Contents

• Introduction
• Appalachian Regional Commission
• Overview of Structure and Activities
• Commission Structure
• Strategic Plan
• Designating Distressed Areas
• Recent Activities
• Legislative History
• Appalachian Regional Development Act
• Major Amendments to the ARC
• Funding History
• Delta Regional Authority
• Overview of Structure and Activities
• Authority Structure
• Strategic Plan
• Designating Distressed Areas
• Recent Activities
• States' Economic Development Assistance Program
• Legislative History
• Funding History
• Denali Commission
• Overview of Structure and Activities
• Commission Structure
• Annual Work Plan and Strategic Plan
• Designating Distressed Areas
• Recent Activities
• Legislative History
• Funding History
• Great Lakes Authority
• Overview of Structure and Activities
• Authority Structure
• Strategic Plan
• Designating Distressed Areas
• Recent Activities
• Legislative History
• Funding History
• Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission
• Overview of Structure and Activities
• Authority Structure
• Strategic Plan
• Designating Distressed Areas
• Recent Activities
• Legislative History
• Funding History
• Northern Border Regional Commission
• Overview of Structure and Activities
• Commission Structure
• Strategic Plan
• Designating Distressed Areas
• Recent Activities
• Legislative History
• Funding History
• Northern Great Plains Regional Authority
• Structure and Activities
• Overview of Structure and Activities
• Activities
• Legislative History
• Funding History
• Southeast Crescent Regional Commission
• Overview of Structure and Activities
• Commission Structure
• Strategic Plan
• Designating Distressed Areas
• Recent Activities
• Legislative History
• Funding History
• Southern New England Regional Commission
• Overview of Structure and Activities
• Authority Structure
• Strategic Plan
• Designating Distressed Areas
• Recent Activities
• Legislative History
• Funding History
• Southwest Border Regional Commission
• Overview of Structure and Activities
• Commission Structure
• Strategic Plan
• Designating Distressed Areas
• Recent Activities
• Legislative History
• Funding History
• The Economic Development Reauthorization Act of 2024 (P.L. 118-272)
• Changes to Subtitle V FRCAs
• Concluding Notes

Summary

This report describes the structure, activities, legislative history, and funding history of the 10 federal regional commissions and authorities. Those commissions are the

• Appalachian Regional Commission;
• Delta Regional Authority;
• Denali Commission;
• Great Lakes Authority;
• Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission;
• Northern Border Regional Commission;
• Northern Great Plains Regional Authority;
• Southern New England Regional Commission;
• Southeast Crescent Regional Commission; and
• Southwest Border Regional Commission.

Most of the regional commissions and authorities are modeled after the Appalachian Regional Commission structure, which is composed of a federal co-chair appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the member state governors, of which one is appointed the state co-chair. This structure is broadly replicated in the other commissions and authorities, albeit with notable variations and exceptions to local contexts. In addition, the service areas for all of the federal regional commissions and authorities are defined in statute and thus can only be amended or modified through congressional action. While the exact service areas have shifted over time, the general areas of service, as well as the services provided, have not changed significantly.

Of the 10 federal regional commissions and authorities, six could be considered active and functioning as of the date of publication: the Appalachian Regional Commission; the Delta Regional Authority; the Denali Commission; the Northern Border Regional Commission; the Southwest Border Regional Commission; and the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission. The Great Lakes Authority, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission, and the Southern New England Regional Commission are not yet active, and they do not have a confirmed federal co-chair. The funding authorization for the Northern Great Plans Regional Authority (NGPRA) lapsed at the end of FY2018 and it was not reauthorized until FY2025. The NGPRA also lacks a confirmed federal co-chair.

Seven of the authorized regional commissions and authorities each received $5 million to $200 million in annual appropriations in FY2026 for their various activities. Each of the six functioning regional commissions and authorities engage in economic development to varying extents, and address multiple programmatic activities in their respective service areas. These activities may include, but are not limited to, basic infrastructure; energy; ecology/environment and natural resources; workforce; and business development/entrepreneurship.

P.L. 119-74 provided FY2026 appropriations for a new Northwest Regional Commission, which—once established—would cover distressed areas of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. As of the date of this report, the commission has not been authorized.

Though they are federally chartered, receive congressional appropriations for their administration and activities, and include an appointed federal representative in their respective leadership structures (the federal co-chair and his/her alternate, as applicable), the federal regional commissions and authorities are quasi-governmental partnerships between the federal government and the constituent state(s) of a given authority or commission. This partnership structure includes substantial input and efforts at the sub-state level, and represents a unique federal approach to economic development.

The federal regional commissions and authorities provide a model of functioning economic development approaches that are place-based, intergovernmental, and multifaceted in their programmatic orientation (e.g., infrastructure, energy, environment/ecology, workforce, business development).

---

Introduction

Congress authorized 10 federal regional commissions and authorities (FRCAs) to address instances of major economic distress in certain defined socioeconomic regions (Table A-1):

• Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC);
• Delta Regional Authority (DRA);
• Denali Commission;
• Great Lakes Authority (GLA);
• Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission (MARC);
• Northern Border Regional Commission (NBRC);
• Northern Great Plains Regional Authority (NGPRA);
• Southeast Crescent Regional Commission (SCRC);
• Southwest Border Regional Commission (SBRC); and
• Southern New England Regional Commission (SNERC).

The first such federal regional commission, the ARC, was founded in 1965. The other commissions and authorities may have roots in the intervening decades, but were not founded until 1998 (Denali Commission), 2000 (DRA), and 2002 (the NGPRA). The NBRC, SCRC, and SBRC were authorized in 2008; the GLA was authorized in 2022.¹ The MARC and SNERC are the most recently authorized FRCAs and were authorized in 2025.²

Six FRCAs are currently active, meaning they are engaged in economic development activities in their service areas, have received recent appropriations, and have a Senate-confirmed federal co-chair (or equivalent) in place. These are the ARC, DRA, Denali Commission, NBRC, SCRC, and SBRC. Four FRCAs are currently inactive, and do not have all of those features at this time: the MARC, NGPRA,³ SNERC, and GLA.⁴

Seven of the 10 entities currently receive annual appropriations: ARC, DRA, GLA, the Denali Commission, NBRC, SBRC, and SCRC. Both SCRC and SBRC were inactive until relatively recently. The SCRC received regular annual appropriations since FY2010, but lacked a Senate-confirmed federal co-chair until December 2021. The SBRC received its first appropriation in FY2021, and lacked a federal co-chair until December 2022. Confirmation of the SCRC and SBRC federal co-chairs allowed these two commissions to convene and begin their activities.

The Commerce, Justice, Science; Energy and Water Development; and Interior and Environment Appropriations Act, 2026 (P.L. 119-74) provided $324 million in total annual appropriations for the FRCAs, an increase of about 1% from their FY2025 enacted level of $319 million. The FY2026 appropriations measure also provided funding for a new Northwest Regional Commission (NRC), which—once established—would cover distressed areas of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. As of the date of this report, the commission has not been authorized. The FRCAs are functioning examples of place-based and intergovernmental approaches to economic development, which receive regular congressional interest.⁵ The FRCAs integrate federal and state economic development priorities alongside regional and local considerations (see Figure A-1). As federally chartered agencies created by acts of Congress, the FRCAs depend on congressional appropriations for their activities and administration, and are subject to congressional oversight.

Certain strategic emphases and programs have evolved over time in each of the functioning FRCAs. However, their overarching missions to address economic distress have not changed, and their associated activities have broadly remained consistent to those goals as funding has allowed. In practice, the FRCAs engage in their respective economic development efforts through multiple program areas, which may include, but are not limited to basic infrastructure; energy; ecology/environment and natural resources; workforce; and business development/entrepreneurship. This report describes the structure, recent activities, legislative history, and funding history of 10 federally chartered regional commissions and authorities.

Appalachian Regional Commission

The Appalachian Regional Commission was established in 1965 to address economic distress in the Appalachian region.⁶ The ARC's jurisdiction spans 423 counties in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia (Figure 1). The ARC was originally created to address severe economic disparities between Appalachia and that of the broader United States; recently, its mission has grown to include regional competitiveness in a global economic environment.

Figure 1. Map of the Appalachian Regional Commission

Source: Compiled by CRS using data from Esri Data and Maps and Appalachian Regional Commission.

Overview of Structure and Activities

Commission Structure

According to the authorizing legislation, the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, as amended,⁷ the ARC is a federally chartered, regional economic development entity led by a federal co-chair, whose term is open-ended, and the 13 participating state governors, of which one serves as the state co-chair for a term of "at least one year."⁸ The federal co-chair is appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The authorizing act also allows for the appointment of federal and state alternates to the commission. The ARC is a federal-state partnership, with administrative costs shared equally by the federal government and member states, while economic development activities are funded by congressional appropriations.

Strategic Plan

According to authorizing legislation and the ARC Code,⁹ the ARC's programs abide by a Regional Development Plan (RDP), which includes documents prepared by the states and the commission. The RDP is comprised of the ARC's strategic plan, its bylaws, member state development plans, each participating state's annual strategy statement, the commission's annual program budget, and the commission's internal implementation and performance management guidelines.

The RDP integrates local, state, and federal economic development priorities into a common regional agenda. Through state plans and annual work statements, states establish goals, priorities, and agendas for fulfilling them. State planning typically includes consulting with local development districts (LDDs), which are multicounty organizations that are associated with and financially supported by the ARC and advise on local priorities.¹⁰

There are 74 ARC-associated LDDs. They may be conduits for funding for other eligible organizations, and may also themselves be ARC grantees.¹¹ State and local governments, governmental entities, and nonprofit organizations are eligible for ARC investments, including both federal- and state-designated tribal entities. State-designated tribal entities that are not federally recognized (or "lack federal recognition") are nevertheless eligible to receive ARC funding. This is rare, as usually federal funding requires federal recognition.¹²

ARC's strategic plan is a five-year document, reviewed annually, and revised as necessary. The current strategic plan, adopted in October 2021,¹³ prioritizes five investment goals:

• 1. entrepreneurial and business development;
• 2. workforce development;
• 3. infrastructure development;
• 4. natural and cultural assets; and
• 5. leadership and community capacity.

The ARC's 13 member states also develop four-year plans and annual strategy statements that outline their states' funding priorities for ARC projects.¹⁴

Designating Distressed Areas

The ARC is statutorily obligated to allocate at least 50% of funding to distressed areas.¹⁵ The ARC is also statutorily obligated to designate counties by level of economic distress.¹⁶ Distress designations influence funding priority and determine grant match requirements. Using an index-based classification system, the ARC compares each county within its jurisdiction with national averages based on three economic indicators:¹⁷ (1) three-year average unemployment rates; (2) per capita market income; and (3) poverty rates. These factors are calculated into a composite index value for each county, which are ranked and sorted into designated distress levels. Each distress level corresponds to a given county's ranking relative to that of the United States as a whole. These designations are defined as follows by the ARC, starting from "worst" distress:¹⁸

• distressed counties, or those with values in the "worst" 10% of U.S. counties;
• at-risk, which rank between worst 10% and 25%;
• transitional, which rank between worst 25% and best 25%;
• competitive, which rank between "best" 25% and best 10%; and
• attainment, or those which rank in the best 10%.

The designated level of distress is statutorily tied to allowable funding levels by the ARC (funding allowance), the balance of which must be met through grant matches from other funding sources (including potentially other federal funds) unless a waiver or special dispensation is permitted: distressed (80% funding allowance, 20% grant match); at-risk (70%); transitional (50%); competitive (30%); and attainment (0% funding allowance). Exceptions can be made to grant match thresholds. Attainment counties may be able to receive funding for projects where sub-county areas are considered to be at higher levels of distress, and/or in those cases where the inclusion of an attainment county in a multi-county project would benefit one or more nonattainment counties or areas. In addition, special allowances may reduce or discharge matches, and match requirements may be met with other federal funds.

Recent Activities¹⁹

ARC makes grant investments through the following core programs:²⁰

• Appalachian Regional Initiative for Stronger Economies (ARISE). ARC established the ARISE initiative in 2022 to support large-scale, multi-state projects.²¹
• Appalachian Regional Energy Hub Initiative. ARC launched a grant program to fund energy hub research and implementation projects in FY2024.²²
• Area Development (i.e., the "base" grant program). This funding is for building community capacity and supporting economic growth broadly. This program also provides funding for local development districts (LDDs), access to capital initiatives, and funding for business development revolving loan funds (RLFs).²³
• Initiative for Substance Abuse Mitigation (INSPIRE). INSPIRE funding is provided to initiatives designed to address challenges related to substance use disorder (SUD), such as efforts to support workforce entry or re-entry and other recovery ecosystem projects.²⁴
• Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization (POWER) Initiative. The POWER Initiative provides funding for ARC communities disproportionately affected by the downturn of the coal industry.²⁵
• Workforce Opportunity for Rural Communities (WORC) Grant Initiative. ARC partners with the U.S. Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration to design workforce development initiatives, with funding provided through the Department of Labor (DOL).²⁶

In addition to its grant programs, ARC activities include various partnerships and ongoing initiatives (e.g., the J-1 Visa waiver program,²⁷ READY Appalachia,²⁸ and various academies and institutes).²⁹ ARC collaborates with federal, state, and local agencies to develop the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) and Local Roads program.³⁰ Additionally, ARC's research office issues Requests for Proposals for research and evaluation contracts on topics directly affecting economic development in the Appalachian region.³¹

ARC collaborates with various federal agencies on programs and initiatives. In recent years, Congress has directed the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to provide approximately $2-$3 million annually to ARC for projects that meet the purposes of USDA Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP). The funding is used support rural economic development activities in the Appalachian region.³² Other federal partners include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Defense (DOD),³³ the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA), among others.³⁴

Legislative History

Appalachian Regional Development Act

In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Appalachian Regional Development Act,³⁵ which created the ARC to address the President's Appalachian Regional Commission (PARC) recommendations, and added counties in New York and Mississippi. The ARC was directed to administer or assist in the following initiatives:

• The creation of the Appalachian Development Highway System;
• Establishing "Demonstration Health Facilities" to fund health infrastructure;
• Land stabilization, conservation, and erosion control programs;
• Timber development organizations, for purposes of forest management;
• Mining area restoration, for rehabilitating and/or revitalizing mining sites;
• A water resources survey;
• Vocational education programs; and
• Sewage treatment infrastructure.

Major Amendments to the ARC

Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 1975

In 1975, the ARC's authorizing legislation was amended to require that state governors themselves serve as the state representatives on the commission, overriding original statutory language in which governors were permitted to appoint designated representatives.³⁷ The amendments also included provisions to expand public participation in ARC plans and programs. They also required states to consult with local development districts and local governments and authorized federal grants to the ARC to assist states in enhancing state development planning.

Appalachian Regional Development Reform Act of 1998

Legislative reforms in 1998 introduced county-level designations of distress.³⁸ The legislation organized county-level distress into three bands, from "worst" to "best": distressed counties; competitive counties; and attainment counties. The act imposed limitations on funding for economically strong counties: (1) "competitive," which could only accept ARC funding for 30% of project costs (with the 70% balance being subject to grant match requirements); and (2) "attainment," which were generally ineligible for funding, except through waivers or exceptions.

In addition, the act withdrew the ARC's legislative mandate for certain programs, including the land stabilization, conservation, and erosion control program; the timber development program; the mining area restoration program; the water resource development and utilization survey; the Appalachian airport safety improvements program (a program added in 1971); the sewage treatment works program; and amendments to the Housing Act of 1954 from the original 1965 act.

Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2002

Legislation in 2002 expanded the ARC's ability to support LDDs, introduced an emphasis on ecological issues, and provided for a greater coordinating role by the ARC in federal economic development activities.³⁹ The amendments also provided new stipulations for the ARC's grant making, limiting the organization to funding 50% of project costs or 80% in designated distressed counties. The amendments also expanded the ARC's efforts in human capital development projects, such as through various vocational, entrepreneurial, and skill training initiatives.

The Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2008

The Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2008 made adjustments to the ARC's grant authorities and extended its geographic reach. The amendments included

• 1. various limitations on project funding amounts and commission contributions;
• 2. the establishment of an economic and energy development initiative;
• 3. the expansion of county designations to include an "at-risk" designation; and
• 4. the expansion of the number of counties under the ARC's jurisdiction.⁴⁰

The 2008 amendments introduced funding limitations for ARC grant activities as a whole, as well as to specific programs. According to the 2008 legislation, "the amount of the grant shall not exceed 50 percent of administrative expenses." However, at the ARC's discretion, an LDD that included a "distressed" county in its service area could provide for 75% of administrative expenses of a relevant project, or 70% for "at-risk" counties. Eligible activities could only be funded by the ARC at a maximum of 50% of the project cost,⁴¹ or 80% for distressed counties and 70% for "at-risk" counties. The act introduced special project categories, including

• demonstration health projects;
• assistance for proposed low- and middle-income housing projects;
• the telecommunications and technology initiative;
• the entrepreneurship initiative; and
• the regional skills partnership.

Finally, the "economic and energy development initiative" provided for the ARC to fund activities supporting energy efficiency and renewable technologies. The legislation expanded distress designations to include an "at-risk" category, or counties "most at risk of becoming economically distressed." This raised the number of distress levels to five.⁴² The legislation also expanded ARC's service area. Ten counties in four states were added to the ARC.

The SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act (P.L. 115-271) of 2018

The SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act (the SUPPORT Act, P.L. 115-271), enacted in June 2018, authorized the ARC to support projects and activities that address substance abuse, including opioid abuse, in the region.⁴³

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58) of 2021

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), enacted in November 2021, extended the ARC's authorization and provided funding for it through FY2026.

Division A of the IIJA authorized appropriations at $200 million a year for each fiscal year through FY2026. Within those overall authorized appropriations, the act specifically authorized the ARC to use $20 million annually for expansion of high-speed broadband activities (an increase from $10 million annually) and directed ARC to allocate $5 million annually for newly authorized Appalachian Regional Energy Hub activities. The act addressed the ARC's broadband authorization, and outlined additional aspects of the agency's broadband and regional energy hub initiatives. The act also required congressional notification for grants over $50,000.⁴⁴ Additionally, three counties in two states were added to the ARC. ⁴⁵

The Economic Development Reauthorization Act (EDRA) of 2024

The ARC was not reauthorized in EDRA. As aforementioned, the ARC was last reauthorized in the IIJA (P.L. 117-58). However, EDRA allowed ARC (and other FRCA) funding to be used for the nonfederal match in EDA projects.⁴⁶

Funding History

The ARC is a federal-state partnership, with administrative costs shared equally by the federal government and states, while economic development activities are federally funded. The ARC is also the highest-funded of the FRCAs. Its funding increased 174% from approximately $73 million in FY2008 to $200 million in FY2026 (excluding advanced appropriations provided by the IIJA). In FY2026, annual and supplemental appropriations for the ARC totaled over four times the amount provided in FY2015 (see Table 1).

As noted above, Division A of the IIJA authorized appropriations of $200 million for the ARC for each of FY2022 through FY2026, and Division J appropriated the authorized level of funding.⁴⁷ The $1 billion appropriation in Division J is made available in equal $200 million shares across each of the five fiscal years, and each tranche remains available until it is expended.

The ARC's funding growth is attributable to incremental increases in appropriations along with an increase in annual appropriations set aside since FY2016 to support the Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization (POWER) Initiative.⁴⁸ The POWER Initiative began in 2015 to provide economic development funding for addressing economic and labor dislocations caused by energy transition principally in coal communities in the Appalachian region.⁴⁹ In FY2023, FY2024, and FY2026, Congress directed ARC to allocate $65 million each year to the POWER Initiative.⁵⁰

Delta Regional Authority

The Delta Regional Authority was established in 2000 to address economic distress in the Mississippi River Delta region.⁵¹ The DRA aims to "create jobs, build communities, and improve the lives of those that reside in the region,"⁵² which includes 255 designated counties and parishes in Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Map of the Delta Regional Authority

Source: Compiled by CRS using data from P.L. 118-272 and Esri Data and Map<del>s</del>.

Overview of Structure and Activities

Authority Structure

Like the ARC, the DRA is a federal-state partnership that shares administrative expenses equally, while activities are federally funded. The DRA consists of a federal co-chair appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the eight state governors, of which one is state co-chair. The governors are permitted to appoint a designee to represent the state, who also generally serves as the state alternate.⁵³

Entities that are eligible to apply for DRA funding include

• 1. state and local governments (state agencies, cities and counties/parishes);
• 2. public bodies; and
• 3. nonprofit entities.

These entities must apply for projects that operate in or are serving residents and communities within the 255 counties/parishes of the DRA's jurisdiction. Unlike the FRCAs, the DRA's service area is defined not in any one piece of legislation but through multiple legislative developments (see "Legislative History"). In addition, there appears to be a mechanism for adding counties/parishes to the Authority administratively based on bill text in the California Desert Protection Act of 1994 from the 103^rd Congress (P.L. 103-433), which incorporated H.R. 4043, the Lower Mississippi Delta Initiatives Act of 1994 as Title XI of the bill.⁵⁴

Strategic Plan

Funding determinations are assessed according to the DRA's authorizing statute, its strategic plan, distress designations, and state priorities. The DRA strategic plan articulates the authority's high-level economic development priorities. The current strategic plan—Navigating the Currents of Opportunity: Delta Regional Development Plan IV—was released in February 2023 for the 2023-2027 period.⁵⁵

The strategic plan lists four primary goals:

• 1. Invest in public infrastructure;
• 2. Nurture local workforce ecosystems;
• 3. Promote business growth and entrepreneurship; and
• 4. Support community place-making and capacity-building.

States provide development plans that reflect the economic development goals and priorities of member states and LDDs.⁵⁶

DRA projects are developed in coordination with its 45 LDDs,⁵⁷ which are multicounty economic development organizations financially supported by the DRA and advise on local priorities. LDDs "provide technical assistance, application support and review, and other services" to the DRA and entities applying for funding. LDDs receive administrative fees paid from awarded DRA funds, which are calculated as 5% of the first $100,000 of an award, and 1% for all dollars above that amount.⁵⁸

Designating Distressed Areas

The DRA determines a county or parish as distressed on an annual basis through the following criteria:

• 1. an unemployment rate of 1% higher than the national average for the most recent 24-month period; and
• 2. a per capita income of 80% or less than the national per capita income.⁵⁹

The DRA designates counties as either distressed or not, and distressed counties received priority funding from DRA grant making activities. By statute, the DRA directs at least 75% of funds to distressed counties and parishes and isolated areas within non-distressed counties and parishes;⁶⁰ half of those funds must target transportation and basic infrastructure.⁶¹ As of FY2024, 227 of DRA's counties and parishes are economically distressed and 136 are in persistent poverty.⁶² The DRA notes that a county may experience persistent poverty if it has poverty rates of 20% of the population, or more, for at least 30 years (per the USDA Economic Research Service).⁶³ The DRA also analyzes census tracts in order to designate isolated areas of non-distressed counties or parishes as distressed.⁶⁴

Recent Activities⁶⁵

By statute, DRA is required to provide funding for the following four categories:

• Basic public infrastructure in distressed counties and isolated areas of distress;
• Transportation infrastructure for the purpose of facilitating economic development in the region;
• Business development, with emphasis on entrepreneurship; and
• Job training or employment‐related education, with emphasis on the use of existing public educational institutions located in the region.⁶⁶

DRA categorizes its core programs as critical infrastructure or human infrastructure programs. Critical infrastructure programs include⁶⁷

• the States' Economic Development Assistance Program (SEDAP);
• the Community Infrastructure Fund; and
• the Public Works and Economic Adjustment Assistance (PWEAA) Program.⁶⁸

Human infrastructure programs include⁶⁹

• the Workforce Grant Programs (e.g., the Delta Workforce Grant Program, the Workforce Opportunity for Rural Communities (WORC) program);⁷⁰
• the Delta Health Collaborative Programs (e.g., the Delta Doctors Program;⁷¹ the Delta Region Community Health Systems Development Program);
• the Delta Leadership Institute; and
• the Delta Capacity-Building Programs (e.g., the Delta Research; the Delta Summit; the Local Development Districts (LDD) Pilot Program; the Strategic Planning Grant Program).

Additional DRA activities include various partnerships and ongoing initiatives (e.g., the Innovative Readiness Training program, academies and institutes).⁷²

DRA collaborates with various federal agencies on programs and initiatives. Since 2003, Congress has directed USDA to provide funding to DRA for any USDA Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP) purposes that support rural economic development activities in the DRA region.⁷³ Other federal partners include the Economic Development Administration (EDA), the Department of Defense, Department of State, DOL, and HRSA, among others.⁷⁴

States' Economic Development Assistance Program

The principal investment tool used by the DRA is the States' Economic Development Assistance Program, which is used to fund grants for basic public infrastructure; transportation infrastructure; business development and entrepreneurship; and workforce training and education.⁷⁵ The SEDAP funding is made available to each state according to an allocation that has been approved by the Authority.⁷⁶ While all projects must be associated with one of the DRA's four funding priorities, additional review criteria include county-level distress designations; adherence to at least one of the DRA Regional Development Plan goals (from the strategic plan); and alignment with an existing local, regional or state economic development plan and/or workforce strategy.⁷⁷

Legislative History

In 1988, the Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY1989 (P.L. 100-460) appropriated $2 million and included language that authorized the creation of the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Commission. The LMDDC was a DRA predecessor tasked with studying economic issues in the Delta and developing a 10-year economic development plan. The LMDDC consisted of two commissioners appointed by the President as well as the governors of Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee. The commission was chaired by then-Governor William J. Clinton of Arkansas, and the LMDDC released interim and final reports before completing its mandate in 1990. Later, in the White House, the Clinton Administration continued to show interest in an expanded federal role in Mississippi Delta regional economic development.

P.L. 100-460's $2 million in appropriations were made available to "carry out H.R. 5378 and S. 2836, the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Act, as introduced in the House of Representatives on September 26, 1988, and in the Senate on September 27, 1988." Using this language, those previously un-enacted bills were "incorporated by reference" and enacted. P.L. 100-460 also provided a definition of the Lower Mississippi Delta region through the incorporation of H.R. 5378 and S. 2836 (110^th Congress). In 1994, Congress enacted the Lower Mississippi Delta Region Heritage Study Act, which built on the LMDDC's recommendations. In particular, the 1994 act saw the Department of the Interior conduct a study on key regional cultural, natural, and heritage sites and locations in the Mississippi Delta region.

106^th Congress

• In 1999 and 2000, several bills that included legislative text to establish the DRA were introduced and referred to committees (i.e., H.R. 2911, S. 1622, and S. 2936). In March 2000, the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies, held a special hearing on "Economic Development in the Mississippi Delta" that included discussions of the proposed DRA, as well as H.R. 2911, and S. 1622.⁷⁸
• In 2000, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2001 (P.L. 106-554) included language authorizing the creation of the DRA based on the seven participating states of the LMDDC, with the addition of Alabama and 16 of its counties.⁷⁹

107^th Congress

• The 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171) amended voting procedures for DRA states, provided new funds for Delta regional projects, and added four additional Alabama counties to the DRA.⁸⁰

108^th Congress

• The Southern Empowerment and Economic Development Act to authorize the Delta Black Belt Regional Authority (H.R. 678) would have amended the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2009aa(1)) to rename the DRA as the Delta Black Belt Regional Authority (DBBRA). Among other changes, the legislation would have extended the geography of the region to include parts of the area now covered by the SCRC as well as areas in other states. The bill was referred to several committees and subcommittees and was not enacted.
• The Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2003 (H.R. 3196) would have reauthorized the DRA as the "Delta Regional Commission." The bill was referred to several committees and subcommittees and was not enacted.

109^th Congress

• The Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2005 (H.R. 1349) would have reauthorized the DRA as the "Delta Regional Commission." The bill was not enacted.⁸¹
• The Southern Empowerment and Economic Development Act (H.R. 5082) would have amended the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to rename the DRA as the Delta Black Belt Regional Authority (DBBRA). The legislation would have extended the region to include parts of the area now covered by the SCRC as well as areas in other states. The bill was referred to several committees and subcommittees and was not enacted.

110^th Congress

• The 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-234) reauthorized the DRA from FY2008 through FY2012 and added 10 parishes in Louisiana and two counties in Mississippi to the DRA region.⁸²

113^th Congress

• The 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) reauthorized the DRA through FY2018.⁸³

115^th Congress

• The 2018 farm bill (P.L. 115-334), reauthorized the DRA from FY2019 to FY2023, and emphasized Alabama's position as a "full member" of the DRA.⁸⁴

118^th Congress

The Economic Development Reauthorization Act of 2024 (P.L. 118-272, Division B, Title II, Subtitle B) made several changes to the DRA. EDRA

• repealed the sunset (or termination of authority) provision for DRA's authority;⁸⁵
• authorized funding each fiscal year from FY2025 through FY2029;
• authorized the DRA to collect fees for the Delta Doctors program and keep and spend those fees;
• authorized Indian Tribes as eligible recipients of economic and community development grants;
• authorized the executive director, a nonfederal employee of the authority, to assume the duties of the federal co-chair and the alternate federal co-chair for purposes of continuation of normal operations in the event that both positions are vacant;⁸⁶
• added Sabine, Vernon, and Terrebonne Parishes in Louisiana to the DRA region; and
• allowed DRA (and other FRCA) funding to be used for the nonfederal match in EDA projects.⁸⁷

Funding History

The DRA consistently received funding authorizations of $30 million annually since it was first authorized in FY2001 through FY2023.⁸⁸ EDRA provided a funding authorization of $40 million for each fiscal year from FY2025 through FY2029.⁸⁹ However, the actual appropriations provided have fluctuated over the years. Although the DRA was appropriated $20 million in the same legislation authorizing its creation,⁹⁰ that amount was halved in 2002,⁹¹ and continued a downward trend to a low point of $5 million in FY2004, rebounding in FY2006 to $12 million, where it stabilized until FY2016 (see Table 2).

DRA received supplemental appropriations in FY2022 and FY2025. In FY2022, the IIJA provided the DRA with $150 million in supplemental appropriations—five times its annual appropriation at the time.⁹² In FY2025, the American Relief Act, 2025 (P.L. 118-158) provided $1.51 billion to the U.S. Economic Development Administration for disaster economic recovery, with $10 million of that amount to be transferred to the DRA. P.L. 118-158 states that the funding is "for economic adjustment assistance related to flood mitigation, disaster relief, long-term recovery, and restoration of infrastructure in areas that received a major disaster designation as a result of hurricanes, wildfires, severe storms and flooding, tornadoes, and other natural disasters occurring in calendar years 2023 and 2024 under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.)."⁹³ DRA and other FRCAs support disaster economic recovery projects. However, in recent years, DRA and other FRCAs generally have not received supplemental funding for disaster economic recovery activities and have not received transferred funding provided through EDA.

In FY2026, P.L. 119-74 provided the DRA with $32 million in annual appropriations.

Denali Commission

The Denali Commission was established in 1998 to support rural economic development in Alaska.⁹⁴ It is "designed to provide critical utilities, infrastructure, and economic support throughout Alaska." The Denali Commission is unique among these commissions and authorities as a single-state entity. It is also unique because it primarily uses federal funding for administrative expenses, rather than a combination of federal and state contributions for these expenses.⁹⁵

Figure 3. Map of the Denali Commission

Source: Compiled by CRS using data from Esri Data and Maps.

Overview of Structure and Activities

The commission's statutory mission includes promoting rural development, providing power generation and transmission facilities, modern communication systems, water and sewer systems and other infrastructure needs, and providing workforce and other economic development assistance to distressed rural regions in Alaska.⁹⁶ For decades, the commission has provided substantial funding to coastal infrastructure protection and energy infrastructure and fuel storage projects.⁹⁷ The commission continues to invest in energy and bulk fuel programs and climate adaptation activities.⁹⁸ In FY2020, the commission reopened its general economic development and workforce development portfolios.⁹⁹

Commission Structure

The Denali Commission's structure is unique as the only commission with a single-state mandate. The commission is comprised of seven members (or a designated nominee), including the federal co-chair, appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce; the Alaska governor, who is state co-chair (or his/her designated representative); the University of Alaska president; the Alaska Municipal League president; the Alaska Federation of Natives president; the Alaska State AFL-CIO president; and the Associated General Contractors of Alaska president.¹⁰⁰

These structural novelties offer a different model compared to the organization typified by the ARC and broadly adopted by the other functioning FRCAs. For example, the federal co-chair's appointment by the Secretary of Commerce, and not the President with Senate confirmation, allows for a potentially more expeditious appointment of a federal co-chair.

Annual Work Plan and Strategic Plan

The Denali Commission is required by law to create an annual work plan, which solicits project proposals, guides activities, and informs a five-year strategic plan.¹⁰¹ The work plan is reviewed by the federal co-chair, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Office of Management and Budget, and is subject to a public comment period.

The latest strategic plan, released in March 2024, lists seven strategic goals and objectives:

• 1. infrastructure for distressed communities;
• 2. village infrastructure protection and climate resiliency;
• 3. energy, including storage, production, heating, and electricity;
• 4. workforce development;
• 5. transportation;
• 6. sanitation, health facilities, housing, and broadband programs; and
• 7. innovation and collaboration.¹⁰²<del> </del>

Designating Distressed Areas

The Denali Commission's authorizing statute obligates the commission to address economic distress in rural areas of Alaska.¹⁰³ The commission utilizes two overlapping standards to assess distress: a "surrogate standard," adopted by the commission in 2000, and an "expanded standard." These standards are applied to rural communities in Alaska and assessed by the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DOL&WD), Research and Analysis Section. DOL&WD uses the most current population, employment, and earnings data available to identify Alaska communities and Census Designated Places considered "distressed."¹⁰⁴

Appeals can be made to community distress determinations, but only through a demonstration that DOL&WD data or analysis was erroneous, invalid, or outdated. New information "must come from a verifiable source, and be robust and representative of the entire community and/or population." Appeals are accepted and adjudicated only for the same reporting year in question.

Recent Activities¹⁰⁵

The Denali Commission's scope is more constrained compared to the other FRCAs. Since the Denali Commission's founding, bulk fuel safety and security, energy reliability and security, transportation system improvements, and health care projects have commanded the vast majority of Commission projects.¹⁰⁶ In recent years, the Denali Commission's core programs have focused on grants for energy reliability and security and bulk fuel safety and security projects.¹⁰⁷ In 2015, the commission launched the village infrastructure protection program launched to address community infrastructure threatened by erosion, flooding, and permafrost degradation.¹⁰⁸ The Denali Commission has generally funded fewer "traditional" economic development projects, such as housing, workforce development, and general economic development activities, due to funding constraints.¹⁰⁹ However, since FY2020, the commission reports that it has renewed its partnerships and activities that focus on economic development.¹¹⁰

For several years before the enactment of the IIJA, the Denali Commission had not received dedicated funding for transportation, sanitation, health facilities, housing, broadband, and general economic development activities.¹¹¹ However, the commission's FY2023, FY2024, and FY2025 Work Plans and the FY2022-FY2026 IIJA Work Plan indicate support for these and related activities.¹¹² The Denali Commission will allocate IIJA funding to the following activities: (1) infrastructure; (2) village infrastructure protection; (3) energy reliability and security; (4) emergency fund; and (5) workforce and economic development.

In recent years, the Denali Commission has received funding from other state and federal sources, aside from its own appropriation. Other sources for activities administered by the Denali Commission have included

• The State of Alaska, through the Federal Highway Administration, for planning, design, and construction of road and other surface transportation infrastructure in Alaska Native villages and rural communities;¹¹³
• Various federal agencies, such as the EPA, Department of Health and Human Services, USDA, and others;¹¹⁴
• The Trans-Alaska Pipeline Liability (TAPL) trust fund, for the commission's bulk fuel safety and security activities,¹¹⁵ and
• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, for a three-year project to upgrade bulk fuel infrastructure in rural communities.¹¹⁶

The Denali Commission also uses its transfer authority to receive funding from other federal agencies, which it uses to issue grants on the agencies' behalf.¹¹⁷

Legislative History

105^th Congress

• The Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (P.L. 105-277, enacted October 21, 1998) established the Denali Commission in 1998 to support rural economic development in Alaska. P.L. 105-277 also established an annual transfer of interest from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (from the investment of the TAPL)¹¹⁸ to the Denali Commission and directed that it be used by the Denali Commission "to repair or replace bulk fuel storage tanks in Alaska which are not in compliance with federal law."

106^th Congress

The 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-31, Title I, Section 105) authorized the Denali Commission to enter into contracts and cooperative agreements, award grants, and make payments "necessary to carry out the purposes of the commission." The act also established the federal co-chair's compensation schedule, and prohibited using more than 5% of appropriated funds for administrative expenses. P.L. 106-31 amended the Inspector General Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-452) to require the Denali Commission to have an Inspector General.

• In 1999, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000 (P.L. 106-113) established "demonstration health projects" as authorized activities and authorized the Department of Health and Human Services to make grants to the commission to that effect.

108^th Congress

• The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-7) authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to make payments to the Denali Commission to address deficiencies in solid waste disposal sites.
• The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199) created an Economic Development Committee within the commission chaired by the Alaska Federation of Natives president, and included the Alaska Commissioner of Community and Economic Affairs, a representative of the Alaska Bankers Association, the chairman of the Alaska Permanent Fund, a representative from the Alaska Chamber of Commerce, and representatives from each region.
• The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (P.L. 108-447) authorized the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to make payments to the commission for docks, waterfront development, and related infrastructure development.¹¹⁹

109^th Congress

• In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, or SAFETEA-LU (P.L. 109-59), established the Denali Access System Program among the commission's authorized activities. The program was part of its surface transportation efforts, which were active from 2005 through 2009.¹²⁰

112^th Congress

• 2012's Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21^st Century Act, or MAP-21 (P.L. 112-141), authorized the commission to accept funds from federal agencies, allowed it to accept gifts or donations of "service, property, or money" on behalf of the U.S. government, and included guidance regarding gifts.

114^th Congress

• In 2016, the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, or the WIIN Act (P.L. 114-322), reauthorized the Denali Commission through FY2021, and established a four-year term for the federal co-chair (with allowances for reappointment), but provided that other members were appointed for life. The act also allowed for the Secretary of Commerce to appoint an interim federal co-chair, and included clarifying language on the nonfederal status of commission staff and ethical issues regarding conflicts of interest and disclosure.

117^th Congress

• Division A of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58) extended funding authorization for five years to carry out the Denali Access System Program.¹²¹ The act also allowed the Denali Commission to consider funding from another federal agency as no longer subject to requirements previously attached to those funds, including any regulatory actions by the transferring agency.¹²²

118^th Congress

EDRA (P.L. 118-272) made several changes to the Denali Commission's authorizing statute. EDRA

• provided the Denali Commission with leasing authority (including the lease of office space for any term);¹²³
• allowed the commission's funds to be considered nonfederal matching funds when used as matching funds for EDA projects and in other federal programs (unless otherwise prohibited);¹²⁴
• repealed the commission's special function related to rural utilities;¹²⁵
• codified the U.S. Department of Agriculture's authority to make interagency transfers to the Denali Commission to address solid waste disposal site issues—in addition to direct lump sum payments, which were previously authorized;¹²⁶
• established a new program, the Denali Housing Fund, which may be used for loans or grants for planning, construction, or rehabilitation housing activities for low- and moderate-income (LMI) households in rural Alaska villages;¹²⁷ and
• established the authorized funding level of $40 million for each of fiscal years FY2025 through FY2029 (including $5 million for the Denali Housing Fund).¹²⁸

Funding History

Under its authorizing statute, the Denali Commission received authorizations for $20 million for FY1999,¹²⁹ and "such sums as necessary" for FY2000 through FY2003. Legislation passed in 2003 extended the commission's uncapped funding authorization through 2008.¹³⁰ Its authorization lapsed after 2008; reauthorizing legislation was introduced in 2007,¹³¹ but was not enacted. The commission continued to receive annual appropriations for FY2009 and several years thereafter.¹³² In 2016, legislation was enacted reauthorizing the Denali Commission through FY2021 with a $15 million annual authorization through FY2021. EDRA authorized appropriations for the Denali Commission at $40 million for each fiscal year from FY2025 through FY2029 (including $5 million for the Denali Housing Fund).¹³³

Between FY2017 and FY2026, annual appropriations for the Denali Commission averaged $17.4 million. In FY2022, the IIJA provided the Denali Commission with $75 million in supplemental appropriations—approximately five times its annual appropriation at the time (see Table 3).¹³⁴ In addition to annual appropriations, the Denali Commission also receives funding from the Trans- Alaska Pipeline Liability (TAPL), the state of Alaska, and other federal agencies.¹³⁵ As noted, the Denali Commission is authorized to receive transfers from other federal agencies.¹³⁶

FY2022 amounts include $15.1 million provided through annual appropriations (P.L. 117-103). FY2022 appropriated funding amounts include $75 million from Division J, Title III of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58). FY2022 amounts do not include amounts authorized to be appropriated in Division A of P.L. 117-58 pertaining to the Denali Access System Program.

Amounts authorized by P.L. 118-272 include $35 million for the Denali Commission and $5 million for the Denali Housing Fund for each of FY2025-FY2029.

Great Lakes Authority

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328, Division O, Title IV, §401) amended 40 U.S.C. §15301(a) to establish the Great Lakes Authority. The structure and functions of the GLA are based on the model of the NBRC, SCRC, and SBRC, which were established in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (i.e., 2008 farm bill).¹³⁷ The authorizing legislation requires that before the GLA may convene, the President must nominate and the Senate must confirm a federal co-chairperson. On May 2, 2024, President Biden nominated a federal co-chair for the GLA.¹³⁸ However, the nominee was not confirmed by the Senate. As of the date of this publication, President Trump has not nominated a federal co-chair.

The geographic boundaries of the GLA consist of

the counties which contain, in part or in whole, the areas in the watershed of the Great Lakes and the Great Lakes System (as such terms are defined in section 118(a)(3) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(a)(3)), in each of the following States: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.¹³⁹

The GLA region includes counties that are also in the NBRC and NGRPA regions (see Table D-4).

Figure 4. Map of the Great Lakes Authority

Source: Map created by CRS based on terms in P.L. 117-328, P.L. 118-272, and U.S. Geological Survey data. Note: The GLA region consists of counties—in areas specifically designated by statute—within the watershed of the Great Lakes and Great Lakes System.

Overview of Structure and Activities

As authorized, the GLA would share a structure with the NBRC, MARC, SBRC, SCRC, and SNERC, as all share common statutory authorizing language modeled after the ARC.

Authority Structure

As authorized, the GLA would consist of a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, along with the participating state governors (or their designated representatives), of which one would be named by the state representatives as state co-chair. There is no term limit for the federal co-chair. However, the state co-chair is limited to two consecutive terms, but may not serve a term of less than one year.

Strategic Plan

As of the date of publication, the GLA is not active and has not published a strategic plan.

Designating Distressed Areas

As authorized, the GLA would share an approach to designating distressed areas that is similar to that of the NBRC, MARC, SBRC, SCRC, and SNERC.¹⁴⁰

Recent Activities

The GLA is not currently active. The presidential nomination and Senate confirmation of a federal co-chair is an essential step for the GLA to start operations; as of the date of publication, the President has not nominated a federal co-chair for the GLA. For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11744, Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Authorization.

Legislative History

117^th Congress

• P.L. 117-328 amended 40 U.S.C. §15301(a) to establish the GLA. The structure and functions of the GLA are based on the model of the NBRC, SCRC, and SBRC, which were established in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-234).

118^th Congress

• EDRA (P.L. 118-272) extended the funding authorization for the GLA and expanded the definition of the region by specifying that it shall include entire counties rather than parts of counties. Under the prior version of the law, the GLA region covered only parts of certain counties because it was defined as consisting of "areas in the watershed of the Great Lakes and the Great Lakes System." For a summary of other changes to the GLA's authorizing statute in EDRA, see "Changes to Subtitle V FRCAs."

Funding History

Although EDRA did not provide direct funding for GLA, it did include an authorization of appropriations for GLA of $40 million for each of FY2025 through FY2029 (P.L. 118-272).¹⁴¹

In FY2024, the GLA received first-time funding of $5 million. P.L. 119-4 provided continuing appropriations for the GLA for FY2025 at the same level of funding that was provided in FY2024. GLA also received $5 million in FY2026.

Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission

P.L. 118-272 amended 40 U.S.C. §15301(a) to establish the Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission. The structure and functions of the MARC are based on the model of the NBRC, SBRC and SCRC, which were established in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (i.e., 2008 farm bill).¹⁴² The authorizing legislation requires that before the MARC may convene, the President must nominate and the Senate must confirm a federal co-chairperson. As of the date of this publication the President has not nominated a federal co-chair.

The geographic boundaries of MARC include the entire state of Delaware, 20 counties in Maryland, and 15 counties in Pennsylvania (see Table D-5 and Figure 5).

Figure 5. Map of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission Region

Source: Compiled by CRS using the jurisdictional data defined in P.L. 118-272 and Esri Data and Maps.

Overview of Structure and Activities

As authorized, the MARC would share a structure with the GLA, NBRC, SBRC, SCRC, and SNERC.

Authority Structure

As authorized, the MARC would consist of a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, along with the participating state governors (or their designated representatives), of which one would be named by the state representatives as state co-chair. There is no term limit for the federal co-chair. However, the state co-chair is limited to two consecutive terms, but may not serve a term of less than one year.

Strategic Plan

As of the date of publication, the MARC is not active and has not published a strategic plan.

Designating Distressed Areas

As authorized, the MARC would share an approach to designating distressed areas that is similar to that of the GLA, NBRC, SBRC, SCRC, and SNERC.¹⁴³ Generally speaking, the statutory requirements require the FRCAs to designate all counties (including isolated areas within counties) by their relative level of economic distress. The highest level of distress is considered "distressed" and the least distressed are considered "attainment."

Four of the Subtitle V FRCAs (i.e., FRCAs authorized by 40 U.S.C. §15101 et seq.) are authorized to provide funding in attainment counties for administrative expenses of local development districts and for multicounty projects that may include areas in attainment counties (i.e., GLA, NBRC, SBRC, and SCRC). EDRA waived these exceptions for the Maryland and Pennsylvania portions of the MARC.¹⁴⁴

Recent Activities

The MARC is not currently active. The presidential nomination and Senate confirmation of a federal co-chair is one of several essential steps for the MARC to start operations. For more information, see "Steps for Commission Formation" in CRS In Focus IF11744, Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Authorization.

Legislative History

In the 118^th Congress, EDRA (P.L. 118-272) established the MARC and authorized funding for each fiscal year from FY2025 through FY2029.

Funding History

Although EDRA did not provide direct funding for MARC, it did include an authorization of appropriations for MARC of $40 million for each of FY2025 through FY2029 (P.L. 118-272).¹⁴⁵ As of the date of this publication, the MARC has not received appropriations.

Northern Border Regional Commission

The Northern Border Regional Commission was created by the 2008 farm bill.¹⁴⁶ The act also created the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission and the Southwest Border Regional Commission. All three commissions share common authorizing language modeled after the ARC.

The NBRC is the only one of these three commissions that has been both reauthorized and received progressively increasing annual appropriations since it was established in 2008. The NBRC was founded to alleviate economic distress in the northern border areas of Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and, as of 2018, the entire state of Vermont (see Figure 6). The NBRC region includes counties that are also in the ARC and GLA regions (see Table D-5 and Figure B-1).

Figure 6. Map of the Northern Border Regional Commission

Source: Compiled by CRS using data from NBRC, P.L. 118-272, and Esri Data and Maps. Note: Vermont is the only state with all counties within the NBRC's jurisdiction.

The stated mission of the NBRC is "to catalyze community vitality and economic prosperity in the northern border region with flexible funding and strategic support."¹⁴⁷ Eligible counties within the NBRC's jurisdiction may receive funding "for community and economic development" projects pursuant to regional, state, and local planning and priorities (see Table D-6).

Overview of Structure and Activities

Commission Structure

The NBRC is led by a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and four state governors, of which one is appointed state co-chair. There is no term limit for the federal co-chair. The state co-chair is limited to two consecutive terms, but may not serve a term of less than one year. Each of the four governors may appoint an alternate; each state also designates an NBRC program manager to handle the day-to-day operations of coordinating, reviewing, and recommending economic development projects to the full membership.¹⁴⁸

While program funding depends on congressional appropriations, administrative costs are shared equally between the federal government and the four states of the NBRC. Through commission votes, applications are ranked by priority, and are approved in that order as grant funds allow.

Strategic Plan

The NBRC's activities are guided by a five-year strategic plan, which is developed through "extensive engagement with NBRC stakeholders" alongside "local, state, and regional economic development strategies already in place." The NBRC's 2024-2029 strategic plan lists five focus areas: (1) communication and collaboration; (2) programs and funding; (3) systems and processes; (4) diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility; and (5) capacity building. The plan highlights several funding priorities as well, including transportation and basic public infrastructure; telecommunications, workforce, technology, entrepreneurship and business development; basic health care in distressed communities; natural resources; resiliency; renewable and alternative energy; housing; and childcare and early education.¹⁴⁹

The strategic plan also takes stock of various socioeconomic trends in the northern border region, including an increase in the population over the age of 60 years, an increase in remote workers that may consider relocating to the region, changes in industry dynamics, and other opportunities and challenges unique to the region.¹⁵⁰

Designating Distressed Areas

The NBRC is statutorily obligated to assess distress according to economic as well as demographic factors. These designations are made and refined annually. The NBRC defines levels of "distress" for counties that "have high rates of poverty, unemployment, or outmigration" and "are the most severely and persistently economic distressed and underdeveloped."¹⁵¹ The NBRC is required to designate isolated areas of distress in attainment counties and allocate 50% of its total appropriations to projects in distressed counties and isolated areas of distress.¹⁵²

The NBRC's county designations are as follows, in descending levels of distress:

• Distressed counties (80% maximum funding allowance);
• Transitional counties (50%); and
• Attainment (0%).

Transitional counties are defined as counties that do not exhibit the same levels of economic and demographic distress as a distressed county, but suffer from "high rates of poverty, unemployment, or outmigration." Attainment counties are not allowed to be funded by the NBRC except for those projects that are located within an "isolated area of distress," or have been granted a waiver.¹⁵³

Distress is calculated in tiers of primary and secondary distress categories, with each category having three factors:

• Primary Distress Categories
• Percent of population below the poverty level
• Unemployment rate
• Percent change in population
• Secondary Distress Categories
• Percent of population with a bachelor's degree or higher
• Median household income
• Percent of secondary and/or seasonal homes

The NBRC assesses each county annually to determine the classification. The three classifications of economic distress are

• Distressed counties (i.e., counties with at least three qualifying factors (of the six total factors) and at least one factor from each category);
• Transitional counties (i.e., counties with at least one factor from either category); and
• Attainment counties (i.e., counties that show no measures of distress).

Recent Activities¹⁵⁴

All projects are required to address at least one of the NBRC's four authorized program areas and its five-year strategic plan. The NBRC's main program areas include

• the Catalyst program (formerly the state economic and infrastructure development (SEID) program);
• Forest Economy Program (formerly the "Regional Forest Economy Partnership" Program);
• Timber for Transit Program;
• comprehensive planning for states; and
• other programs and initiatives (e.g., the J-1 Visa program, LDD Partnership program).¹⁵⁵

NBRC collaborates with various federal agencies on certain programs and initiatives. For instance, NBRC partners with the U.S. DOL's Employment and Training Administration to design workforce development initiatives through the DOL's Workforce Opportunity for Rural Communities (WORC) Grant Initiative.¹⁵⁶ Since 2019, Congress has directed USDA to provide approximately $2-3 million annually to NBRC for any USDA Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP) purposes that support rural economic development activities in the NBRC region.¹⁵⁷ Other federal partners include EDA, EPA, the Federal Highway Administration, and HRSA.¹⁵⁸

Catalyst Program

The NBRC's Catalyst investment program is the chief mechanism for investing in economic development programs in the participating states. The Catalyst program funds infrastructure (e.g., transportation, telecommunications, and basic public infrastructure) and non-infrastructure activities. Non-infrastructure activities may include job skills training, skills development and employment-related education, entrepreneurship, technology, and business development projects, as well as projects designed to improve basic health care, nutrition and food security, and other public services. Funding may also support projects designed to promote resource conservation, tourism, recreation, and preservation of open space consistent with economic development goals.¹⁵⁹ In recent years, states have received additional funding through the Catalyst program due to supplemental funding provided by IIJA appropriations.¹⁶⁰ Eligible applicants include units of local government, 501(c) organizations, federally-recognized Indian Tribes, the four state governments, and career technical centers and universities. Catalyst projects may require matching funds of up to 50% depending on the level of distress.

Forest Economy Program (FEP)

The FEP is an NBRC program designed to support the forest-based economy and to assist in the forest industry's evolution to include new technologies and viable business models across the four-state NBRC region.¹⁶¹ In FY2018, Congress directed NBRC to allocate $3 million to address the decline in forest-based economies throughout the region.¹⁶² Each fiscal year from FY2019 to FY2023 and in FY2026, Congress directed NBRC to allocate $4 million for the forest-based initiatives.¹⁶³ In FY2022, NBRC revised its forest program priorities with input from regional stakeholders and renamed the initiative the Forest Economy Program.¹⁶⁴

Timber for Transit

The NBRC launched the Timber for Transit program in FY2024. The program provides funding for activities that promote the use of high-value forest products in transportation infrastructure and enhance climate resilience in rural communities. The purpose of the program is to "advance the use of wood-based materials and composites (advanced wood materials) through applied research and demonstration projects that showcase the suitability of such materials to transportation and transportation adjacent infrastructure."¹⁶⁵

State Capacity Grants

The NBRC may provide funding through non-competitive grants to assist states in developing comprehensive economic and infrastructure development plans for their NBRC counties. These initiatives are undertaken in collaboration with LDDs, localities, institutions of higher education, and other relevant stakeholders.¹⁶⁶

Local Development Districts (LDD)

The NBRC uses multicounty LDDs to advise on local priorities, identify opportunities, conduct outreach, and administer grants, from which the LDDs receive fees. LDDs may receive a grants administration fee.¹⁶⁷ NBRC launched the LDD Partnership Program in 2023 to expand assistance and activities with LDDs.¹⁶⁸

Legislative History

110^th Congress

• The NBRC was first proposed in the Northern Border Economic Development Commission Act of 2007 (H.R. 1548), introduced on March 15, 2007. H.R. 1548 proposed the creation of a federally chartered, multi-state economic development organization—modeled after the ARC—covering designated northern border counties in Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont. The bill would have authorized the appropriation of $40 million per year for FY2008 through FY2012 (H.R. 1548). The bill received regional co-sponsorship from Members of Congress representing areas in the northern border region.¹⁶⁹
• The NBRC was reintroduced in the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007 (H.R. 3246), which would have authorized the NBRC, the SCRC, and the SBRC, and reauthorized the DRA and the NGPRA (discussed in the next section) in a combined bill. H.R. 3246 had 18 co-sponsors in addition to the original bill sponsor, and passed the House by a vote of 264-154 on October 4, 2007.¹⁷⁰
• Upon House passage, H.R. 3246 was referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The Senate incorporated authorizations for the establishment of the NBRC, SCRC, and the SBRC in the 2008 farm bill.¹⁷¹ The 2008 farm bill authorized annual appropriations of $30 million for FY2008 through FY2012 for all three new commissions.

115^th Congress

• The only major changes to the NBRC since its creation were made in the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-334, "2018 farm bill"), which authorized the state capacity building grant program.
• In addition, the 2018 farm bill expanded the NBRC to include the following counties: Belknap and Cheshire counties in New Hampshire; Genesee, Greene, Livingston, Montgomery, Niagara, Oneida, Orleans, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Sullivan, Washington, Warren, Wayne, and Yates counties in New York; and Addison, Bennington, Chittenden, Orange, Rutland, Washington, Windham, and Windsor counties in Vermont, making it the only state entirely within the NBRC.

118^th Congress

• EDRA (P.L. 118-272) extended the funding authorization for the NBRC and added four counties to its region: Lincoln County in Maine, Merrimack County in New Hampshire, and Schoharie and Wyoming Counties in New York.
• EDRA made other changes to the NBRC's authorizing statute which are summarized in "Changes to Subtitle V FRCAs."

Funding History

Since its creation, the NBRC has received consistent authorizations of appropriations (see Table 6). The 2008 farm bill authorized the appropriation of $30 million for the NBRC for each of FY2008 through FY2013 (P.L. 110-234); the same in the 2014 farm bill for each of FY2014 through FY2018 (P.L. 113-79); $33 million for each of FY2019 through FY2023 (P.L. 115-334); and $40 million for each of FY2025 through FY2029 (P.L. 118-272).

Due to its statutory linkages to the SCRC and SBRC, all three commissions also share common authorizing legislation and identical funding authorizations. Congress has funded the NBRC since FY2010 (see Table 6). The NBRC's appropriated funding level—excluding supplemental appropriations—increased from $1.5 million in FY2013 to $40 million in FY2023. In FY2022, the NBRC, like other commissions, received five times the amount of their FY2021 annual appropriations in the Infrastructure Improvement and Jobs Act (Division J, Title III of P.L. 117-58). In FY2026, NBRC received $42 million in annual appropriations.

Sources: Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from the following: P.L. 115-31, P.L. 115-141, P.L. 115-244, P.L. 116-94, P.L. 116-260, P.L. 117-58, P.L. 117-103, P.L. 117-328, P.L. 118-42, P.L. 119-4, and P.L. 119-74.

Northern Great Plains Regional Authority

The Northern Great Plains Regional Authority was created by the 2002 farm bill.¹⁷² The NGPRA was created to address economic distress in Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri (other than counties included in the Delta Regional Authority), North Dakota, Nebraska, and South Dakota.

Figure 7. Map of the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority

Source: Compiled by CRS using the NGPRA jurisdiction defined in P.L. 107-171 and Esri Data and Maps. Note: Missouri's jurisdiction was defined as those counties not already included in the DRA.

The NGPRA appears to have been briefly active shortly after it was created, when it received a total of $3 million in annual appropriations from Congress in FY2004 and FY2005.¹⁷³ The NGPRA's funding authorization lapsed at the end of FY2018, and it was reauthorized with the enactment of P.L. 118-272. The NGPRA region includes counties that are also in the GLA region (see Table D-7 and Figure B-1).

Structure and Activities

Overview of Structure and Activities

The NGPRA featured broad similarities to the basic structure shared among most of the federal regional authorities and commissions, being a federal-state partnership led by a federal co-chair (appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate) and governors of the participating states, of which one was designated as the state co-chair.

Unique to the NGPRA were certain structural novelties reflective of regional socio-political features. The NGPRA also included a Native American tribal co-chair, who was the chairperson of an Indian tribe in the region (or their designated representative), and appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The tribal co-chair served as the "liaison between the governments of Indian tribes in the region and the [NGPRA]." No term limit is established in statute; the only term-related proscription is that the state co-chair "shall be elected by the state members for a term of not less than 1 year."

Another novel feature among the FRCAs was also the NGPRA's statutory reliance on a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation—Northern Great Plains, Inc.—in furtherance of its mission. While Northern Great Plains, Inc. was statutorily organized to complement the NGPRA's activities, it effectively served as the sole manifestation of the NGPRA concept and rationale while it was active, given that the NGPRA was only once appropriated funds and never appeared to exist as an active organization. The Northern Great Plains, Inc. was active for several years, and reportedly received external funding,¹⁷⁴ but is currently defunct.

Activities

Under its authorizing statute,¹⁷⁵ the federal government would initially fund all administrative costs in FY2002, which would decrease to 75% in FY2003, and 50% in FY2004. Also, the NGPRA would have designated levels of county economic distress; 75% of funds were reserved for the most distressed counties in each state, and 50% reserved for transportation, telecommunications, and basic infrastructure improvements. Accordingly, non-distressed communities were eligible to receive no more than 25% of appropriated funds.

The NGPRA was also structured to include a network of designated, multi-county LDDs at the sub-state levels. As with its sister organizations, the LDDs would have served as nodes for project implementation and reporting, and as advisors to their respective states and the NGPRA as a whole.

Legislative History

103^rd Congress

• The Northern Great Plains Rural Development Act (P.L. 103-318), which became law in 1994, established the Northern Great Plains Rural Development Commission to study economic conditions and provide economic development planning for the Northern Great Plains region. The commission was comprised of the governors (or designated representative) from the Northern Great Plains states of Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, and South Dakota (prior to Missouri's inclusion), along with one member from each of those states appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture.

104^th Congress

• The Agricultural, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995 (P.L. 103-330) provided $1,000,000 to carry out the Northern Great Plains Rural Development Act. The commission produced a 10-year plan to address economic development and distress in the five states. After a legislative extension (P.L. 104-327), the report was submitted in 1997.¹⁷⁶ The Northern Great Plains Initiative for Rural Development (NGPIRD), a nonprofit 501(c)(3), was established to implement the commission's advisories.

107^th Congress

• The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, or 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171), authorized the NGPRA, which superseded the commission. The statute also created Northern Great Plains, Inc., a 501(c)(3), as a resource for regional issues and international trade, which supplanted the NGPIRD with a broader remit that included research, education, training, and issues of international trade.

108^th Congress

• The Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2003 (H.R. 3196) would have reauthorized the NGPRA as the "Northern Great Plains Regional Commission." The bill was referred to several committees and subcommittees and was not enacted.

109^th Congress

• The Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2005 (H.R. 1349) would have reauthorized the NGPRA as the "Northern Great Plains Regional Commission." The bill was not enacted.¹⁷⁷

110^th Congress

• The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, or 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246), extended the NGPRA's authorization through FY2012. The legislation also expanded the authority to include areas of Missouri not covered by the DRA, and provided mechanisms to enable the NGPRA to begin operations even without the Senate confirmation of a federal co-chair, as well as in the absence of a confirmed tribal co-chair.
• The Agricultural Act of 2014, or 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79), reauthorized the NGPRA and the DRA, and extended their authorizations from FY2012 to FY2018.

118^th Congress

• EDRA (P.L. 118-272) repealed the NGPRA's sunset provision and reauthorized the NGPRA. The law also authorized appropriations for NGPRA through FY2029.¹⁷⁸

Funding History

The NGPRA was authorized to receive $30 million annually from FY2008 to FY2018 and $40 million annually from FY2025 to FY2029.¹⁷⁹ Its authorization of appropriations lapsed at the end of FY2018, and was reauthorized in FY2025 through EDRA.¹⁸⁰ It received $1.5 million in appropriations each year in FY2004 and FY2005.¹⁸¹

Southeast Crescent Regional Commission

The Southeast Crescent Regional Commission was created by the 2008 farm bill,¹⁸² which also created the NBRC and the Southwest Border Regional Commission. All three commissions share common authorizing language modeled after the ARC.

The SCRC received regular appropriations of $250,000 annually from FY2010 through FY2020 but did not form during that time due to the absence of an appointed federal co-chair.¹⁸³ On December 8, 2021, the Senate confirmed the SCRC's first federal co-chairperson, thereby allowing the SCRC to convene and begin other activities.¹⁸⁴

The SCRC was created to address economic distress in areas of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida (see Figure 8) not served by the ARC or the DRA (see Table D-8).

Figure 8. Map of the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission

Source: Compiled by CRS using the jurisdiction defined in P.L. 110-234 and Esri Data and Maps and SCRC, SCRC Counties by Economic Designation, https://scrc.gov. Notes: The SCRC is statutorily defined as including those counties in the named states that are not already included in the ARC or the DRA. Florida is the only state with all counties defined as being within the SCRC. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58; enacted November 15, 2021) added three counties that were previously in the SCRC region to the ARC region.

Overview of Structure and Activities

Commission Structure

The SCRC shares an organizing structure with the GLA, MARC, NBRC, SBRC, and SNERC; all share common statutory authorizing language modeled after the ARC.

The SCRC consists of a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, along with the participating state governors (or their designated representatives), of which one would be named by the state representatives as state co-chair. There is no term limit for the federal co-chair. However, the state co-chair is limited to two consecutive terms, but may not serve a term of less than one year. In December 2021, the Senate confirmed the first federal co-chair for the SCRC. Prior to the confirmation of the federal co-chair in FY2022, the SCRC was unable to form, despite receiving annual appropriations.¹⁸⁵

Strategic Plan

The SCRC developed its bylaws and its first strategic plan for the period FY2023-FY2027.¹⁸⁶ The plan includes the following goals:

• 1. critical infrastructure,
• 2. health and support services access and outcomes,
• 3. workforce capacity,
• 4. entrepreneurial and business development activities,
• 5. affordable housing stock and access, and
• 6. environmental conservation, preservation, and access.

Designating Distressed Areas

As authorized, the SCRC shares an approach to designating distressed areas that is similar to that of the NBRC and the SBRC, as all share common statutory authorizing language.¹⁸⁷ The SCRC uses an index-based classification system, the SCRC compared each county within its jurisdiction with national averages based on three economic indicators: (1) three-year average unemployment rates; (2) per capita market income; and (3) poverty rates. These factors are calculated into a composite index value for each county, which are ranked and sorted into designated distress levels. Each distress level corresponds to a given county's ranking relative to that of the United States as a whole. These designations are defined as follows by the SCRC, starting from the highest level of distress:

• Distressed counties, which are the most severely and persistently economically distressed and underdeveloped. They also have high rates of poverty, unemployment, or outmigration.
• Transitional, which are counties that are economically distressed and underdeveloped or have recently suffered high rates of poverty, unemployment, or outmigration.
• Attainment, which are counties in the region that are not designated as distressed or transitional counties under this subsection.¹⁸⁸

The SCRC also designates isolated areas of distress in attainment counties.¹⁸⁹ The SCRC is required to allocate 50% of its total appropriations to projects in distressed counties and isolated areas of distress.¹⁹⁰

Recent Activities

In addition to the development of bylaws and strategic plan, the SCRC hired its first chief of staff in 2022 and continued to add staff in subsequent years. The SCRC administers State Economic and Infrastructure Development (SEID) Grant Program, a Local Development District (LDD) Capacity Building program, a state Capacity Cooperative program, and a J-1 visa program.¹⁹¹

Legislative History

The SCRC concept was first introduced by university researchers working on rural development issues in 1990 at Tuskegee University's Annual Professional Agricultural Worker's Conference for 1862 and 1890 Land-Grant Universities.¹⁹²

In 1994, the Southern Rural Development Commission Act was introduced in the House Agricultural Committee, which would have provided the statutory basis for a "Southern Rural Development Commission."¹⁹³ While the concept was not reintroduced in Congress until the 2000s, various nongovernmental initiatives sustained discussion and interest in the concept in the intervening period. Supportive legislation was reintroduced in 2002, which touched off other accompanying legislative efforts until the SCRC was authorized in 2008.¹⁹⁴ The legislative efforts are summarized below.

107^th Congress

• H.R. 3618 would have established the "SouthEast Crescent Authority (SECA)," which had similar, but not identical structure and authorities to what would later become authorizing legislation for the SCRC. The bill would have authorized annual appropriations of $40 million for FY2003 through FY2007. The bill was referred to several committees and subcommittees and was not enacted.
• In 2002, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management held a hearing ("The Delta Regional Authority and Southeast Crescent Authority: Progress and Prospects For Regional Development Authorities") to receive testimony regarding the DRA (which had been recently authorized) and to receive testimony regarding the SECA.¹⁹⁵

108^th Congress

• The Southern Empowerment and Economic Development Act to authorize the Delta Black Belt Regional Authority (H.R. 678) would have amended the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2009aa(1)) to rename the DRA as the Delta Black Belt Regional Authority (DBBRA). Among other changes, the legislation would have extended the geography of the region to include parts of the area now covered by the SCRC as well as areas in other states. The bill was referred to several committees and subcommittees and was not enacted.
• The SouthEast Crescent Authority Act of 2003 (H.R. 141) and the Southern Regional Commission Act of 2003 (S. 527) would have also established the SECA and the Southern Regional Commission, respectively. The bills were not enacted.
• The SCRC was reintroduced in the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2003 (H.R. 3196), which would have authorized the SCRC. The bill was referred to several committees and subcommittees and was not enacted.

109^th Congress

• The Southern Empowerment and Economic Development Act (H.R. 5082) would have amended the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to rename the DRA as the DBBRA. The legislation would have extended the region to include parts of the area now covered by the SCRC as well as areas in other states. The bill was referred to several committees and subcommittees and was not enacted.
• The Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2005 (H.R. 1349) would have established the SCRC and SBRC. The bill also proposed to reauthorize the DRA and NGPRA. The bill was not enacted.¹⁹⁶
• House and Senate versions of the SouthEast Crescent Authority Act of 2005 (H.R. 20, S. 1865) would have established the SECA and were referred to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, respectively. On July 12, 2006, the House Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 20 (and other bills).¹⁹⁷ No further action was taken.

110^th Congress

• The Southern Empowerment and Economic Development Act to authorize the Delta Black Belt Regional Authority (H.R. 2403) would have amended the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to rename the DRA as the DBBRA. The legislation would have extended the geography of the region to include parts of the region now covered by the SCRC and other states. The bill was referred to several committees and subcommittees and was not enacted.
• Bills introduced in the House and Senate as the SouthEast Crescent Authority Act of 2007 (H.R. 66 and S. 503, respectively) would have established the SECA, which continued to have similar, but not identical structure and authorities to what would later become authorizing legislation for the SCRC. These bills were not enacted.
• On May 3, 2007, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management convened a hearing on the SECA and other regional commissions prior to the enactment of the 2008 farm bill.¹⁹⁸
• In July 2007, the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007 (H.R. 3246) was introduced to authorize the SCRC as well as the NBRC and the SBRC and reauthorize the DRA and the NGPRA in a combined bill.¹⁹⁹ As noted above, upon House passage, the Senate incorporated authorizations for the establishment of the NBRC, SBRC, and SCRC in the 2008 farm bill, enacted May 22, 2008.²⁰⁰

118^th Congress

• EDRA (P.L. 118-272) extended the funding authorization and made other changes to the SCRC's authorizing statute—see "Changes to Subtitle V FRCAs."

Funding History

Congress authorized $30 million funding levels for each year from FY2008 to FY2018 and $33 million for each year from FY2019 through FY2023.²⁰¹ EDRA (P.L. 118-272) authorized appropriations for the SCRC at $40 million for each fiscal year from FY2025 through FY2029.²⁰²

Congress appropriated $250,000 in each fiscal year from FY2010 to FY2020. However, for FY2021, Congress provided an annual appropriation of $1 million, which was followed by $5 million in FY2022 and $20 million each of fiscal years FY2023 - FY2026. Congress also provided $5 million in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III) in FY2022²⁰³ (see Table 8).

Southern New England Regional Commission

P.L. 118-272 amended 40 U.S.C. §15301(a) to establish the Southern New England Regional Commission. The structure and functions of the SNERC are based on the model of the NBRC, SBRC, and SCRC, which were established in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (i.e., 2008 farm bill).²⁰⁴ The authorizing legislation requires that before the SNERC may convene, the President must nominate and the Senate must confirm a federal co-chair. As of the date of this publication the President has not nominated a federal co-chair.

The geographic boundaries of the SNERC include the entire states Massachusetts and Rhode Island and six counties in Connecticut (see Table D-9 and Figure 9).

Figure 9. Map of the Southern New England Regional Commission Region

Source: Compiled by CRS using the jurisdictional data defined in P.L. 118-272 and Esri Data and Maps.

Overview of Structure and Activities

As authorized, the SNERC would share a structure with the GLA, MARC, NBRC, SBRC, and SCRC.

Authority Structure

As authorized, the SNERC would consist of a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, along with the participating state governors (or their designated representatives), of which one would be named by the state representatives as state co-chair. There is no term limit for the federal co-chair. However, the state co-chair is limited to two consecutive terms, but may not serve a term of less than one year.

Strategic Plan

As of the date of publication, the SNERC is not active and has not published a strategic plan.

Designating Distressed Areas

As authorized, the SNERC would share an approach to designating distressed areas that is similar to that of the GLA, MARC, NBRC, SBRC, and SCRC.²⁰⁵ Generally speaking, statutes require the FRCAs to designate all counties (including isolated areas within counties) by their relative level of economic distress. The highest level of distress is considered "distressed" and the least distressed are considered "attainment."

Other Subtitle V FRCAs (i.e., GLA, NBRC, SBRC, SCRC) are authorized to provide funding in attainment counties for administrative expenses of local development districts and for multicounty projects that may include areas in attainment counties. EDRA waived these exceptions for the SNERC.²⁰⁶

Recent Activities

The SNERC is not currently active. The presidential nomination and Senate confirmation of a federal co-chair is an essential step for the SNERC to start operations. For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11744, Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Authorization.

Legislative History

Some Members of Congress introduced bills to establish a SNERC in the 116^th-118^th Congresses.²⁰⁷ In the 118^th Congress, P.L. 118-272 (EDRA) established the SNERC and authorized funding each fiscal year from FY2025 through FY2029.

Funding History

Although EDRA did not provide direct funding for SNERC, it did include an authorization of appropriations for SNERC of $40 million for each of FY2025 through FY2029 (P.L. 118-272).²⁰⁸ As of the date of publication, the SNERC has not received appropriations.

Southwest Border Regional Commission

The Southwest Border Regional Commission was created with the enactment of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, or the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-234), which also created the NBRC and the SCRC. All three commissions (and the GLA, MARC, and SNERC) share common statutory authorizing language modeled after the ARC.

The SBRC was created to address economic distress in the southern border regions of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas (see Figure 10 and Table D-10). On December 6, 2022, the Senate confirmed the SBRC's first federal co-chairperson, thereby allowing the SCRC to convene and begin other activities.²⁰⁹

Figure 10. Map of the Southwest Border Regional Commission

Source: Compiled by CRS using the jurisdictional data defined in P.L. 110-234, P.L. 118-272, and Esri Data and Maps.

Overview of Structure and Activities

Commission Structure

The SBRC shares an organizing structure with the GLA, MARC, NBRC, SCRC, SNERC as all share common statutory authorizing language modeled after the ARC.

By statute, the SBRC consists of a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, along with the participating state governors (or their designated representatives), of which one would be named by the state representatives as state co-chair. As enacted in statute, there is no term limit for the federal co-chair. However, the state co-chair is limited to two consecutive terms, but may not serve a term of less than one year.

Strategic Plan

In January 2025, the SBRC published its inaugural strategic plan for FY2025-FY2030, which includes goals focused on underserved communities; regional competitiveness; workforce and economic mobility; resiliency, local capacity, and infrastructure; and efficiency and impact.²¹⁰

Designating Distressed Areas

As authorized, the SBRC shares an approach to designating distressed areas that is similar to that of the GLA, MARC, NBRC, SCRC, and SNERC as all share common statutory authorizing language.²¹¹ For instance, like these FRCAs, the SBRC is required to designate isolated areas of distress in attainment counties and to allocate 50% of its total appropriations to projects in distressed counties and isolated areas of distress.²¹²

Recent Activities

The Senate confirmed the SBRC's first federal co-chair in December 2022, which marked an essential step for starting the commission's operations.²¹³ The SBRC announced its first grant competition in March 2025.²¹⁴

Legislative History

The concept of an economic development agency focusing on the southwest border region has existed at least since 1976, though the SBRC was established through more recent efforts.

• Executive Order 13122 in 1999 created the Interagency Task Force on the Economic Development of the Southwest Border,²¹⁵ which examined issues of socioeconomic distress and economic development in the southwest border regions and advised on federal efforts to address them.

108^th Congress

• In February 2003, a "Southwest Regional Border Authority" was proposed in S. 458. A companion bill, H.R. 1071, was introduced in March 2003. The SBRC was reintroduced in the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2003 (H.R. 3196), which would have authorized the SBRC, and the SCRC and reauthorized the DRA and NGPRA.

109^th Congress

• The Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2005 (H.R. 1349) would have established the SBRC and SCRC. The bill also proposed to reauthorize the DRA and the NGPRA. The bill was not enacted.²¹⁶
• In 2006, the proposed Southwest Regional Border Authority Act (H.R. 5742) would have created the "Southwest Regional Border Authority."

110^th Congress

• The SBRC was reintroduced in the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007 (H.R. 3246), which would have authorized the SBRC, the SCRC, and the NBRC, and reauthorized the DRA and the NGPRA in a combined bill.
• On May 3, 2007, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management convened a hearing on the SBRC, and other regional commissions prior to the enactment of the 2008 farm bill.²¹⁷
• In July 2007, the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007 (H.R. 3246) was introduced to authorize the SBRC, the SCRC, and the NBRC, and reauthorize the DRA and the NGPRA in a combined bill.²¹⁸
• Upon House passage, the Senate incorporated authorizations for the establishment of the NBRC, SCRC, and SBRC in the 2008 farm bill. ²¹⁹ The 2008 farm bill authorized annual appropriations of $30 million for FY2008 through FY2012 for all three of the new organizations.

117^th Congress

• The Senate confirmed the SBRC's first federal co-chair in December 2022.²²⁰

118^th Congress

• EDRA (P.L. 118-272) extended the funding authorization for the SBRC and added 10 counties to its region: Bernalillo, Cibola, Curry, De Baca, Guadalupe, Lea, Roosevelt, Torrance, and Valencia Counties in New Mexico and Guadalupe County in Texas. EDRA made other changes to the NBRC's authorizing statute which are summarized in "Changes to Subtitle V FRCAs."

Funding History

Congress authorized annual funding of $30 million for the SBRC from FY2008 to FY2018; $33 million for each fiscal year from FY2019 through FY2023; and $40 million for each fiscal year from FY2025 through FY2029 (P.L. 118-272).²²¹ For FY2021, Congress provided $250,000 for the SBRC through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260). For FY2022, Congress provided $1.25 million for the SBRC through the IIJA (Division J, Title III of P.L. 117-58) and $2.5 million through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103). The IIJA provided the SBRC with an increase in appropriations that was five times the amount of its annual appropriation in FY2021. In FY2024, Congress directed USDA to provide funding for the first time to SBRC for any USDA Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP) purposes to support rural economic development activities in the SBRC region.²²² Congress provided $5 million for the SBRC for each fiscal year between FY2023 and FY2025. In FY2026, P.L. 119-74 provided $5.5 million in appropriations for SBRC.

FY2022 amounts include $2.5 million provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103, Division D, Title IV). FY2022 appropriated funding amounts also include $1.25 million provided by of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III).

The Economic Development Reauthorization Act of 2024 (P.L. 118-272)

As aforementioned, EDRA established two new FRCAs and made revisions to the authorizing statutes for seven of the existing FRCAs. EDRA also explicitly repealed the termination of authority provisions for the DRA and NGRPA.²²³ EDRA did not address the ARC, which was reauthorized by the IIJA in FY2021. In general, EDRA

• expanded the geography of FRCAs to cover parts of four additional states that previously did not have counties included in a FRCA region (i.e., parts of Connecticut and the entire states of Delaware, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island) by (1) adding counties or parts of counties to the regions of four FRCAs (i.e., DRA, GLA, NBRC, SBRC), and (2) establishing two new FRCAs, the MARC and the SNERC;
• amended non-programmatic authorities and requirements (e.g., temporary leadership positions, cost sharing, and fees);²²⁴
• authorized new programs (e.g., state capacity building program); and
• authorized a total of $1.8 billion for nine FRCAs through FY2029.

Changes resulting from the enactment of EDRA to the DRA, Denali Commission, and NGPRA are summarized in the "Legislative History" sections above. See below for a summary of the provisions affecting Subtitle V FRCAs.

Changes to Subtitle V FRCAs

EDRA changed several aspects of the programs, decisionmaking, governance, and other requirements and authorities of the six Subtitle V FRCAs. EDRA

• authorized the Subtitle V FRCAs to administer a demonstration health project program²²⁷ and state capacity grant building program;²²⁸
• allowed funding to be considered as a nonfederal match in other federal programs (unless otherwise prohibited)²²⁹
• authorized the FRCAs to collect, retain, and spend fees;²³⁰
• allowed state alternate members to select a designee that may vote in their absence, provided that the executive director is notified a week before the applicable vote;²³¹
• allowed state alternate members or their designees to vote on FRCA decisions—prior to EDRA, decisions by Subtitle V FRCAs required the affirmative vote of the federal co-chair and a majority of the state members;²³²
• allowed state members, state alternate members, or their designees' votes may count towards a quorum—prior to EDRA, state alternative members and their designees did not count towards a quorum;²³³
• authorized the transfer of funds to and from other Federal agencies (unless otherwise prohibited);²³⁴
• allowed the federal co-chair to designate a nonfederal employee of the FRCAs to take on a temporary acting role as federal co-chair if there are vacancies in both the federal co-chair and the alternate federal co-chair roles;²³⁵
• clarified that any request to the head of any federal agency, state agency, or local government to detail to the FRCAs shall not require reimbursement to the agency or local government;
• changed the requirement from every 90 to every 180 days after the end of the fiscal year for the submission of the annual report to the President and to Congress;
• changed the annual meeting requirements to allow for state alternate designees to count towards the majority of the state members and allow for in-person or virtual attendance; and
• repealed the requirement to have government relations offices in the District of Columbia.²³⁶

Concluding Notes

Given their geographic reach, broad activities, and integrated intergovernmental structures, the federal regional commissions and authorities are a significant element of federal economic development efforts. At the same time, as organizations that are largely governed by the respective state-based commissioners, the FRCAs are not typical federal agencies but federally chartered entities that integrate federal funding and direction with state and local economic development priorities.

This structure provides Congress with a flexible platform to support economic development efforts. In particular, the intergovernmental structure allows for strategic-level economic development initiatives to be launched at the federal level, implemented across multi-state jurisdictions with extensive state and local input, and adapted more readily to regional needs.

The FRCAs reflect an emphasis by the federal government on place-based economic development strategies sensitive to regional and local contexts. However, the geographic specificity and varying functionality of the statutorily authorized FRCAs, both active and inactive, potentially raise questions about the efficacy and equity of federal economic development policies.

In recent years, some policymakers and outside groups have asserted that FRCAs provide a targeted approach to rural economic development that integrates significant federal, state, and local input.²³⁷ Some Members of Congress attributed the FRCAs' intergovernmental coordination as contributing to the FRCAs' successes in economic development and highlighted the FRCAs' unique state-federal partnership model, as well as their work with EDA, local development districts, and educational institutions.²³⁸

Other observers and policymakers are critical of FRCAs generally or of their current framework, arguing that they are duplicative, inefficient, and an unnecessary involvement of the federal government in local economic development. Those opposing FRCAs, including some Members of Congress and outside groups, have sought to clarify how and to what extent the FRCAs duplicate or coordinate with other federal economic development programs.²³⁹

The Trump Administration's FY2026 budget request proposed to eliminate the DRA, Denali Commission, GLA, NBRC, SBRC, and SCRC. According to the request, "States and local governments are better positioned to fund and address unique regional and geographic economic development challenges."²⁴⁰

Congress has occasionally passed legislation to reauthorize the FRCAs and to create new FRCAs. Such legislation has typically provided authorizations of funding levels; updated or added programs or requirements; and addressed changing socioeconomic and technological conditions.²⁴¹ In light of recent changes provided in EDRA, Congress may be interested in tracking the implementation of new programs, roles, and coordination activities, and the impact of these implementations on communities.²⁴²

FRCAs are typically statutorily established before they receive appropriations. Occasionally, Congress has provided an initial authorization and appropriations at the same time (i.e., within a single piece of legislation in two distinct measures). This has not been the case with a new, proposed FRCA for the northwest region of the United States. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026 (P.L. 119-74, Division B, Title IV) provided $1 million for a new regional commission (the Northwest Regional Commission), which—once established—would cover distressed areas of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. As of the date of this report, the commission has not been authorized.

Appendix A. Basic Information at a Glance

Sources: Data compiled by CRS from relevant legislation and official sources of various federal regional commissions and authorities. Authorizing statutes include, in order of tabulation, P.L. 89-4; P.L. 106-554; P.L. 105-277; P.L. 117-328; P.L. 118-272, P.L. 110-234; P.L. 107-171; P.L. 110-234; P.L. 110-234, and P.L. 118-272.

Figure A-1. Timeline of Milestones for Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities Year authorized and year of confirmation or appointment of first federal co-chair (both needed to achieve operation)

Source: CRS. Notes: With the exception of the Denali Commission, the presidential appointment and Senate confirmation of a federal co-chair is an essential step for most FRCAs, as the federal co-chair is a statutorily enumerated leader of the FRCA, alongside state members (the governors, of which one is elected state co-chair).

Figure A-2. Structure and Activities of the Commissions and Authorities

Source: Compiled by CRS with information from the federal regional commissions and authorities. Notes: For the commissions and authority that are not considered to be functioning, structural characteristics are tabulated according to their statutory design. As noted, the first federal co-chair of the SCRC was confirmed in December 2021, and the first federal co-chair of the SBRC was confirmed in December 2022. As of the date of this publication, the GLA, MARC, NGPRA, and SNERC do not have a federal co-chair and are not yet active.

Contact Information

(for selected commissions and authorities)

Appendix B. Map of Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities

Figure B-1. National Map of the Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities (by county)

Source: Compiled by CRS using data from the various commissions and authorities, P.L. 118-272, and Esri Data and Maps. Note: There are no Federal Regional Commissions or Authorities in Hawaii.

Appendix C. Historical Appropriations

Appendix D. Service Areas of Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities

Appalachian Regional Commission

Delta Regional Authority

Source: Compiled by CRS from the Delta Regional Authority and P.L. 118-272.

Denali Commission

Great Lakes Authority

Source: Tabulated by CRS based on terms in P.L. 117-328, P.L. 118-272, and U.S. Geological Survey data.

Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission

Source: Compiled and tabulated by CRS from P.L. 118-272.

Northern Border Regional Commission

Source: Compiled and tabulated by CRS from NBRC data and P.L. 118-272.

Northern Great Plains Regional Authority

Source: Tabulated by CRS with information from P.L. 107-171.

Southeast Crescent Regional Commission

Southern New England Regional Commission

Source: Compiled and tabulated by CRS from P.L. 118-272.

Southwest Border Regional Commission

Source: Tabulated by CRS with information from P.L. 110-234 and P.L. 118-272.