

each agency is doing, identify the gaps, identify the needs. Again, 

that was through the vision of the EDA. 

Mr. CAO. Now I am thinking about a coordinating agency. Do you 

think that we need an agency out there to coordinate EDA, FEMA 

and all those other agencies in order to assist them in working together to rebuild a devastated area because my experience with the 

Federal agencies has not been a positive experience? 

It just seems like it is up to the Congressmen to push this agency 

to do its part and then to go back and to try to address these other 

agencies to do their part and get them to the table and talk. So is 

it up to the Congressmen to be this coordinator or should there be 

an agency to overlook this whole process? 

Ms. JUON. I am sure we both have responses. I think it depends 

perhaps on the agency. It depends on their mission. 

What we found is that some agencies that come in to help assist 

in the recovery from disaster, their mission isn’t disaster recovery, 

and so their programs are not necessarily geared. I am thinking especially about HUD. It is real hard to take a program that is not 

designed for disaster and try to make it respond to a disaster. So 

that is a whole other issue. 

But if you talk just about who should help coordinate all the difference agencies? EDA is doing that to some extent, whether by 

Federal directive or just the national vision. 

Whether you need to have another agency created to do that? I 

wouldn’t address that, but I would say in the absence of that EDA 

is attempting to do that. 

Mr. COLEMAN. I would respond in two ways. 

One is I don’t think there is ever a substitute for an informed, 

involved Congressman or woman dealing with helping local communities deal with Federal agencies. 

But in terms of a coordinating role, I don’t think we need a new 

agency so much as we need a lead agency, and I think that can 

40 

work as long as Congress and the Administration designate that 

agency very clearly and that is accepted and understood by the 

other Federal agencies involved in our recovery efforts. 

Mr. CAO. Thank you very much. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Cao. This is something 

we will look at in the reauthorization. 

The problem that Mr. Cao has is FEMA is still there. We are 

looking at when FEMA is still there they are having trouble. 

You were post-FEMA, but they are having trouble coordinating, 

and we are now working on a way to break a funding stall of over 

$3.4 billion that they can’t agree on how to spend. Imagine if EDA 

had that money. 

Just two more questions. How do you think the stimulus money 

that we provided EDA should be spent? 

Have you been contacted to give any aid and assistance? 

Ms. JUON. My understanding through our EDD is that the 

money is going to be spent in the typical manner. It is going to go 

out through the normal channels. 

We have been asked and were asked several months ago to submit to EDA projects that were at that time shovel-ready, ones that 

we thought already had the design work ready, were ready to go, 

and so we have already submitted projects to EDA, region and on 

to headquarters. 

Ms. NORTON. To spend this money in particular? 

Ms. JUON. Absolutely. My understanding is EDA has compiled a list that is in excess of the $150 million that they have available. 

We know in our area we have projects ready to go as soon as we 

get the word and go through the process and get that authorization. 

Ms. NORTON. That is very heartening to hear because we didn’t 

hear that specificity in prior answers. 

I need to know whether you have looked at the job creation element as well. 

Ms. JUON. That is always a part of every submission. 

Ms. NORTON. Here, we are instructed to maximize job creation. 

Ms. JUON. Absolutely. 

Ms. NORTON. Everything you do is to create jobs. So that is a 

given. 

But I am sure the President has to calculate from each agency. 

For example, I know in my own community I know precisely how 

many jobs, the whole kit and kaboodle. I have a huge economic development matter going on, precisely how many jobs. They don’t 

know if that will come to being. 

I don’t know why EDA should have any less of a standard. Not, 

are there some jobs? There better be. But how are you maximizing 

the number of jobs that will come out of this money? 

Ms. JUON. I think that will be part of the EDA review process, 

I am assuming, especially since they have had more projects submitted than dollars available to fund. They will take the most competitive, the ones that do have the highest number per dollar of 

jobs created. 

Ms. NORTON. We have asked them to make sure they make us 

understand that, and I would ask you to keep that in mind as well. 

Ms. JUON. Absolutely. 

41 

Ms. NORTON. Let me ask you one more question, and this is 

about regional collaboration. It is akin, I guess, to the whole notion 

of coordination but particularly important. 

One of you testified, I am not sure which one, about incentives 

to reward regional collaboration, funding incentives, et cetera. 

What do you have in mind? By regional collaboration, what do you 

mean precisely? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Well, regional collaboration from our perspective, 

I will give two examples. 

One is a recently funded EDA effort to help the St. Louis area 

become the Midwest China air cargo hub for the Midwest and for 

China. We have, with EDA’s assistance, now organized a bipartisan 

public-private across-the-board effort that has full regional support 

to bring a new air cargo hub to the St. Louis area but one that 

would not just serve St. Louis but would serve the entire State of 

Missouri and the Midwest because of the fact that we believe that 

China is ripe for exports from the Midwest in particular to fill the 

need for products and food sources to the Chinese people. 

Through EDA’s help, we were able to put together this regional 

collaboration. We are the lead agency for the grant, but that grant 

serves a much broader purpose. 

What we have emerging is another proposal which we hope will 

get funded to take advantage of the critical technologies in plant 

and life sciences across a very broad spectrum of users of existing 

EDA grants in facilities but to bring another stool to that chair of 

money, facilities, science as well as management that would help 

us commercialize these great technologies that are coming out of 

our medical schools and out of our Danforth Plant Science Center 

for jobs for the future. 

By just one example, the Danforth Plant Science Center has a 

focus on creating biofuels out of plants, a renewable energy. If we 

can receive funding to help commercialize and expand that technology, we will do the Country a great deal of good through making 

ourselves more energy independent, but we will also create jobs in 

our community—not just high-tech, high-paying jobs but the technical assistance and technician jobs that we plan to create through 

our community college system. 

So those are the kinds of regional collaborations that we plan. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, that is something that we intend to endorse 

and encourage. 

State lines don’t mean anything. County lines don’t mean anything anymore. If you have a technology center in Fairfax, it is 

going to help the District. If the District has a tourist attraction, 

some of the hotels will be. Of course, it is the great tourist monumental attraction in the Country, Virginia and Maryland. So this 

notion about regional collaboration is one that is of great interest 

to us. 

On your biofuels, we quickly need somebody to help the Midwest. 

We did this because we encouraged this in our own Farm Bill. Get 

to some biofuels that don’t have people driving on corn and essentially putting the price of food now beyond much of the rest of the 

world just because we now have found a profitable way. It is a terrible thing, and we just didn’t have any foresight. 

Let me thank you for your very important testimony to us. 

42 

Before I call the next witnesses, I want to make sure. We have 

very important witnesses from particular commissions. Now this is 

what hearings are all about. 

I have a meeting with the Speaker at 1:00, and the Committee 

is on the floor now with bills. So, at the moment, we don’t have 

anyone to hear the witnesses. 

I am going to call a recess until we can get some of our members 

off of the floor to come in because the testimony that I, myself, 

frankly, have been particularly anxious to hear and will probably 

miss some or all to come needs to go on, but you need to have a 

member here who can guide the rest of the hearing. 

So this hearing is in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Ms. MARKEY. [Presiding.] The Subcommittee is reconvened. 

I would like to introduce the next panel starting with Lawrence 

Molnar, Director, Economic Development Administration University Program, University of Michigan; Robert Clark, Executive Director, Northern Maine Development Commission; Carolyn Dekle, 

Executive Director, South Florida Regional Planning Council; and 

Jonathan Sallet, Former Assistant to the Secretary and Director, 

Office of Policy and Strategic Planning, U.S. Department of Commerce. 

We will start with Mr. Molnar. 

TESTIMONY OF LAWRENCE A. MOLNAR, DIRECTOR, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION UNIVERSITY PROGRAM, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN; ROBERT CLARK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTHERN MAINE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION; CAROLYN DEKLE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTH 

FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL; AND JONATHAN 

SALLET, FORMER ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARY AND DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF POLICY AND STRATEGIC PLANNING, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Mr. MOLNAR. Thank you. 

I am speaking for the University Center Program funded by 

EDA. 

At a time of national economic stress we need all the tools we 

can muster to help turn our businesses and communities around. 

Across the Nation, the impact of the current crisis is having a huge 

impact on families, jobs in cities, large and small, nationwide. 

One of the tools in our arsenal is the EDA University Center 

Program. This nationwide network of 50 centers has served our 

Nation well for over 30 years. Our goals are simple: to work with 

local economic development organizations, local units of government, private sector companies and regional organizations to foster 

economic and business development. 

It is the sole federally-funded system to support the U.S. higher 

education system’s role in economic development. 

The diversity of the University Center Program is its strength. 

By understanding the unique character of its region, each University Center can respond directly with specific assistance tailored to 

meet the needs of that region. 

43 

The National University Center has tremendous promise to help 

achieve economic recovery, and the program would be greatly enhanced and expanded with just four modest changes. 

Number one, increase the number of centers so that each State 

has at least one center. We would like to see one in each State. 

There is one place that is not a State but would like one too, and 

that is the District of Columbia. 

We would like to increase the amount of funding for the Univer- sity Center program to $15 million annually. 

We would like to reduce the local match from 50 percent to respond to the unprecedented local fiscal stress and that of universities. 

And we would like to restore the peer review performance evaluation that was established by Congress in 1998. Currently, there 

is a competition every three years. So University Centers aren’t 

sure of their funding beyond that three-year funding. None of the 

other federally-funded local assistance programs such as trade adjustment assistance centers, small business development centers, 

manufacturing extension partnerships, Economic Development Districts face such frequent competitions. 

I would like to add that the University Center programs have a 

diverse range of projects. On my own campus back at the University of Michigan, an example is that we are teaming with several 

other university centers in Ohio and Indiana to help communities 

in our region that are suffering from the loss of automotive-related 

manufacturing plants. 

When we learn of a plant closing, we immediately begin working 

with local authorities to put together a plan to help them organize 

their response. We help point local officials to Federal and State resources to deal with the immediate fallout from the lost jobs and 

help create its strategic plan for how to begin looking for new jobs 

for that community, so they can respond to the adverse economic 

and social effects of these major plant closings. 

I would like to close by saying the University Center program, 

while small, has accomplished a tremendous amount over the 

years. But now that the Nation faces the biggest economic challenges it has seen since the Great Depression we would urge you 

to keep the program strong, to enhance it by increasing funding 

modestly to meet these increasing challenges. 

There is tremendous potential in our system of higher education 

to help this Country come back and to use the research, the expertise, the experience and the tremendous investment that this Country has made in the higher education system and leverage that in 

this time of economic need. 

We certainly support the reauthorization of EDA. They have 

been an excellent partner over the years. 

I thank you for the time and would answer any questions if you 

have them. 

Ms. MARKEY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Clark. 

Mr. CLARK. Thank you, Madam Chair pro tem and members of 

the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify today in support 

of a multi-year reauthorization bill for the U.S. Economic Development Administration. 

44 

My name is Robert Clark. I serve as Executive Director of the 

Northern Maine Development Commission, a multi-disciplinary regional planning and development organization serving all 71 communities in Northern Maine. Our organization is the EDA Economic Development District for the northern portions of our State. 

EDA has been an invaluable funding source for the Northern 

Maine Development Commission and our local government, business, education and nonprofit partners. 

This morning, I would like to highlight a few recent projects that 

demonstrate how we use EDA’s comprehensive economic development strategy process, facilitated by our annual EDA planning 

grant of $54,000 to identify and implement regional and local economic development projects. 

In the Town of New Limerick, EDA played an instrumental role 

in deploying the energy infrastructure, equipment and power needed for a major employer to expand its current operations while also 

launching a new innovative product line. The Louisiana Pacific 

Corporation originally targeted at least four manufacturing facilities around the world before deciding to use its Northern Maine 

plant to maintain its existing Oriented Strand brand product line 

as well as to introduce SolidStart, a new laminated strand lumber 

building material that is consistently straight, weather resistant 

and of higher strength than conventional lumber. 

There are many noteworthy outcomes to this one project. 

First, our rural region needed EDA’s matching funds to make 

this project a reality. New Limerick is a small town located near 

the Canadian province of New Brunswick. The town has only 523 

residents with Houlton, a relative small town of about 5,000, serving as the closest economic hub about 10 miles away. It would be 

almost impossible for this very rural town to afford the cost of this 

infrastructure project without EDA’s gap financing. Second, the project leveraged a $104 million investment by LP 

Corp that was not guaranteed to occur within our region or even 

within the United States. In fact, the company retained and expanded its facility in New Limerick while closing three other plants 

and moving part of its operations to a facility in South America. 

Third, EDA’s investment of $1.1 million helped our region keep 

111 jobs at the existing LP Corp facility with an annual payroll of 

$6.6 million. In addition, the company created 39 new jobs with 

pay rates significantly above the per capita wage for the area. The 

company received more than 1,900 applications for these vacancies, 

reinforcing the fact that these are high-quality in-demand positions 

within our region. 

In 1994, the Loring Air Force Base in Limestone, Maine was 

closed, resulting in the loss of 1,100 civilian personnel, 4,500 military personnel and countless other dependents of the base. Despite 

this major setback and the impending skyrocketing of the area’s 

unemployment rate to as high 15 percent, the people of Aroostook 

County refused to give up. 

With help from EDA and other partners, the Air Force base was 

envisioned as a vibrant and successful economic hub. Today, the 

former base serves as a vital commercial, industrial and aviation 

park with over 20 new employers and more than 1,300 employees. 

Most importantly, many of the companies located on the campus 

45 

are pursuing cutting-edge products in aerospace, agriculture, energy, finance, health care and technology industries. 

Like many of my EDD counterparts, the Northern Maine Development Commission also manages a portfolio of business lending 

programs including EDA’s RLF program. Our EDA revolving loan 

fund targets new and existing industrial, manufacturing and tourism businesses as well as agricultural businesses involved in manufacturing activities. Today, we have more than $1.3 million in our EDA RLF program. Over the years, this program has created 1,619 new positions and saved 1,917 jobs in our region. We have closed loans totaling more than $12 million and leveraged more than $69 million 

in private and public sector financing. 

As we move forward to recover from flooding in 2008, we are now 

working to secure additional EDA assistance for vital water and 

wastewater infrastructure needed to support local businesses. 

The business district in Fort Kent, for example, was devastated 

by the floodwaters with over 75 percent of local downtown businesses forced to close their doors for up to 3 weeks. According to 

local town records, over 600 jobs are temporarily affected by the 

flood. While many employees have returned to work, the future of 

some local jobs remains uncertain. 

What remains is for the town’s infrastructure to be repaired and 

upgraded to a condition that would minimize or hopefully prevent 

a similar flooding event in the future. 

In closing, Madam Chair pro tem, EDA is an agency with a proven track record, and it has the program tools, the partnerships 

with regional and local practitioners and targeted mission to succeed. 

The agency has earned its reauthorization, and the communities 

served by the Northern Maine Development Commission can attest 

to its importance and value. We believe it is a Federal agency that 

is incredibly cost-effective, performance-driven and tested over 

time. 

Thank you again for your time and consideration. 

Ms. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Clark. 

Ms. Dekle. 

Ms. DEKLE. Thank you, Madam Chair pro temp and members of 

the Subcommittee. We appreciate the opportunity to speak today 

on the performance and the results of the United States Economic 

Development Administration. 

I am very pleased to express our organization’s support for a 

multi-year Economic Development Administration reauthorization 

bill. We hope it maintains the agency’s current mission and program focus with perhaps only modest program reforms and updates 

as needed. 

My name is Carolyn Dekle. I serve as Executive Director of the 

South Florida Regional Planning Council. 

We are a multipurpose regional planning organization governed 

by a 19-member board of directors comprised of local elected officials, governor’s appointees and ex-officio members representing 

Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties. Our organization has 

served as an EDA-funded Economic Development District since 

1993. 

46 

In addition to our involvement in EDA’s planning, business development finance and infrastructure programs, the Regional Planning Council is involved in a broad range of issues such as reviewing and approving regional impact review projects, looking at 

brownfields redevelopment and cleanup, coordinating emergency 

preparedness plans and assisting local governments with a variety 

of regional and local comprehensive planning issues, and we are 

pleased to manage a development revolving loan fund program for 

local entrepreneurs and businesses. 

The Economic Development Administration is an invaluable 

partner for our three-county region. While our region has had and 

does have many areas of great wealth, we also have large pockets 

of poverty and distress both in our major urban centers, which 

many of you are familiar with, but also our surrounding rural and 

agricultural areas. In fact, Miami-Dade County has the highest unemployment and poverty rates, historically, than the Florida and 

many national averages. 

We very much encourage Congress to develop and adopt a multiyear reauthorization measure for EDA which maintains the agency’s core mission and program tools. While expanding its funding 

base, we also hope to see flexibility and strengthening of its partnership with its national network of Economic Development Districts, which, as I said, we are one. 

We also hope restoring the local cost-share requirements for 

projects to a minimum, to the pre-2005 distress rates, that there 

will also be greater financial flexibility for many of our organizations. 

I would like to focus my remarks primarily on an innovative 

project that the South Florida Regional Council has undertaken 

along with our EDA partner in the Atlantic Regional Office, and 

this is one that revolves around managing operations for a regional 

revolving loan fund program. 

Our project offers timely case study on how the agency can work 

with RLF intermediaries, obviously, including the Economic Development Districts, to dramatically improve the results for the RLF 

programs that exist today. This program has become an invaluable 

economic development tool for our local firms and entrepreneurs 

who are struggling to access traditional credit markets. 

The Economic Development Administration program requires significant organizational capacity and professional knowledge which 

we have been able to bring to the table and have helped invigorate 

this program and in fact have realized great gains. 

Today, the combined funding for the four RLFs in our region is 

$8.2 million. We are actively using these funds to create new jobs 

and to retain jobs within our region, and we believe that this is important particularly in this time of economic challenge. 

In recent years, we have helped retain and create more than 

1,200 new jobs while assisting more than 54 small businesses with 

seed capital and gap financing, and we have loaned out more than 

$9.4 million at this point which has leveraged more than $17 million in additional public and private sector investments. 

One of the big success stories within our region is an industry 

called Leasa which is one of the largest manufacturers in the 

Country of beans and alfalfa sprouts, and their products are sold 

47 

throughout our region and around the Country. These monies have 

been primarily been made possible through the Economic Development Administration’s participation. 

Again, we support continued expansion of EDA’s abilities and resources for small businesses. 

And, in closing, I would just like to thank you again for supporting the Economic Development Administration. The planning 

dollars are critical, the training which has been provided is essential, and we have been proud to be a part of both of those initiatives. 

Green industries and businesses will continue to be one of the 

primary areas we look to as we move forward in the future. 

Again, we thank you for your support, and I welcome any questions or comments you might have. 

Ms. MARKEY. Thank you, Ms. Dekle. 

Mr. Sallet. 

Mr. SALLET. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The testimony I give today derives out of work I am doing with 

Silicon Flatirons, which is the think tank at the University of Colorado Law School on innovation policy. I want to take a minute to 

focus not on what EDA is, but what we think it can become. In 

other words, I think it is time for EDA to become an Economic Renewal Administration that focuses on the creation and support of 

regional innovation clusters. 

We know what has to be achieved—innovation, business growth, 

economic prosperity—and, of course, we need to focus on the future 

of U.S. competitiveness. But how do we do that? 

Well, there is considerable literature that has been created over 

the last two decades, pioneered really by Professor Michael Porter 

of the Harvard Business School, and what it tells us is this: 

When we look at national competitiveness, the key unit of competitiveness is not really the Nation. It is not a particular sector. 

It is not a specific firm. It is really regional geographies that have 

clustered together a set of advantages, shared among firms, colleges, universities, research facilities, and other non-profits, that 

can spur innovation and growth. 

We know this: Silicon Valley, movies in Hollywood, life sciences 

in Massachusetts, the now stressed clusters of automobile manufacturing in Detroit or financial services in New York or Boston. 

What we know now is that successful clusters can drive productivity, create knowledge and innovation, and—it is very important—help develop pools of employees with the specialized talents 

that local businesses need. 

What does that do? It lowers the cost of capital to businesses, it 

increases the ability of new business to begin, and of course, it 

gives workers a trajectory to success. 

Really, one could think of a successful cluster as somebody operating with this slogan: ‘‘Innovation, Collaboration, Value Creation,’’ 

and, of course, more jobs. 

So the advantages that are shared: You might have specialized 

workers like the boat builders in Maine. You could have research 

facilities, such as biotech hospitals, that work with firms as in 

Massachusetts. You could have manufacturing, as in the Midwest 

where community colleges train their workers for the advanced 

48 

manufacturing jobs of the future—anything, really, that creates 

what an economist would call: a positive externality, which is just 

a benefit not accruing to a single firm but to a community at large. 

Now what is interesting, and I think a little dismaying, is that 

although State Governments around the United States have been 

working on cluster initiatives and although our foreign competitors, 

nations around the globe, are adopting cluster initiatives in Europe, Asia, and Canada, the one entity that has not done this is 

the United States government. 

At a time of unparalleled economic need, my suggestion is, and 

this is in concert with the President’s fiscal 2010 budget which 

makes a similar recommendation, that the authorization bill that 

you are authoring should, for the very first time, give a Federal 

agency, the EDA, a specific task of working with regional clusters 

which are bottom-up, which are industry-led and which therefore 

can be very effective. 

EDA ought to do that by setting a set of criteria to provide 

matching funds to the very best of the clusters. 

What might that be? We want clusters that will move fast with 

significant job creation, that will rely on public-private partnerships, and that have a proven track record, very importantly, that 

integrate distressed areas into regional economies. Instead of just 

looking at distressed areas as if they were standalone—how can 

they join with their neighbors, their geographic neighbors to build 

economic strength? 

Also, we ought to look to see how clusters can help us achieve 

great national challenges: energy independence, health care, revival of manufacturing, and life sciences. 

In this way, the Federal Government can facilitate regional leadership in a way that I believe would be very effective and, I should 

say, can help make other Federal programs in the Department of 

Commerce and throughout the Executive Branch much more effective by aligning them not in stovepipe fashion—isolation—but directly to the regional needs for a competitiveness strategy. 

This is why I believe regional clusters should be a cornerstone 

of turning the EDA into an Economic Renewal Administration for 

the 21st Century. 

Thank you. 

Ms. MARKEY. Thank you all very much. 

I would like to start with some questions right now. 

Mr. Molnar, if the Committee were to consider the peer review 

suggestion you offered in your testimony, how would that system 

work, how would you appoint the peers and then, third, are you advocating that University Centers never again have to compete for 

the designation of University Center? 

Mr. MOLNAR. The way it would work, which is how it previously 

worked before the competition was instituted about six years ago, 

is representative from the regional office of EDA would part of the 

team, often somebody was sent in from Washington to be part of 

the team, a university Center director from a successful center outside of the region participated, and then a University Center director from within the region participated. 

So it was a three to four-person team that went in with a fairly 

consistent, set agenda, over a three-day period. The first day was 

49 

spent interviewing the staff and the director of the EDA University 

Center program. The second day was spent on site visits to clients 

of University Center. And the third day was spent meeting with 

senior administration of the university up to and including the 

president with the second part of that third day a debriefing, recommendations and that type of thing that were given verbally with 

a written follow-up. 

In all of my experience, both when I was reviewed and when I 

was on peer review teams, there were always things that could be 

improved. So there were always suggestions about what could be 

improved. 

For centers that weren’t meeting performance objectives and 

were deficient in some areas that were serious enough, then recommendations would be made. A time line would be imposed upon 

that. If they didn’t take corrective action successfully, then the 

agency had the option to terminate their funding. 

We think that this process is superior and more productive than 

forcing every three years all the universities in the Country to essentially have no knowledge of whether they will have continued 

funding and then have to put in new proposals and then hope that 

they are successful. 

It is not unlike an accreditation process that a business school 

or a medical school would go through to ensure that it is meeting 

best practices and conforming with industry standards, and if so 

then they get accredited, and they continue to operate. 

Ms. MARKEY. Okay. Thank you. 

Another question having to do with Mr. Sallet’s testimony, how 

would University Centers, do you think, fit into a cluster model, 

Mr. Molnar? 

Mr. MOLNAR. Well, one of the things that universities are very 

good at is exploring and doing analysis to determine where clusters 

either are occurring or that could successfully be operating. We can 

do analyses to see emerging clusters that might not be apparent, 

to find like groups of companies or even companies that aren’t in 

the same industry sector that have common procurement patterns 

or common material handling or shipping where economies of scale 

could be gained. 

So many universities do cluster analysis and look at geographic 

and industry-wide analyses to identify where clusters either exist 

and could be grown or have the potential to be created. 

Ms. MARKEY. Mr. Sallet, can you answer the same question? How 

would University Centers in your opinion fit into a cluster model? 

Mr. SALLET. I think they are fundamental to it. I think if we look 

at successful clusters around the Country, oftentimes research centers and universities are tied very directly to the local business 

community. 

Indeed, tech transfer as a topic is very important to the success 

of clusters. Too often, I think we run technology programs at the 

Federal level that have not connected to the local communities at 

large and particularly not enough to the local universities. So I feel 

like one of the things EDA should look at in assessing a cluster initiative is the extent to which this is industry-led but very much 

created with the input of local academic institutions, which of 

50 

course are the source of the very kind of basic research that businesses will later be able to use. 

Ms. MARKEY. Good. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Clark, what are your suggestions for strengthening local control over the revolving loan funds? 

Mr. CLARK. Good question. We have been in the revolving loan 

fund business and particularly EDA for over 35 years, and during 

those 35 years we have obviously filed all kinds of reports, that sort 

of thing. We maintain the program in accordance with our application, but if we could have local control and build in more flexibility 

it would be of great benefit particularly to the rural regions. 

As I can speak to my rural regions, we have a very, very many 

small businesses that create five, six, seven jobs at a time. Oftentimes, they don’t fit into the underwriting criteria that is dictated. 

So we have to look at other forms of capital for them, which is really pretty much nonexistent oftentimes. So, if we could have the 

local control of the fund, it would help greatly. 

Ms. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Ms. Dekle, can you answer the same question? What are your 

suggestions for strengthening local control over the revolving loan 

fund? 

Ms. DEKLE. Certainly, and I would echo the comments that were 

just made. I think devolving the control of the revolving loan fund 

dollars to the local, closer to the local level is important, and I believe that could be done after the monies had revolved one time 

and had met the criteria that EDA outlines but then allowing them 

to reflect the more regional issues within a particular community. 

One of our what we consider big successes of our programs has 

been taking ones that were in existence for prior issues. For example, after Hurricane Andrew and then after some of the civil disobedience issues that happened in the City of Miami, those funds 

were created. 

Well, time has moved forward. Those issues have changed. Those 

monies now are being able to be utilized across the region because 

of some of the flexibility EDA has, but some still have some pretty 

firm controls around them. 

I think as we go forward it would be useful in all the revolving 

loan fund situations to kind of strip out the Federal bureaucratic 

requirements and allow them to respond to the needs within a region, within an area. 

Ms. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Clark, since EDA has been so successful in Maine in creating 

and saving jobs, what recommendations would you make to the 

Committee that would enhance the operations of EDA? 

Mr. CLARK. Certainly, more staff at the Economic Development 

Representative level. We found particularly in New England that 

one EDR could have as many as four States. Therefore, the flow 

of projects going into the regional office and then on to Washington 

has slowed down tremendously. So I would think that that would 

be one of the first recommendations. 

The second one is always money. If we had more planning 

money, we could do actually a better job. We could involve more 

people, not necessarily staff, but we would have the opportunity to 

involve more people from the private sector, from other non-profits, 

51 

from health care to really craft a well thought out economic development strategy for the region. 

Ms. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Ms. Dekle, you talked a little bit about brownfields. What examples do you have regarding brownfields redevelopment? 

Ms. DEKLE. We have two or three really strong examples. We 

were very fortunate. 

In fact, one of the people who is with me today, Isabel Cosio 

Carballo on our staff, was successful in crafting the Brownfields 

Economic Development Partnership that was recognized by EPA. 

We have been able to work with that partnership which includes 

Palm Beach County, Broward and Miami-Dade County, to engage 

those communities but, specifically, an affordable housing project 

that is up in Palm Beach County. 

The Leasa project that I spoke about before is a brownfields area 

and has been able to utilize the expertise of the local brownfields 

group in Miami-Dade County. 

Broward County has been looking at a lot smaller kinds of issues 

on our more infill areas. The parts of our county that are on the 

East have often been where there were gas stations, perhaps dry 

cleaners, other small industry types. But now we are looking at 

how do we accommodate our larger population growth, so how can 

we work with those areas to get them reclaimed, so that they can 

accommodate population as well as new economic enhancement. 

I think the brownfields issue and just looking at all of the range 

of green industry issues is a real important link for EDA in our revolving loan programs as we go forward. 

Ms. MARKEY. Okay. And just to follow up on that, what incentives would you offer to grow green businesses? 

Ms. DEKLE. We are still in the thought process on that, but I believe that we might want to look at giving. We have a limited 

amount of resources available for our loan program, and we might 

want to give additional recognition for those programs that can 

meet criteria related to green industries. 

We are fortunate. We have a climate change committee that 

Miami-Dade County has convened as well as Broward County has 

a climate change committee. I have been asked to be the chair of 

both of the intergovernmental coordination committees of each of 

those. So what we are going to do is work together to find out, 

okay, within our region, what are the things that we want to recognize from the business sector that are industries that move us forward in terms of making a better footprint as we look at the environment, as it goes forward. 

I think we ought to take our revolving loan funds and try to market them and orient them towards businesses that would be compatible with those things, and that would be a small example. 

Ms. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Sallet, several witnesses today have talked about basic infrastructure as still being a top priority for EDA grants. How do you 

square that need with your ideas for innovation and incubators? 

Mr. SALLET. Infrastructure is critical to competitiveness, but it is 

not the only thing we need for competitiveness. So what I would 

suggest is that we do a better job at the Federal level of making 

sure that infrastructure investments are connected to local comVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:43 Mar 12, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\48412 JASON
52 

petitiveness strategies. That is the way to make sure that the right 

infrastructure is getting built and will really turn into jobs and economic growth. 

One way to do that, which I didn’t mention in my oral testimony, 

is, there may be some parts of the Country that don’t really have 

vibrant clusters. Planning grants for them to start to organize collaboration can yield really important recommendation from the regions about what kind of infrastructure is most important to them. 

And so, I think the real phrase here is that we need integrated 

systems, not isolated stovepipes. 

Ms. MARKEY. Just one more question, and then we have to go 

vote. But based on that, what Mr. Sallet said, Mr. Molnar, if there 

were two centers in each State as you advocate, how would the second one be chosen? 

Mr. MOLNAR. We think that you would have two centers that 

would have different roles and responsibilities based on their core 

competencies. 

I know that in Michigan we had two centers for a long time, one 

at the University of Michigan and one at Michigan State University. The one at the University of Michigan, as we still do, is very 

involved in due diligence and economic impact analyses and helping with technical assistance with companies. The one at Michigan 

State University was very much organized for capacity-building, 

working with inter-urban areas, urban development. We complemented each other, but we were not duplicating roles. So I think 

that. 

The other factor might be a geographic service area where the 

one in Michigan, for me to drive to the Upper Peninsula, it is almost 950 miles one way. And where States do have more than one, 

and there are some that do, the geography determines their service 

area. 

Ms. MARKEY. All right. Thank you all very much for appearing 

with us today. 

That concludes the rest of this hearing. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 1:45 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

53 


Insert offset folio 5 here 48412.005
54 


Insert offset folio 6 here 48412.006
55 


Insert offset folio 7 here 48412.007
56 


Insert offset folio 8 here 48412.008
57 


Insert offset folio 9 here 48412.009
58 


Insert offset folio 10 here 48412.010
59 


Insert offset folio 11 here 48412.011
60 


Insert offset folio 12 here 48412.012
61 


Insert offset folio 13 here 48412.013
62 


Insert offset folio 14 here 48412.014
63 


Insert offset folio 15 here 48412.015
64 


Insert offset folio 16 here 48412.016
65 


Insert offset folio 17 here 48412.017
66 


Insert offset folio 18 here 48412.018
67 


Insert offset folio 19 here 48412.019
68 


Insert offset folio 20 here 48412.020
69 


Insert offset folio 21 here 48412.021
70 


Insert offset folio 22 here 48412.022
71 


Insert offset folio 23 here 48412.023
72 


Insert offset folio 24 here 48412.024
73 


Insert offset folio 25 here 48412.025
74 


Insert offset folio 26 here 48412.026
75 


Insert offset folio 27 here 48412.027
76 


Insert offset folio 28 here 48412.028
77 


Insert offset folio 29 here 48412.029
78 


Insert offset folio 30 here 48412.030
79 


Insert offset folio 31 here 48412.031
80 


Insert offset folio 32 here 48412.032
81 


Insert offset folio 33 here 48412.033
82 


Insert offset folio 34 here 48412.034
83 


Insert offset folio 35 here 48412.035
84 


Insert offset folio 36 here 48412.036
85 


Insert offset folio 37 here 48412.037
86 


Insert offset folio 38 here 48412.038
87 


Insert offset folio 39 here 48412.039
88 


Insert offset folio 40 here 48412.040
89 


Insert offset folio 41 here 48412.041
90 


Insert offset folio 42 here 48412.042
91 


Insert offset folio 43 here 48412.043
92 


Insert offset folio 44 here 48412.044
93 


Insert offset folio 45 here 48412.045
94 


Insert offset folio 46 here 48412.046
95 


Insert offset folio 47 here 48412.047
96 


Insert offset folio 48 here 48412.048
97 


Insert offset folio 49 here 48412.049
98 


Insert offset folio 50 here 48412.050
99 


Insert offset folio 51 here 48412.051
100 


Insert offset folio 52 here 48412.052
101 


Insert offset folio 53 here 48412.053
102 


Insert offset folio 54 here 48412.054
103 


Insert offset folio 55 here 48412.055
104 


Insert offset folio 56 here 48412.056
105 


Insert offset folio 57 here 48412.057
106 


Insert offset folio 58 here 48412.058
107 


Insert offset folio 59 here 48412.059
108 


Insert offset folio 60 here 48412.060
109 


Insert offset folio 61 here 48412.061
110 


Insert offset folio 62 here 48412.062
111 


Insert offset folio 63 here 48412.063
112 


Insert offset folio 64 here 48412.064
113 


Insert offset folio 65 here 48412.065
114 


Insert offset folio 66 here 48412.066
115 


Insert offset folio 67 here 48412.067
116 


Insert offset folio 68 here 48412.068
117 


Insert offset folio 69 here 48412.069
118 


Insert offset folio 70 here 48412.070
119 


Insert offset folio 71 here 48412.071
120 


Insert offset folio 72 here 48412.072
121 


Insert offset folio 73 here 48412.073
122 


Insert offset folio 74 here 48412.074
123 


Insert offset folio 75 here 48412.075
124 


Insert offset folio 76 here 48412.076
125 


Insert offset folio 77 here 48412.077
126 


Insert offset folio 78 here 48412.078
127 


Insert offset folio 79 here 48412.079
128 


Insert offset folio 80 here 48412.080
129 


Insert offset folio 81 here 48412.081
130 


Insert offset folio 82 here 48412.082
131 


Insert offset folio 83 here 48412.083
132 


Insert offset folio 84 here 48412.084
133 


Insert offset folio 85 here 48412.085
134 


Insert offset folio 86 here 48412.086
135 


Insert offset folio 87 here 48412.087
136 


Insert offset folio 88 here 48412.088
137 


Insert offset folio 89 here 48412.089
138 


Insert offset folio 90 here 48412.090
139 


Insert offset folio 91 here 48412.091
140 


Insert offset folio 92 here 48412.092
141 


Insert offset folio 93 here 48412.093
142 


Insert offset folio 94 here 48412.094
143 


Insert offset folio 95 here 48412.095
144 


Insert offset folio 96 here 48412.096
145 


Insert offset folio 97 here 48412.097
146 


Insert offset folio 98 here 48412.098
147 


Insert offset folio 99 here 48412.099
148 


Insert offset folio 100 here 48412.100
149 


Insert offset folio 101 here 48412.101
150 


Insert offset folio 102 here 48412.102
151 


Insert offset folio 103 here 48412.103
152 


Insert offset folio 104 here 48412.104
153 


Insert offset folio 105 here 48412.105
154 


Insert offset folio 106 here 48412.106
155 


Insert offset folio 107 here 48412.107
156 


Insert offset folio 108 here 48412.108
157 


Insert offset folio 109 here 48412.109
158 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 110 here 48412.110