[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SMARTER SPENDING, STRONGER RESULTS: REDUCING DUPLICATION AND ENSURING
EFFECTIVENESS THROUGH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REFORMS
=======================================================================
(119-37)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JANUARY 22, 2026
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
63-133 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Sam Graves, Missouri, Chairman
Rick Larsen, Washington, Ranking Member
Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, Arkansas, Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Vice Chairman District of Columbia
Daniel Webster, Florida Jerrold Nadler, New York
Thomas Massie, Kentucky John Garamendi, California
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.,
Brian Babin, Texas Georgia
David Rouzer, North Carolina Andre Carson, Indiana
Mike Bost, Illinois Dina Titus, Nevada
Bruce Westerman, Arkansas Jared Huffman, California
Brian J. Mast, Florida Julia Brownley, California
Pete Stauber, Minnesota Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Mark DeSaulnier, California
Dusty Johnson, South Dakota Salud O. Carbajal, California
Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey Greg Stanton, Arizona
Troy E. Nehls, Texas Sharice Davids, Kansas
Tracey Mann, Kansas Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois
Burgess Owens, Utah Chris Pappas, New Hampshire
Eric Burlison, Missouri Seth Moulton, Massachusetts
Mike Collins, Georgia Marilyn Strickland, Washington
Mike Ezell, Mississippi Patrick Ryan, New York
Kevin Kiley, California Val T. Hoyle, Oregon
Vince Fong, California Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio,
Tony Wied, Wisconsin Vice Ranking Member
Tom Barrett, Michigan Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan
Nicholas J. Begich III, Alaska Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina
Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr., Christopher R. Deluzio, Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Robert Garcia, California
Jeff Hurd, Colorado Nellie Pou, New Jersey
Jefferson Shreve, Indiana Kristen McDonald Rivet, Michigan
Addison P. McDowell, North Laura Friedman, California
Carolina Laura Gillen, New York
David J. Taylor, Ohio Shomari Figures, Alabama
Brad Knott, North Carolina Maxwell Frost, Florida
Kimberlyn King-Hinds,
Northern Mariana Islands
Mike Kennedy, Utah
Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri
Jimmy Patronis, Florida
Vacancy
------
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and
Emergency Management
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania, Chairman
Greg Stanton, Arizona, Ranking Member
Mike Ezell, Mississippi Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Kevin Kiley, California District of Columbia
Tom Barrett, Michigan Kristen McDonald Rivet, Michigan
Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr., Shomari Figures, Alabama
Pennsylvania John Garamendi, California
Kimberlyn King-Hinds, Dina Titus, Nevada
Northern Mariana Islands Laura Friedman, California,
Mike Kennedy, Utah Vice Ranking Member
Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri, Rick Larsen, Washington (Ex Officio)
Vice Chairman
Sam Graves, Missouri (Ex Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ v
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Hon. Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management, opening statement.................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Hon. Shomari Figures, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Alabama, and Member, Subcommittee on Economic Development,
Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, opening statement.. 3
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, opening statement.............................. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
WITNESSES
Ben Page, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Development and
Chief Operating Officer, U.S. Economic Development
Administration, oral statement................................. 8
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Hon. Gayle Conelly Manchin, Federal Cochair, Appalachian Regional
Commission, oral statement..................................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Hon. Corey Wiggins, Ph.D., Federal Cochair, Delta Regional
Authority, oral statement...................................... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Hon. Chris Saunders, Federal Cochair, Northern Border Regional
Commission, oral statement..................................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Hon. Jennifer Clyburn Reed, Ed.D., Federal Cochair, Southeast
Crescent Regional Commission, oral statement................... 24
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Hon. Juan Sanchez, Federal Cochair, Southwest Border Regional
Commission, oral statement..................................... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Jocelyn Fenton, Director of Programs, Denali Commission, oral
statement...................................................... 32
Prepared statement........................................... 35
APPENDIX
Post-Hearing Questions for the Record to Ben Page, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Economic Development and Chief
Operating Officer, U.S. Economic Development Administration,
from Hon. Rick Larsen.......................................... 59
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
January 16, 2026
SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER
TO: LMembers, Subcommittee on Economic Development,
Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
FROM: LStaff, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management
RE: LSubcommittee Hearing on ``Smarter Spending,
Stronger Results: Reducing Duplication and Ensuring
Effectiveness Through Economic Development Reforms''
_______________________________________________________________________
I. PURPOSE
The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings,
and Emergency Management of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure will meet on Thursday, January 22, 2026, at
10:00 a.m. ET in 2167 of the Rayburn House Office Building to
receive testimony on a hearing entitled, ``Smarter Spending,
Stronger Results: Reducing Duplication and Ensuring
Effectiveness Through Economic Development Reforms.'' The
hearing will examine the implementation of the economic
development reforms included in the Thomas R. Carper Water
Resources Development Act of 2024 (WRDA). At the hearing,
Members will receive testimony from the Economic Development
Administration (EDA), the Appalachian Regional Commission
(ARC), Delta Regional Authority (DRA), Denali Commission,
Northern Border Regional Commission (NBRC), Southeast Crescent
Regional Commission (SCRC), and the Southwest Border Regional
Commission (SBRC).
II. BACKGROUND
EDA AND FEDERAL REGIONAL COMMISSIONS AND AUTHORITIES
The EDA is the only nationwide Federal agency focused
solely on economic development. Reauthorized for the first time
in 20 years by WRDA 2024, its investments in infrastructure lay
the groundwork for industrial and commercial development.\1\
The EDA was established under the Department of Commerce by the
Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Econ. Dev. Admin., About EDA (last accessed Jan. 8, 2026),
available at https://www.eda.gov/about; Press Release, U.S. Econ. Dev.
Admin., U.S. Economic Development Administration Reauthorized by
Congress for First Time in 20 Years (Dec. 19, 2024), available at
https://www.eda.gov/news/press-release/2024/12/19/us-economic-
development-administration-reauthorized-congress-first.
\2\ U.S. Econ. Dev. Admin., Title 13 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, available at https://www.eda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-
02/EDAs_regs-13_CFR_Chapter_III.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal regional commissions and authorities are
independent, Congressionally chartered Federal-state
partnerships that seek to address economic distress in
designated regions of the country.\3\ Currently, there are ten
statutorily authorized regional economic development
commissions; however, only six are currently active: ARC, DRA,
Denali Commission, NBRC, SCRC, and SBRC.\4\ Most Commissions
are modeled after the ARC; composed of a Federal Co-Chair,
appointed by the President, and every constituent state
governor (one is appointed the State Co-Chair on a revolving
basis).\5\ The Federal regional commissions operate in
partnership with state governments, with programming focused on
infrastructure, energy, environment, workforce, and business
development.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Cong. Rsch. Service, IF12165, Federal Regional Commissions and
Authorities: Administrative Expenses (Mar. 25, 2025), available at
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12165.
\4\ Cong. Rsch. Service, R45997, Federal Regional Commissions and
Authorities: Structural Features and Function (Jul. 31, 2025),
available at https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45997 [hereinafter
CRS R45997].
\5\ Id.
\6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION (ARC)
The ARC was first established by the Appalachian Regional
Development Act of 1965 (ARDA).\7\ The ARC's membership
consists of all of West Virginia and parts of Alabama, Georgia,
Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.\8\
The ARC uses an index-based system to classify counties' levels
of economic distress (distressed, at-risk, transitional,
competitive, and attainment) to direct funds to the most
vulnerable communities.\9\ Since 1965, the ARC has invested $6
billion over 34,000 different projects to help improve the
region's economic health.\10\ ARC's five strategic investment
goals and objectives include building businesses, the
workforce, infrastructure, tourism, and community
leadership.\11\ Funding opportunities include the Area
Development Program, the Appalachian Regional Initiative for
Stronger Economies (ARISE), Investments Supporting Partnerships
in Recovery Ecosystems Initiative (INSPIRE), Partnerships for
Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization
Initiative (POWER), Workforce Opportunity for Rural Communities
(WORC) and the Appalachian Regional Energy Hub Initiative.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Appalachian Regional Commission, ARC's History and Work in
Appalachia (last accessed Jan. 8, 2026), available at https://
www.arc.gov/arcs-history-and-work-in-appalachia/ [hereinafter ARC's
History].
\8\ Appalachian Regional Commission, About the Appalachian Region
(last accessed Jan. 8, 2026), available at https://www.arc.gov/about-
the-appalachian-region/.
\9\ Appalachian Regional Commission, Classifying Economic Distress
in Appalachian Counties (last accessed Jan. 8, 2026), available at
https://www.arc.gov/classifying-economic-distress-in-appalachian-
counties/.
\10\ ARC's History supra note 7.
\11\ Appalachian Regional Commission, Appalachia Envisioned: ARC's
2022-2026 Strategic Plan (last accessed Jan. 8, 2026), available at
https://www.arc.gov/strategicplan/.
\12\ Appalachian Regional Commission, Grants and Opportunities
(last accessed Jan. 8, 2026), available at https://www.arc.gov/grants-
and-opportunities/#funding-opportunities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ARC was reauthorized under the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and was appropriated $200
million (available until expended) per year for every fiscal
year (FY) between FY 2022 and FY 2026.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Pub. L. No. 117-58, Div. J, Title III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DELTA REGIONAL COMMISSION (DRA)
The DRA was established in 2000 by the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2001.\14\ The DRA's membership consists of
255 counties and parishes along the Mississippi River in parts
of Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee.\15\ The DRA's mission is
to help make investments supporting transportation
infrastructure, basic public infrastructure, workforce
training, business development, and development of economically
distressed communities.\16\ The States' Economic Development
Assistance Program (SEDAP) is the DRA's main investment tool to
fund public infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, and
business development. The Community Infrastructure Fund (CIF)
complements SEDAP with investments in water, sewer, and flood
mitigation. The Public Works and Economic Adjustment Assistance
(PWEAA) program helps distressed communities enhance their
infrastructure.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ CRS R45997 supra note 4.
\15\ Delta Regional Authority, Service Area Map (last accessed Jan.
8, 2026), available at https://dra.gov/map-room/.
\16\ Delta Regional Authority, About Delta Regional Authority (last
accessed Jan. 8, 2026), available at https://dra.gov/about/.
\17\ Delta Regional Authority, Critical Infrastructure (last
accessed Jan. 8, 2026), available at https://dra.gov/programs/critical-
infrastructure/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DRA was reauthorized in WRDA 2024 for FY 2025 through
FY 2029.\18\ The DRA was appropriated $31.1 million in FY
2024.\19\ This funding level remained unchanged and was
provided again in the FY 2025 full-year continuing resolution
and the FY 2026 continuing resolution.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Pub. L. No. 118-272.
\19\ Pub. L. No. 118-42.
\20\ Pub. L. 119-4; Pub. L. 119-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DENALI COMMISSION
The Denali Commission was established in 1998 to provide
job training, economic development, power generation,
transition facilities, modern communication systems, water and
sewage systems, and promote rural development.\21\ The
Commission only represents one state; accordingly, the
Commissioners are comprised of the Governor of Alaska, the
University of Alaska President, the Alaska Municipal League
Executive Director, the Alaska Federation of Natives President,
the Alaska AFL-CIO Executive President, and the Associated
General Contractors of Alaska Executive Director.\22\ Ongoing
projects include construction of the Goiak bulk fuel farm and
power plant and implementation of the Village of Newtok's
relocation to Mertarvik.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Denali Commission, About Us (last accessed Jan. 8, 2026),
available at https://denali.gov/about/.
\22\ Pub. L. No. 105-277, Div. C, Title III.
\23\ Denali Commission, Energy (last accessed Jan. 8, 2026),
available at https://denali.gov/programs/energy/; Denali Commission,
Village Infrastructure Protection (last accessed Jan. 8, 2026),
available at https://denali.gov/programs/village-infrastructure-
protection/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Denali Commission's authorization lapsed in FY 2022
through FY 2024 following the sunset of the authorization of
appropriations under the Water Infrastructure Improvements for
the Nation (WIIN) Act. WRDA 2024 subsequently reauthorized an
annual $35 million in funding for FY 2025 through FY 2029.\24\
The Commission was appropriated $17 million in FY 2024 and FY
2025.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Pub. L. No. 114-322; Pub. L. No. 118-272.
\25\ CRS R45997 supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NORTHERN BORDER REGIONAL COMMISSION (NBRC)
The NBRC was authorized by the Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill) and subsequently
reauthorized by the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018
Farm Bill) and WRDA 2024. The NBRC's membership includes
distressed communities in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and
New York.\26\ The Commission's main programs include the
Catalyst Program, Forest Economy Program, Timber for Transit
Program, and state-level comprehensive planning.\27\ Since its
establishment, Congress has both reauthorized the NBRC and
provided progressively increasing appropriations, making it one
of only three commissions to receive both.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Id.
\27\ Id.
\28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NBRC was appropriated $41 million in FY 2024 and FY
2025.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOUTHEAST CRESCENT REGIONAL COMMISSION (SCRC)
The SCRC, first authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill, serves
distressed counties not covered by the ARC or the DRA in
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama,
Mississippi, and Florida.\30\ Through its strategic plan, the
SCRC advances investments across critical infrastructure,
health access and outcomes, workforce capacity, business
development, affordable housing, and environmental
conservation.\31\ Its primary investment vehicle, the State
Economic and Infrastructure Development (SEID) grant program,
awarded $34.8 million in FY 2025 to support infrastructure,
workforce pathways, and local economic development.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Id.
\31\ Id.
\32\ Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, Homepage (last
accessed Jan. 8, 2026), available at https://grants.scrc.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After an authorization lapse in FY 2024, WRDA 2024
reauthorized an annual $40 million in funding from FY 2025
through FY 2029.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ CRS R45997 supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOUTHWEST BORDER REGIONAL COMMISSION (SBRC)
The SBRC was first established by the 2008 Farm Bill to
represent distressed counties along the southern borders of
Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas.\34\ Its strategic
plan targets underserved communities and advances regional
competitiveness, workforce and economic mobility, resiliency,
local capacity, infrastructure, and efficiency.\35\ The SBRC
also sets aside at least five percent of its funding for
indigenous communities.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Id.
\35\ Id.
\36\ Southwest Border Regional Commission, Homepage (last accessed
Jan. 8, 2026), available at https://sbrc.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SBRC first received appropriations in FY 2021 and has
been appropriated $5 million annually since FY 2023.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ CRS R45997 supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUTHORIZED COMMISSIONS WITHOUT APPROPRIATIONS
Currently, of the ten authorized regional commissions, four
are inactive. This includes the Great Lakes Authority (GLA),
the Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission (MARC), the Northern Great
Plains Regional Authority (NGPRA), and the Southern New England
Regional Commission (SNERC).\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GLA was first established by the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2023.\39\ Its membership includes
counties surrounding the Great Lakes in Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin. Unlike most other commissions, GLA overlaps with
counties served by NBRC and NGPRA.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Id.
\40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MARC was first authorized by WRDA 2024. Its membership
includes all counties in Delaware, as well as counties in
Maryland and Pennsylvania.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NGPRA was first authorized by the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002 Farm Bill).\42\ Its
membership includes Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska,
South Dakota, and the portions of Missouri not covered by
DRA.\43\ Congress did not reauthorize the NGPRA at the end of
FY 2018, resulting in a lapse of funding until the WRDA 2024
reauthorization; however, the Commission still lacks a
confirmed Federal co-chair.\44\ Unlike the other commissions,
Northern Great Plains, Inc. (a statutorily established non-
profit) previously served as the de facto bearer of the NGPRA's
mission but is now defunct.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Id.
\43\ Id.
\44\ Id.
\45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SNERC was first authorized by WRDA 2024. Its membership
includes all of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, as well as six
counties in Connecticut.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. PRIOR COMMITTEE ACTIONS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REFORMS IN THE WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF
2024
Last Congress, Title II of WRDA 2024 included the Economic
Development Reauthorization Act of 2024, which reauthorized the
Economic Development Administration for the first time in 20
years.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Press Release, U.S. Econ. Dev. Admin., U.S. Economic
Development Administration Reauthorized by Congress for First Time in
20 Years (Dec. 19, 2024), available at https://www.eda.gov/news/press-
release/2024/12/19/us-economic-development-administration-reauthorized-
congress-first.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Included under this reauthorization are provisions that
support EDA's mission and enhance accountability. Specifically:
LIt strengthens coordination across programs,
provides grants for planning, administrative expenses, supply
chain site development, and supports research and technical
assistance.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Pub. L. No. 118-272, Div. B, Title II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIt also establishes Congressional notification
and reporting requirements, allows greater flexibility in
deploying high-speed broadband, and modernizes environmental
review processes.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Pub. L. No. 118-272, Div. B, Title II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIt establishes technical assistance liaisons,
funds exchanges with other agencies, along with new offices at
the EDA, such as the Office of Tribal Economic Development and
the Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Pub. L. No. 118-272, Div. B, Title II.
WRDA 2024 also reauthorized the regional commissions,
except the ARC which had been previously reauthorized, and
created two new commissions.
IV. WITNESSES
LMr. Ben Page, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Economic Development and Chief Operating Officer, United States
Economic Development Administration
LThe Honorable Gayle Conelly Manchin, Federal Co-
Chair, Appalachian Regional Commission
LThe Honorable Corey Wiggins, Federal Co-Chair,
Delta Regional Authority
LThe Honorable Chris Saunders, Federal Co-Chair,
Northern Border Regional Commission
LThe Honorable Jennifer Clyburn Reed, Federal Co-
Chair, Southeast Crescent Regional Commission
LThe Honorable Juan Sanchez, Federal Co-Chair,
Southwest Border Regional Commission
LMs. Jocelyn Fenton, Director of Programs, Denali
Commission
SMARTER SPENDING, STRONGER RESULTS: REDUCING DUPLICATION AND ENSURING
EFFECTIVENESS THROUGH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REFORMS
----------
THURSDAY, JANUARY 22, 2026
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Scott Perry
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Perry. The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management will come to order. The
Chair asks that I be authorized to declare a recess at any time
during today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair asks unanimous consent that Members not on the
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
today's hearing and ask questions.
Without objection, so ordered.
As a reminder, if Members wish to insert a document into
the record, please also email it to [email protected].
The Chair now recognizes himself for purposes of an opening
statement for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT PERRY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC
BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Mr. Perry. Thanks to our witnesses, each of you, for coming
here and being here today as we examine the role and
effectiveness of the Economic Development Administration, the
EDA, and the economic development regional commissions in
distressed regions of the country.
Today, we will hear from the EDA as well as six regional
commissions: the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Delta
Regional Authority, the Northern Border Regional Commission,
the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, the Southwest
Border Regional Commission, and the Denali Commission. EDA is
the only Federal agency established for the purpose of
supporting economic development in distressed communities
nationwide.
Meanwhile, the regional commissions were set up
independently to work in partnership with their member State
governments to achieve similar goals, but in regional settings.
Other Federal departments are also involved in economic
development, including the Department of Agriculture, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Small
Business Administration.
If this seems like a lot of cooks in the kitchen, I
certainly think it is. And the list doesn't stop there. There
are newly established commissions for southern New England, the
mid-Atlantic region, and the Great Lake States.
In fact, in our 2023 hearing focused on regional
commissions, I predicted that the list of regional commissions
would continue to proliferate, and it has. It is not the role
of the Federal Government to pick which communities win and
lose. America's private enterprise has historically driven
economic development and done a pretty good job at it. It is
the responsibility of State and local governments to facilitate
a business-friendly environment for its constituents. States
already have the power to lower barriers for entry by
diminishing overly burdensome regulations and the costs of
doing business. But here we are, even more Federal programs
than we had just 2 years ago.
And, to be crystal clear, I am not blaming you, the
witnesses here today, for this. But it does mean that at the
very least, we need to make sure that your activities and
funding are not duplicative. It is also critical to ensure
accountability and that clear performance metrics are in place.
The fundamental mission of the economic development
programs is to create jobs in distressed communities. So,
ensuring that funding is not used to backfill State budgets but
instead is targeted and actually producing jobs is fundamental.
That is why in the reforms passed last Congress, there are
clear mandates for EDA to report performance data, including
job creation numbers. There are mandates for all the witnesses
here today to coordinate and communicate with one another and
with other Federal agencies involved in economic development.
The Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of
2024, or WRDA, reauthorized many of the regional commissions,
as well as the EDA, for the first time in 20 years. Given this
new requirement, the American people want to know each of your
game plans. More specifically, I want to know each regional
commission's goals, how you are collecting and reporting
performance data, and how you are coordinating with the EDA,
one another, as well as other Federal programs at USDA, HUD,
and the SBA.
[Mr. Perry's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress
from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
I'd like to thank our witnesses for being here today as we examine
the role and effectiveness of the Economic Development Administration
(EDA) and the economic development regional commissions in distressed
regions of the country.
Today, we will hear from the EDA, as well as six regional
commissions: the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), the Delta
Regional Authority (DRA), the Northern Border Regional Commission
(NBRC), the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission (SCRC), the
Southwest Border Regional Commission (SBRC), and the Denali Commission.
EDA is the only federal agency established for the purpose of
supporting economic development in distressed communities nationwide.
Meanwhile, the regional commissions were set up independently to
work in partnership with their member state governments to achieve
similar goals, but in regional settings. Other federal departments are
also involved in economic development, including the Department of
Agriculture (USDA), the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), and the Small Business Administration (SBA).
If this seems like a lot of cooks in the kitchen, it is. And the
list doesn't stop there. There are newly established commissions for
Southern New England, the mid-Atlantic region, and the Great Lakes
states.
In fact, in our 2023 hearing focused on regional commissions, I
predicted that the list of regional commissions would continue to
proliferate, and it has. It is not the role of the federal government
to pick which communities win and lose. America's private enterprise
has historically driven economic development. It is the responsibility
of state and local governments to facilitate a business-friendly
environment for its constituents. States already have the power to
lower barriers for entry by diminishing overly burdensome regulations
and the costs of doing business. But here we are with even more federal
programs than we had just two years ago.
Now, I am not blaming the witnesses here today for this. But it
does mean that, at the very least, we need to make sure your activities
and funding are not duplicative. It is also critical to ensure
accountability and that clear performance metrics are in place.
The fundamental mission of economic development programs is to
create jobs in distressed communities. So, ensuring that funding is not
used to backfill state budgets but instead is targeted and actually
produces jobs is fundamental.
That is why in the reforms passed last Congress, there are clear
mandates for EDA to report performance data, including job creation
numbers. There are mandates for all the witnesses here today to
coordinate and communicate with one another and with other federal
agencies involved in economic development.
The Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development (WRDA) Act of 2024
reauthorized many of the regional commissions, as well as the EDA, for
the first time in 20 years. The American people want to know each of
your game plans.
More specifically, I want to know each regional commission's goals,
how you are collecting and reporting performance data, and how you are
coordinating with EDA, one another, as well as other federal programs
at USDA, HUD, and SBA.
Mr. Perry. With that, I look forward to hearing from each
of you, our witnesses. And the Chair now recognizes the ranking
member for 5 minutes for an opening statement. Mr. Figures.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHOMARI FIGURES OF ALABAMA, MEMBER,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Mr. Figures. Thank you, Chairman Perry. Thank you to all
the witnesses for being here today, and thank you to all of
your teams that have supported your presence here today, as
well.
Thank you, Chairman, for holding this hearing, this
important hearing to examine the work and effectiveness of
Federal economic development programs at the State and local
level. These programs allow communities to make critical
investments in workforce training, infrastructure,
entrepreneurial development, and other initiatives essential to
advancing sustainable economic growth across this country.
I want to also thank our witnesses for joining us today and
sharing your perspective on the important work of the Economic
Development Administration and the Federal regional commissions
and authorities that each of you represent. We appreciate your
time and look forward to learning from your experience
administering and engaging with these programs.
Today's hearing will give us the opportunity to assess how
the EDA and the regional commissions are operating following
their reauthorization under the bipartisan Economic Development
Reauthorization Act, which was included as part of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2024.
I am interested in understanding what these programs are
doing well, where implementation challenges still remain, and
what improvements could help them work even better for the
communities they are intended to serve.
EDA plays a critical role in bringing job growth and
economic opportunities to distressed communities in every
region of this country. The agency and commissions support
workforce development, infrastructure investment, and regional
planning efforts that help local economies grow and adapt to
new challenges and opportunities. They also promote innovation
and competitiveness in our local and regional economies,
helping communities succeed in the global marketplace.
Despite this important work, EDA had not been reauthorized
in over two decades prior to last year. That reauthorization
gave Congress the opportunity to modernize the agency and
strengthen its ability to foster economic growth in today's
rapidly changing business environments.
As we will hear from our witnesses today, the work of EDA
and the regional commissions impact communities of all sizes,
both urban and rural. In my home State of Alabama, we have seen
this directly. In fiscal year 2024, the Appalachian Regional
Commission worked in partnership with the Alabama Department of
Economic and Community Affairs to support more than 50 projects
in the State, totaling nearly $22 million--investing in
entrepreneurship and business development, workforce
ecosystems, and community infrastructure.
Additionally, just last month, the Southeast Crescent
Regional Commission announced five State Economic and
Infrastructure Development grants in Alabama, totaling more
than $2 million.
These investments will support water and sewer
infrastructure, workforce training, and local transportation
planning across several counties, projects that will help these
communities build long-term economic stability and growth.
As we examine how these programs are being executed and
implemented on the ground, it is essential that EDA and the
regional commissions have the necessary tools and resources
they need to meet the challenges of the regions and the
residents that they serve. We must ensure that these Federal
investments deliver lasting and meaningful economic development
for local communities across this country.
I thank our witnesses again for appearing before us today,
and I look forward to your testimony. Thank you.
[Mr. Figures' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Shomari Figures, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Alabama, and Member, Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
Thank you, Chairman Perry, for holding this important hearing to
examine the work and effectiveness of federal economic development
programs at the state and local level. These programs allow communities
to make critical investments in workforce training, infrastructure,
entrepreneurial development and other initiatives essential to
advancing sustainable economic growth.
I also want to thank our witnesses for joining us today and for
sharing your perspectives on the important work of the Economic
Development Administration (EDA) and the federal regional commissions
and authorities you represent. We appreciate your time and look forward
to learning from your experience administering and engaging with these
programs on the ground.
Today's hearing gives us opportunity to assess how the EDA and the
regional commissions are operating following their reauthorization
under the bipartisan Economic Development Reauthorization Act, which
was included as part of the Thomas R. Carper Water Resources
Development Act of 2024.
I am interested in understanding what these programs are doing
well, where implementation challenges remain and what improvements
could help them work even better for the communities they are intended
to serve.
EDA plays a critical role in bringing job growth and economic
opportunities to distressed communities in every region of the country.
The agency and commissions support workforce development,
infrastructure investment, and regional planning efforts that help
local economies grow and adapt to new challenges and opportunities.
They also promote innovation and competitiveness in local and regional
economies, helping communities succeed in the global marketplace.
Despite this important work, EDA had not been reauthorized in more
than two decades prior to last year. That reauthorization gave Congress
the opportunity to modernize the agency and strengthen its ability to
foster economic growth in today's rapidly changing business
environment.
As we will hear from our witnesses today, the work of EDA and the
regional commissions impact communities of all sizes, both urban and
rural. In my home state of Alabama, we have seen this directly.
In fiscal year 2024, the Appalachian Regional Commission worked in
partnership with the Alabama Department of Economic and Community
Affairs to support 51 projects in the state totaling nearly $22
million--investing in entrepreneurship and business development,
workforce ecosystems, and community infrastructure.
Additionally, just last month, the Southeast Crescent Regional
Commission announced five State Economic and Infrastructure Development
grants in Alabama, totaling more than $2 million.
These investments will support water and sewer infrastructure,
workforce training and local transportation planning across several
counties--projects that will help these communities build long-term
economic stability and growth.
As we examine how these programs are being executed and implemented
on the ground, it is essential that EDA and the regional commissions
have the necessary tools and resources to meet the needs of the regions
and residents they serve. We must ensure that these federal investments
deliver lasting and meaningful economic development for local
communities across the country.
I thank our witnesses for appearing before us today, and I look
forward to their testimony.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the ranking member.
The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full
committee, Mr. Larsen, Representative Larsen, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK LARSEN OF WASHINGTON, RANKING
MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to
thank the commissions and the EDA for being here, as well.
We are going to be voting on the floor at 10:30. I am going
to just ask unanimous consent that my full comments enter the
record and then just point out a few things about the regional
commissions, which are a Federal-State partnership that
Congress created to implement community and economic
development strategies in some of our most disadvantaged
regions.
The work that you have done, working closely with EDA, is
to build durable regional economies throughout the country. EDA
and the regional commissions provide critical investments in
wastewater treatment facilities, workforce training, industrial
park road improvements, broadband expansion, and a variety of
other areas, and they are an important economic tool for local
regions.
We reauthorized the EDA as part of the Tom Carper bill--the
WRDA bill--a little over 13, 14 months ago. And, in fact, in
this budget that we are voting on today--we have taken so many
votes over the last week on appropriations bills; I can't keep
track of all of them--we do in fact fund the commissions moving
forward, as well.
I think what I want to see is to ensure that the work the
commissions are doing does in fact line up with EDA priorities,
and the EDA priorities line up with the commissions. So, as I
know, it is a partnership. It is a constant push and pull to
ensure that you are achieving the goals you need regionally but
also achieving the goals with your partner, the EDA.
And so, with that, I will end it there, and again just ask
unanimous consent for my full statement to be in the record.
[Mr. Larsen of Washington's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chairman Perry, for holding this hearing on our Nation's
economic development programs and the integral role that they play in
strengthening our communities, our workforce and our infrastructure.
We are going to hear testimony from witnesses representing
different economic development entities:
the Department of Commerce's Economic Development
Administration (EDA);
the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC);
the Delta Regional Authority (DRA);
the Denali Commission (Denali);
the Northern Border Regional Commission (NBRC); and,
the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission.
To our witnesses, I thank you all for joining us today. I have long
been a champion of leveraging federal support for economic development
via these economic development entities.
Regional commissions are federal-state partnerships that Congress
created to implement community and economic development strategies in
some of our most disadvantaged regions. By integrating federal, state,
regional and local economic development priorities, the regional
commissions help communities respond to local economic crises, trends
and needs.
Regional commissions work closely with the Economic Development
Administration (EDA) to build durable regional economies throughout the
country.
EDA and the regional commissions provide critical investments in
wastewater treatment facilities, workforce training programs,
industrial park road improvements, commercial truck driver training,
and broadband expansion--all vital to local economies.
Regional commissions are an important economic tool to help
communities respond to economic challenges. These commissions
supplement the work done by EDA to address economic challenges across
states and industries.
Although there is currently no regional commission for Washington
state, the FY26 Financial Services and General Government
Appropriations bill included $1,000,000 to establish a Northwest
Regional Commission located in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana.
I support the establishment of the Northwest Regional Commission
and hope this bill will soon be signed into law so communities in my
district and across the Northwest can access the resources and tools
provided by these Commissions to help our regional economy thrive.
The Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of 2024
included the Economic Development Reauthorization Act (EDRA), which
reauthorized EDA and seven existing regional commissions.
Prior to EDRA, EDA administered 11 core programs that funded a
range of construction and non-construction activities in both urban and
rural areas. With the enactment of EDRA, some core programs remain
unchanged, some existing programs have been amended, and some new
programs have been authorized.
It appears that some previously authorized EDA programs are no
longer accepting new grant applications. In fact, open funding
opportunities seem extremely limited.
I look forward to hearing from our EDA witness about the Trump
Administration's implementation of EDRA and how EDA is complying with
Congressional mandates.
EDA is the lead agency for the federal government's Economic
Recovery Support Function (ERSF).
EDA manages this role on behalf of the Department of Commerce (DOC)
under the National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF) and in
coordination with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and
other interagency partners.
The ERSF integrates the expertise of the federal government to help
state, local, tribal and territorial (SLTT) governments, as well as
private sector partners sustain and rebuild businesses, bolster
employment and develop economic opportunities that result in
economically resilient communities after large-scale and catastrophic
incidents.
Since the early 1990's, EDA has received $4.71 billion in
supplemental appropriations to support local and regional efforts to
recover from natural disasters.
The importance of EDA's post disaster work has become painfully
clear to me and to the people I represent in the wake of the December
floods that devastated western Washington. Local businesses are
struggling to rebuild and recover from significant economic losses, and
the need for federal support has never been more urgent.
Once a major disaster declaration is approved for Washington, I
look forward to working closely with EDA to help the Puget Sound
economy regain its footing and ensure our communities have the support
they need to recover and thrive.
I look forward to learning more from both EDA and the regional
commissions about any improvements that should be made to the federal
government's disaster recovery efforts.
I would also like to hear what regional commissions are doing well.
Thanks again to witnesses for being here, and to the Chairman for
holding this hearing.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks Representative Larsen.
I would now like to welcome our witnesses and thank you
again for traveling here today. Briefly, I would like to take a
moment, especially for anybody new, to explain our lighting
system. There are three lights in front of you. Green means go.
Yellow means you are running out of time. And red means please
conclude your remarks. And, if I am hitting the gavel, well,
you don't want me hitting the gavel, right?
The Chair asks unanimous consent that the witnesses' full
statements be included in the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
And I would just encourage you also just be familiar with
the microphone; put it in front of your mouth so that we can
hear you.
The Chair also asks unanimous consent that the record of
today's hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses
have provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to
them in writing.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair also asks unanimous consent that the record
remain open for 15 days for any additional comments and
information submitted by the Members or the witnesses to be
included in the record of today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
As your written testimonies have been made part of the
record, the subcommittee asks that you limit your oral remarks
to 5 minutes.
And, just as a reminder, we are scheduled to vote at 10:30.
We are scheduled to vote at 10:30. It doesn't mean we are going
to vote at 10:30. So we are going to try and get through as
much as we can, but you can probably rely on a bathroom break
sometime in the next hour or something like that, just for your
personal planning purposes.
All right. As your written testimonies--we already said
that.
With that, Mr. Page, you are recognized for 5 minutes for
your testimony, sir.
TESTIMONY OF BEN PAGE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, U.S. ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION; HON. GAYLE CONELLY MANCHIN, FEDERAL
COCHAIR, APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION; HON. COREY WIGGINS,
Ph.D., FEDERAL COCHAIR, DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY; HON. CHRIS
SAUNDERS, FEDERAL COCHAIR, NORTHERN BORDER REGIONAL COMMISSION;
HON. JENNIFER CLYBURN REED, Ed.D., FEDERAL COCHAIR, SOUTHEAST
CRESCENT REGIONAL COMMISSION; HON. JUAN SANCHEZ, FEDERAL
COCHAIR, SOUTHWEST BORDER REGIONAL COMMISSION; AND JOCELYN
FENTON, DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS, DENALI COMMISSION
TESTIMONY OF BEN PAGE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, U.S. ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Page. Thank you.
Chairman Perry, Representative Figures, distinguished
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify before you on the Economic Development Administration's
implementation of the Thomas R. Carper Water Resources
Development Act of 2024, which reauthorized EDA through fiscal
year 2029.
The Administration is moving to execute on the requirements
of the statute and is making swift progress. A few of the
authorities have longer lead times, but I am proud to assure
you that EDA is working diligently to put them in place. With
that, I want to run through some of the highlights of EDA's
implementation so far.
First, at the structural level, EDA has already submitted,
and Congress has approved, a reorganization to stand up the two
new offices required by the law: the Office of Disaster
Recovery and Resilience and the Office of Tribal Economic
Development. The disaster office helped design EDA's fiscal
year 2025 disaster supplemental funding notice, which was
released on June 4th, 2025, and is currently accepting
applications to help areas recover from disasters that occurred
in 2023 and 2024, including Hurricanes Helene and Milton.
Further, the Tribal office held a Tribal consultation on
September 25th, 2025, as part of the process to develop a
Tribal economic development strategy as required by
reauthorization.
Second, many of the statutory authorities were self-
executing and became available immediately to EDA. This
includes the new authorities related to implementing broadband
projects, new eligible entities, expanded eligible activities,
and new flexibilities around capacity building and pre-award
activities.
The law also institutionalized many programs where EDA has
previously only received appropriations. This includes two
programs in particular: assistance to coal communities and
assistance to nuclear closure communities. As the President has
made clear, we must ensure the conditions for energy dominance
and must course correct after years of decline in critical
energy sectors like coal and nuclear. To that effect, among the
Nation's best opportunities for energy independence and
economic growth are our coal and nuclear communities. Both of
these communities have special relationships with EDA because
of the attention called to them in the law. EDA intends to
leverage these relationships to help advance the President's
energy dominance agenda and revive these hard-working
communities after years of decline.
Third, EDA quickly adopted Congress' new definitions for
investment priorities and set up a process to notify Congress
about upcoming award decisions. We immediately incorporated the
five new investment priorities into EDA's funding decisions and
updated them on the website and into our funding announcements.
Fourth, EDA is actively working on a new program utilizing
the workforce authorities Congress enacted. As was mentioned in
a recent EDA blog post, and consistent with the America's
Artificial Intelligence Action Plan, we seek to help American
communities transition towards this new vision by setting aside
$25 million in grant funding in support of the AI Action Plan.
Fifth, EDA is actively working to deepen the integration
and coordination it already has with the regional commissions.
In fact, in February, EDA and the commissions are convening in
West Virginia to foster coordination and dive deeper into three
important areas: closing the urban-rural divide on economic
development opportunities, supporting development of a skilled
workforce that aligns with private-sector needs, and ensuring
these communities can participate in the economic opportunities
afforded by emerging technologies.
Finally, EDA is actively working to update its economic
distress criteria and corresponding grant rates. EDA is
currently researching and conducting due diligence and intends
to consult with subject-matter experts and stakeholders before
undertaking notice and comment public rulemaking, which will
likely take at least another year.
As you are aware, the President's budget request for fiscal
year 2026 proposes to eliminate funding for EDA as part of the
administration's plans to move the Nation towards fiscal
responsibility. While EDA and the Department of Commerce stand
ready to execute this directive, we are committed to ensuring
that any funds that are executed, including for the activities
I have described, are deployed in a manner that protects
American taxpayers and supports communities.
In closing, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Figures, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you again for the
opportunity to discuss implementation of EDA's reauthorization.
I am happy to answer any questions you have.
[Mr. Page's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ben Page, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic
Development and Chief Operating Officer, U.S. Economic Development
Administration
Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Stanton, and distinguished members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before
you on the Economic Development Administration's (EDA) implementation
of the Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of 2024, which
reauthorized EDA through FY 2029.
The Administration is moving to execute the requirements of the
statute and is making swift progress. A few of the authorities have
longer lead times and will take longer to implement, but I am proud to
assure you EDA is working diligently to put them in place. EDA has made
thoughtful decisions in implementing these requirements in the most
effective ways possible. With that I want to run through some
highlights of EDA's implementation so far.
First, at the structural level, EDA has already submitted, and
Congress has approved, a reorganization to stand up the two new offices
required by the law: the Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience and
the Office of Tribal Economic Development. EDA is currently updating
its internal organizational structure to fully reflect each office's
respective duties and implementing the missions of these offices as set
out in the statute. The Disaster Office helped design EDA's FY 2025
Disaster Supplemental Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), which was
released on June 4, 2025, and is currently accepting applications to
help areas recover from disasters that occurred in calendar years 2023
and 2024, including Hurricanes Helene and Milton. The accompanying
hiring authority Congress enacted in the section establishing the
Disaster Office has also been used for EDA's mission delivery strategy.
EDA was able to quickly onboard additional term staff to help it
process awards for those areas eligible for funding from the FY 2025
Disaster Supplemental. Further, the Tribal Office held a tribal
consultation on September 25, 2025, as part of the process to develop a
Tribal Economic Development Strategy, as required in the
reauthorization.
Second, many of the statutory authorities were self-executing and
became available immediately to EDA as new available tools. This
includes the new authorities related to implementing broadband
projects, new eligible entities, expanded eligible activities under
EDA's Public Works and Economic Adjustment Assistance authorities, and
new flexibilities around capacity building and pre-award activities.
The law also institutionalized many programs where EDA has previously
received appropriations and now has direction from Congress on
execution. This includes two programs in particular: Assistance to Coal
Communities and Assistance to Nuclear Closure Communities. As the
President has made clear, we must ensure the conditions for energy
dominance and must course correct after years of decline in critical
energy sectors like coal and nuclear. To that effect, among the
nation's best opportunities for energy independence and economic growth
are our coal and nuclear communities--both of which have special
relationships with EDA because of the attention called to them in the
law. EDA intends to utilize these relationships to help advance the
President's energy dominance agenda and revive these hard-working
communities after years of national destruction.
Third, EDA quickly adopted Congress's new definitions for
Investment Priorities and set up a process to notify Congress about
upcoming award decisions. We immediately incorporated the five new
Investment Priorities into EDA's funding decisions and updated them on
EDA's website. EDA has also implemented a process to give Congress
three days' advance notice of any grant EDA is about to award.
Fourth, EDA is actively working on a new program utilizing the
workforce authorities Congress enacted. As was mentioned in an EDA blog
post and consistent with America's Artificial Intelligence Action Plan
and Executive Order 14179, we seek to help transition American
communities towards this new vision by setting aside $25 million in
grant funding in support of the AI action plan. That plan recognizes
the need for industry-driven training programs that address workforce
needs tied to AI infrastructure investments.
Fifth, EDA is actively working to deepen the integration and
coordination it already has with the Regional Commissions. In fact, in
early February, EDA and the Commissions are convening in West Virginia
to foster improved coordination, and to dive deeper into three specific
areas that are important to helping distressed communities in areas
covered by the commissions succeed in our changing economy: 1) closing
the urban-rural divide on economic development opportunities; 2)
supporting development of a skilled workforce that aligns with private
sector needs; and 3) ensuring these communities can participate in the
economic opportunities afforded by emerging technologies. We look
forward to working even more closely with our partners, some of whom
are represented here today, to amplify the impacts of our respective
investments and collaborate when possible to help improve lives in the
nation's distressed areas.
Finally, EDA is actively working to update its economic distress
eligibility criteria and corresponding grant rates. EDA is currently
researching and conducting due diligence and intends to consult with
subject matter experts and stakeholders before undertaking notice and
comment public rulemaking. However, to ensure these changes are
implemented correctly, this effort will likely take at least another
year, including the solicitation of public comment.
President Trump's budget request for FY 2026 proposes to eliminate
funding for EDA and cancellation of its unobligated balances as part of
the Administration's plans to move the nation toward fiscal
responsibility. While EDA and the Department of Commerce stand ready to
execute this directive, we are committed to ensuring that any funds
that are executed--including the activities I've described--are
deployed in a manner that protects American taxpayers and supports
communities.
In closing, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Stanton, and members of
the Subcommittee, thank you again for the opportunity to discuss the
implementation of EDA reauthorization. We appreciate the collaborative
relationships with you and your staff as we serve the nation's economic
development interests and create opportunities for distressed
communities across the country. We look forward to continuing to
implement this legislation and strengthening EDA's mission.
I am happy to answer any questions you might have.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Manchin for 5 minutes for your
testimony, ma'am.
TESTIMONY OF HON. GAYLE CONELLY MANCHIN, FEDERAL COCHAIR,
APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION
Ms. Manchin. Thank you. Good morning.
Good morning.
Mr. Perry. Pull that mic--there you go.
Ms. Manchin. Okay. Thank you for the opportunity for all of
us to be here today. I am Gayle Manchin, Federal Cochair of the
Appalachian Regional Commission, whose mission it is to
strengthen economic growth throughout the Appalachian region's
13-State, 423-county region.
We are grateful for the bipartisan support of the committee
and for the leadership of the Trump administration as we tackle
Appalachia's unique economic challenges. Our work delivers
measurable returns on investment and helps narrow the economic
gap between Appalachia and the rest of the Nation. For every $1
of ARC funding, we attract $4 in private investment. And,
second, the regional poverty rate has fallen by more than half
since 1960, when nearly one of three Appalachians lived in
poverty.
ARC's Federal-State-local partnership is one of a kind, and
it is proving itself to be highly effective. We prioritize
funding across five evidence-based goals: building businesses,
developing a skilled workforce, strengthening infrastructure,
expanding the tourism industry, and enhancing community
resources.
To gauge success, we track and evaluate the outcomes
related to these strategic areas; for example, including jobs
created, businesses launched, individuals trained, and
infrastructure improvements. I am pleased to announce that we
are on track to meet or exceed all of our outcome targets in
our current plan as we get ready to introduce our new plan this
year.
In addition, ARC evaluates the economic status of our
counties each year. Today, the number of distressed Appalachian
counties is at its lowest level in 20 years. By law, we are
committed to fund more than 50 percent of our money to the
distressed communities. However, we generally exceed that. This
year, 73 percent of our money was directed to our most
distressed counties in 2025.
Two of our initiatives that tackle Appalachia's unique
challenges is, first, the POWER Initiative, which is dedicated
to boosting large-scale industry and job growth in our coal
communities. Additionally, it advances President Trump's
Executive order on reinvigorating the coal industry. To date,
$473 million in POWER funding has leveraged $1.8 billion in
private investment.
ARC's Area Development Program also remains a cornerstone
of our work to tackle infrastructure challenges exacerbated by
our rugged topography, supporting construction of roads, water
systems, and broadband, and our INSPIRE Initiative addresses
the workforce gap created by the substance use disorder.
During President Trump's first administration, he
recognized the urgency of this crisis, and ARC created INSPIRE.
To date, INSPIRE has provided opportunities for over 18,000
Appalachians across our 13 States.
ARC also collaborates with our Federal partners--USDA, EDA,
DOT, Office of National Drug Control Policy, to name a few. Our
programs complement, not duplicate, other Federal efforts
because we collaborate. And these Federal programs address the
most distressed areas of Appalachia. Our funds help leverage
gap funding, matching money, and resources to extend beyond EDA
to help sustain those communities after the lifecycle of the
grant.
I would like to say in closing that, by strengthening the
Appalachian region, 26.6 million Appalachians, we bolster not
only the economy of Appalachia, we bolster the economy of this
country. Thank you.
[Ms. Manchin's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gayle Conelly Manchin, Federal Cochair,
Appalachian Regional Commission
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: I'm Gayle Manchin,
Federal Co-Chair of the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), and I'm
pleased to come before you this morning to discuss ARC's impact to the
regional economy--and the good return on investment it delivers.
ARC is grateful for the bipartisan support from the Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee over the years. We are also grateful for
the leadership of the Trump Administration, which supports ARC's work
to address the unique economic challenges and opportunities facing
Appalachia--including the loss of coal mining jobs and the substance
use disorder crisis in Appalachia, topics I will dive into further in
my testimony.
To start, I'd like to share a few data points that underscore ARC's
good return on investment throughout the 13-state, 423-county
Appalachian region:
First, every $1 of ARC funding attracts $4 in leveraged
private investment \1\ (in FY 2025 alone). To be clear, this leveraged
private investment is different from the matching funds that grantees
and their partners provide to secure a grant. Leveraged private
investment refers to the additional money that flows because a grant
was made. Whether this is from building an ARC-funded water line for an
industrial park that attracts new business--or from ARC projects that
provide capital to help small businesses succeed and grow throughout
the region--we have seen time and time again the multiplier effect of
ARC's federal investments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FY 2025 Performance and Accountability Report https://
www.arc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/FY-2025-Performance-and-
Accountability-Report.pdf, pg. 18
And second, we have seen significant reduction in
regional poverty rates over six decades. For example, in 1960, five
years before Congress established ARC, nearly 1 in 3 Appalachians lived
in poverty. Today, the regional poverty rate has been cut by more than
half. In addition, high-poverty counties have been cut by nearly 60
percent.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ High-Poverty Counties in Appalachia, 1960 and 2019-2023--
Appalachian Regional Commission: https://www.arc.gov/map/high-poverty-
counties-in-appalachia-1960-and-2019-2023/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARC's Partnership Approach
ARC's first-of-its-kind federal, state, and local partnership
structure provides an effective approach for addressing Appalachia's
unique economic development needs, as evidenced by our track record of
success. Combined with targeting funds to areas of greatest need and a
``bottom up'' approach to addressing economic challenges and
opportunities, ARC prioritizes funding to advance its five strategic
goals: building Appalachia's 1.) businesses, 2.) workforce, 3.)
infrastructure, 4.) regional tourism industry, and 5.) community
resources and skills.
Regional Challenges
As a region, Appalachia confronts a combination of unique
challenges that have resulted in economic isolation--its mountainous
terrain, dispersed population, need for infrastructure, and a lack of
financial and human resources. These challenges, combined with the
disproportionate impact of substance use disorder throughout the region
and the loss of jobs in declining sectors, underscores the importance
of continued investment in tailored solutions that support Appalachia's
long-term economic self-sufficiency.
Targeting Investments to Areas of Greatest Need
One way ARC gauges its progress is through evaluating economic data
and categorizing the economic status of each county in the Appalachian
Region as distressed, at-risk, transitional, competitive, or
attainment. Each economic designation has a different match rate, which
determines the amount of funding that ARC can provide. By law, ARC must
direct at least half of its grant funds to projects that benefit
economically distressed counties and areas in Appalachia. However, the
Commission routinely exceeds that requirement--in FY 2025, 73% of its
grant funds were invested in distressed counties or areas.
Data over two decades also demonstrates notable improvements in the
region's economic status designations. Specifically, in FY 2026, the
number of distressed Appalachian counties declined to the lowest level
recorded in the 20 years of ARC's index system.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ County Economic Status in Appalachia, FY 2026--Appalachian
Regional Commission: https://www.arc.gov/map/county-economic-status-in-
appalachia-fy-2026/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measuring Progress
In addition to evaluating the economic status of Appalachia's 423
counties, ARC also gauges its progress through tracking and examining
grant outcomes in relation to performance targets from our Strategic
Plan. Aligning with each goal, our outcome targets measure jobs created
or retained; businesses created or strengthened; students and workers
trained; businesses and households served by infrastructure; and
communities improved through resource-building.
While we are preparing to launch an updated strategic plan this
year, I am pleased to report that we are either on track to meet or
exceed all of the outcome targets \4\ outlined in our current strategic
plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ FY 2025 Performance and Accountability Report: https://
www.arc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/FY-2025-Performance-and-
Accountability-Report.pdf, pg. 19
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARC Programs and Initiatives
I want to highlight two special initiatives that are advancing
President Trump's agenda to strengthen America's economy.
First is ARC's Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and
Economic Revitalization Initiative (POWER), which advances President
Trump's Executive Order on Reinvigorating America's Beautiful Clean
Coal Industry to enhance national and economic security. Between 2011-
2023, 70% of coal mining jobs lost in the U.S. were in Appalachia.\5\
ARC's POWER Initiative is designed to grow industry and attract private
investments in Appalachia's coal communities. As a competitive funding
opportunity, POWER prioritizes projects that emphasize large-scale,
multi-jurisdictional activities, engage a broad range of partners, and
are financially sustainable and transformational. Eligible funding uses
include enhanced job training and re-employment activities, job
creation activities in existing or emerging industries, and new
investment development activities for coal communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.arc.gov/report/coal-production-and-employment-in-
the-appalachian-region-2024/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the last decade \6\, ARC's $473 million investment in 554
POWER projects has leveraged more than $1.8 billion in private
investment throughout 365 coal communities. In addition, these grants
are projected to create or retain over 52,000 jobs and prepare nearly
170,000 workers and students for new opportunities in high-demand
industries, including advanced manufacturing, automotive, coal mining,
aerospace, broadband, and tourism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic
Revitalization Initiative--Appalachian Regional Commission
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second initiative I want to highlight is Investments Supporting
Partnerships In Recovery Ecosystems (INSPIRE), which focuses on
creating or expanding local networks that lead to workforce entry or
re-entry for Appalachians recovering from substance use disorder (SUD).
SUD disproportionately impacts Appalachia \7\ and continues to pose a
major threat to regional economic prosperity. It's not only a public
health and safety issue; it's an economic development issue. SUD drains
the region's resources, both human and financial, and limits economic
output.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In 2023, the overdose mortality rate was 50% higher in
Appalachia than in the rest of the country: https://www.arc.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2025/07/Appalachian-Diseases-of-Despair-Update-2025.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During President Trump's first administration, he and the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee recognized the urgent need
to tackle the SUD crisis in Appalachia. To meet this charge, ARC
identified an opportunity to address an unmet need related to the
economic impact from the SUD crisis--helping those in recovery enter or
reenter the workforce. As a result, INSPIRE was created.
To date,\8\ ARC has invested nearly $66 million in 200 INSPIRE
projects that support recovery-to-work programs across 380 counties--
which is 90 percent of the region. Together, these investments are
projected to improve nearly 4,000 businesses and provide opportunities
for over 18,000 students and workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Investments Supporting Partnerships in Recovery Ecosystems
Initiative--Appalachian Regional Commission
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While INSPIRE and POWER are two examples of specialized initiatives
to address Appalachia's unique economic needs, ARC's base Area
Development Program continues to serve as the mainstay of our work.
The base Area Development Program provides a way for ARC to adapt
quickly to Appalachia's emerging economic opportunities. The program
also helps address timely, region-wide issues affecting the economy.
For instance, Area Development funding is providing long-term support
for Appalachian businesses in North Carolina and Virginia as they
recover from the economic devastation caused by 2024's Hurricane
Helene. Similarly, it is also rebuilding infrastructure in communities
impacted by flooding in Kentucky and West Virginia, as it can take
years for states and localities to rebuild in light of this level of
devastation.
Beyond natural disasters, Appalachia's rugged, mountainous
geography inherently presents significant barriers to building regional
infrastructure--including roads, water and wastewater systems, and
broadband. Strong infrastructure is a prerequisite to creating a strong
economy. The share of housing units lacking complete plumbing
facilities is nearly twice as high in Appalachia as in the United
States overall.\9\ In addition, Appalachian households are less likely
than U.S. households overall to have broadband.\10\ This is why ARC
continues to prioritize investments in regional infrastructure to
expand economic opportunity throughout Appalachia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://www.arc.gov/report/a-twenty-year-review-revisiting-the-
drinking-water-and-wastewater-infrastructure-funding-needs-and-gaps-
inthe-appalachian-region/, pg. 35
\10\ https://www.arc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/
PRB_ARC_Chartbook_ACS_2019_2023_FINAL_2025-06.pdf#page=85
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to strengthening the region's infrastructure, ARC
investments are driving economic growth strategies that capitalize on
Appalachia's unique assets and prioritize assistance for small
businesses and entrepreneurs. Data shows that these investments are
proving to be effective.
Specifically, a FY 2023 evaluation of ARC's business development
grants closed between 2017 and 2021 found that those investments
facilitated the creation or retention of nearly 30,000 jobs and the
establishment of nearly 2,000 new Appalachian businesses.\11\
Additionally, these business development grants attracted an astounding
$923 million in private investment to the region, resulting in
increased economic opportunity for its 26.6 million residents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Evaluation of ARC's Business Development Grants Closed Between
2017-2021--Appalachian Regional Commission: https://www.arc.gov/report/
evaluation-of-arc-business-development-grants-closed-between-2017-2021/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Collaboration and Impact
Collaboration with local and state partners cannot act alone to
uplift the entire regional economy. Our federal partnerships serve as
key assets to our mission. I know we are all aware that Congress
created ARC over 60 years ago to partner at all levels--local, state
and federal--to guide economic development in this challenged region,
and we are meeting that charge. On the federal level, ARC has strong
relationships with U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Economic
Development Administration, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and
the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP).
ARC is not duplicative, but rather complementary, of other federal
programs. Through our tailored approach to address specific economic
challenges that impact Appalachia, ARC can extend the reach of other
federal programs into some of the most economically distressed parts of
the nation. This includes gap funding to help Appalachian communities
plan and implement projects that create economic opportunities. In
addition, ARC funds can also match other federal funding sources. More
importantly, we focus on ensuring communities have the resources to
ensure long-term economic self-sufficiency--beyond the life of a grant.
These aspects help attract private sector investment to areas that
otherwise would not likely be considered competitive investment
opportunities.
Taken together, ARC's program and initiatives are helping to narrow
the economic gap between Appalachia and the rest of the nation.
Ultimately, when we strengthen the economies of the Appalachian
counties throughout our 13-state region, we strengthen the economy of
each state. When we have strong state economies, this contributes to a
strong national economy. I look forward to working with the
Subcommittee in our efforts to expand opportunities for the 26.6
million Americans who call Appalachia home.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady.
The Chair now recognizes Dr. Wiggins for 5 minutes for your
testimony, sir.
TESTIMONY OF HON. COREY WIGGINS, Ph.D., FEDERAL COCHAIR, DELTA
REGIONAL AUTHORITY
Mr. Wiggins. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of
the committee, my name is Dr. Corey Wiggins, and I serve as the
Federal Cochair of the Delta Regional Authority. Thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss how we
can achieve smarter Federal spending, reduce duplication, and
ensure that economic development investments deliver meaningful
and lasting results for the communities we serve.
The Delta Regional Authority serves 255 counties and
parishes in 8 States, including Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee. At
its core, DRA operates as a Federal-State partnership designed
to align regional economic development priorities. Every 5
years, by statute, we develop a regional development plan with
public input and approval by the Governors of our eight States.
Our current plan ensures that our investments are not isolated
transactions, but part of a coordinated regional strategy
focused on infrastructure resilience, workforce development,
business competitiveness, and regional capacity.
From fiscal years 2024 and 2025, our major investment
programs produced measurable results. For example, the States'
Economic Development Assistance Program, one of our most
diverse investment tools, is expected to improve public
infrastructure that would impact more than 150,000 families,
train approximately 3,000 workers, and result in creation or
retention of almost 7,000 jobs.
Through our Community Infrastructure Fund, DRA investments
will improve critical local infrastructure for more than
100,000 families, support the training of over 1,000
individuals, and help create or retain more than 14,000 jobs.
And through our workforce development program, we invested in
institutions that will train more than 5,000 individuals and
support nearly 8,000 jobs across the region.
While these data points illustrate the scope of DRA's
impact, in communities, these investments go much further. For
example, in northeast Louisiana, a $300,000 DRA investment
leveraged nearly $1 million in additional public funding to
modernize the electrical system at a regional trauma and stroke
center, serving more than 340,000 residents. That single
project strengthened healthcare delivery, protected more than
700 jobs, and reinforced regional medical capacity.
In Alabama's Black Belt, our investment in water, sewer,
and roadway improvements in Union Springs addressed
longstanding public health infrastructure failures, improving
daily living conditions for residents while positioning the
community to attract private and public capital for future
growth.
More recently, Congress provided $2 million to DRA through
supplemental EDA funding for disaster recovery and
infrastructure restoration. Those funds are now supporting
recovery efforts across 5 communities in 4 States, helping more
than 1,700 households to rebuild and stabilize after federally
declared disasters.
To ensure effectiveness, DRA also invests in local
capacity, not just projects. In 2024, DRA's Local Development
District Technical Assistance Program supported the 44 local
development districts in our region and resulted in the
communities securing more than $50 million in combined Federal
and State investments. Nearly 90 percent of those funds go
toward critical public infrastructure and workforce systems.
We also operate leadership and technical assistance
programs that strengthen communities' capacity to develop high-
quality projects. This early investment improves results,
minimizes administrative waste, and ensures Federal resources
are alive with projects that are viable, sustainable, and
locally supported.
Regional commissions coordinate across Federal, State, and
local systems to ensure that national policy and regional
priorities are responsive to the distinct conditions and
challenges of the communities we serve. We operate where
Federal policy meets State leadership and local implementation.
From that position, we help reduce duplication by ensuring that
investments in infrastructure, workforce, health, and business
development reinforce one another rather than compete or
overlap.
In closing, DRA's value is measured not only in dollars
invested, but in systems that help rural and distressed
communities attract capital, manage growth, respond to
disasters, and participate more fully in the national economy.
We stand ready to work with this committee to ensure that
Federal economic development policy remains efficient,
effective, accountable, and responsive to the communities that
need it most.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to
your questions.
[Mr. Wiggins' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Corey Wiggins, Ph.D., Federal Cochair, Delta
Regional Authority
On behalf of the Delta Regional Authority (DRA), I am pleased to
submit the Authority's written testimony.
The DRA was established in 2000 to address economic distress in and
around the Mississippi River Delta and the Alabama Black Belt. Member
states include Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee. Home to more than 10 million
residents, the DRA region is among the most economically distressed
parts of the United States. Among the DRA region's 255 counties and
parishes, most are characterized as distressed and persistently in
poverty.\1\ \2\ Despite\\ these economic conditions, millions of
Americans across the country rely on the DRA region for agriculture,
manufacturing, textiles, and supply chain logistics, as well as natural
resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As of FY 2025, 228 (89 percent) of DRA's counties and parishes
are economically distressed. In compliance with the statute, the DRA
calculates distress criteria on an annual basis. To be deemed
distressed, counties and parishes must meet the following criteria: 1.
An unemployment rate of one percentage point higher than the national
average for the most recent 24-month period. 2. Have a per capita
income of 80 percent or less of the most recent national per capita
income level.
\2\ As of FY 2023, 136 (54 percent) of DRA's counties and parishes
are in persistent poverty. The DRA follows the definition of persistent
poverty the definition of persistent poverty provided by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service that designates
persistent poverty counties as those in which poverty rates of 20
percent or higher have persisted for 30 years or more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout its history, the DRA has responded to the region's
challenges through programs and strategic investments. The DRA invests
in a broad range of initiatives that support its four overarching
goals: investing in public infrastructure, developing local workforces,
promoting business growth and entrepreneurship, and supporting
sustainable communities.
Research from the Brookings Institution, including its report,
Unlocking Investment in Distressed Rural Places, finds that federally
chartered regional commissions allocate a higher share of their
infrastructure funding to distressed rural communities than many
federal programs.\3\ Brookings further notes that regional commissions
are often more effective at directing resources to places that face
persistent barriers to accessing federal investment, reflecting their
grant-based structure, explicit distress-targeting missions, and deep
regional knowledge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Anthony F. Pipa, Heather M. Stephens, David Nason, and Zoe
Swarzenski, ``Unlocking Investment in Distressed Rural Places,''
Brookings Institution, January 13, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/
articles/unlocking-investment-in-distressed-rural-places/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information presented below highlights the Authority's
investments, activities, and outcomes since its last appearance before
this Committee in September 2023, reflecting the most recent period of
program implementation across the Delta region.
Key highlights include:
The States' Economic Development Assistance Program
(SEDAP), one of DRA's main investment tools, provides direct
investments for basic public infrastructure, transportation
infrastructure, business development, and workforce development. From
FY 2024 to FY 2025, project investments in SEDAP resulted in
approximately 157,000 families positively impacted by infrastructure
projects, about 3,000 individuals trained in workforce development
programs, and over 6,700 jobs either created or retained in the region.
The Community Infrastructure Fund (CIF) supports projects
that address flood control, basic public infrastructure, and
transportation infrastructure improvements. From FY 2024 to FY 2025,
CIF investments have resulted in nearly 120,000 families positively
impacted by infrastructure projects, about 1,100 individuals trained in
workforce programming, and approximately 14,200 jobs created or
retained in the region.
The Delta Workforce Grant Program (DWP) is an initiative
designed to build long-term community capacity and increase economic
competitiveness by providing grants to support workforce training and
education programs throughout the lower Mississippi River Delta and
Alabama Black Belt regions. From 2024 to FY 2025, project investments
in the DWP resulted in over 5,2000 individuals trained in workforce
development programs and nearly 7,900 jobs either created or retained
in the region.
In collaboration with the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, the Delta Region Community Health Systems Development
Program provides technical assistance to critical access hospitals,
small rural hospitals, rural health clinics, and other healthcare
organizations. Since 2017, the program has supported 68 organizations
in 66 DRA communities across all eight Delta states. Participants in
the program's 2022 cohort increased their net patient revenue and total
operating revenue by an average of 9.8 percent, with 89 percent also
reporting improvements in both financial position and quality of care.
By leveraging its annual appropriations alongside the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funding, DRA expects 2024 and
2025 investments to impact over 177,000 families through improved
access to infrastructure, create or retain nearly 19,000 jobs, and
train approximately 9,400 individuals.
For example, one of these projects includes a DRA SEDAP investment
of more than $300,000, leveraged by $945,000 in additional public
investment, to support the Electrical Distribution System Upgrade at
Ochsner LSU Health Monroe Medical Center in Northeast Louisiana. This
infrastructure project will modernize aging electrical systems at a
Level III Trauma Center and Primary Stroke Center that serves more than
348,000 residents across a largely rural and economically distressed
region. The upgraded system is expected to improve reliability and
safety for a facility that delivers more than 134,850 inpatient and
outpatient services annually, manages over 37,000 emergency department
visits, and supports more than 1,000 births each year. By reducing the
risk of power outages and ensuring uninterrupted operation of life-
saving medical equipment, the project will strengthen access to
essential healthcare services, help retain more than 700 healthcare
jobs, and reinforce the medical center's role as a critical regional
healthcare hub for communities across Northeast Louisiana.
Additionally, DRA awarded a CIF investment of more than $662,000 to
support comprehensive water, sewer, and roadway improvements in the
City of Union Springs, Alabama, a persistent poverty community in
Bullock County. This public infrastructure project will upgrade aging
waterlines and sanitary sewer systems and resurface roadways on
Abercrombie Street, Baskin Street, and Fourth Street, improvements that
directly serve more than 140 households and businesses and benefit
approximately 3,350 residents citywide. By replacing deteriorated
infrastructure that has contributed to service disruptions, water loss,
and public health risks, the project is expected to improve access to
safe drinking water, enhance sanitation, reduce environmental hazards,
and increase transportation safety. In addition to improving quality of
life for residents, the project will support local economic stability
by improving conditions for existing businesses, enhancing the city's
attractiveness for future investment.
Under P.L. 118-158, Congress provided $1.51 billion in supplemental
funding to the U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA),
including $10 million transferred to the DRA for economic adjustment
assistance related to flood mitigation, disaster relief, long-term
recovery, and infrastructure restoration in areas with presidential
major disaster declarations during calendar years 2023 and 2024. DRA
will invest over $9.8 million across five communities in Alabama,
Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee, supporting recovery efforts that
impacted more than 1,700 households.
As DRA continues to assess FY 2025 project and impact data, some
highlighted regional investments include:
DRA awarded more than $7 million in investments to 25
projects across Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee through the DWP. One of those
investments included approximately $300,000 to the Center for Rural
Innovation in Arkansas for a workforce initiative that will provide
information technology training and industry-recognized certifications
to address critical workforce challenges in Phillips County.
DRA awarded approximately $6 million in investments to
three projects across Arkansas, Louisiana, and Missouri through its
partnership with the EDA. One of these investments, with funds provided
through EDA's Economic Adjustment Assistance program, included $1.9
million to the City of Poplar Bluff, Missouri, to make improvements to
the transportation infrastructure within the Poplar Bluff Industrial
Park, ensuring safer and reliable roadways for employees and freight
trucks accessing the five manufacturing companies within the park,
while also attracting new businesses to the park.
DRA awarded nearly $2.5 million to 44 local development
districts (LDDs) through the LDD Community Support Pilot Program to
strengthen local capacity and technical assistance for communities
across the region. Designed to enhance the Delta's ability to compete
and leverage resources, the program supports LDDs in advancing projects
in economically distressed communities. On average, participating LDDs
submit 28 grant applications per fiscal year, securing approximately
$54 million annually in combined DRA, federal, and state investments,
nearly 90 percent of which support critical infrastructure (e.g.,
utilities, transportation) and human infrastructure (e.g., workforce
training, health care).
DRA awarded over $3.3 million to 29 communities in
Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, and Tennessee through the Strategic Planning Program,
including $150,000 to the City of Grenada, Mississippi, to develop a
comprehensive GIS mapping and condition assessment of its entire water
distribution system to modernize infrastructure management, reduce
service disruptions and attract economic growth.
DRA awarded more than $44 million in investments to 33
projects in Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Tennessee through its CIF program. One of these
investments included $600,000 to the City of Pangburn, Arkansas, to
improve its water infrastructure system to ensure residents are
provided with a safe and affordable water supply.
Every five years, the DRA, by statute, is responsible for creating
a regional plan with public input and is approved by our board of
governors. In February 2023, the Authority approved and released
Navigating the Currents of Opportunity: DRA Regional Development Plan
IV. Our strategic goals for the next five years include:
DRA will expand and invest in the resiliency of the
region's public infrastructure to improve residents' quality of life
and increase economic opportunity.
DRA will improve networks of agencies, organizations,
businesses, and educational institutions providing workforce
development opportunities. It will promote access to services, funding,
and programs that enable career stability.
DRA will strengthen the competitiveness of the region's
employers, attract new employers to the region, and support the long-
term growth of micro and small businesses.
DRA will invest in and support local placemaking and
regional capacity building that improves opportunities for capital and
federal investment in the DRA region to support economic development.
As part of DRA's commitment to build upon these priorities to
expand its impact in the region, it includes outreach to DRA
stakeholders, including local governments, nonprofit organizations,
LDDs, community colleges, and four-year institutions of higher
learning. Some of these outreach and technical assistance efforts have
included:
LDD Trainings: DRA conducted 14 in-person training
sessions augmented by virtual training sessions focused on providing
technical assistance and capacity-building support for LDDs. Virtual
sessions were recorded and provided to LDDs for additional access.
Delta Leadership Institute Executive Academy: In
September 2025, DRA celebrated the graduation of 35 regional leaders
from the Delta Leadership Institute (DLI) Executive Academy. This
intensive nine-month leadership development program unites leaders from
the public, private, and nonprofit sectors across the Mississippi River
Delta and Alabama Black Belt regions. The 2025 DLI Executive Academy
class was selected through a highly competitive application process
overseen by DRA's federal co-chairman and the governors of the
Authority's eight member states. The program equips the region's
leaders with the skills and knowledge needed to inspire change within
their communities and accelerate prosperity throughout the region.
DRA-supported Capacity-Building Hub: DRA continues to
support regional capacity building through a suite of targeted
technical assistance initiatives delivered in partnership with leading
regional organizations, including the University of Memphis, Hope
Enterprise Corporations, the Southern Rural Development Center, and the
North Central Regional Center for Rural Development. Through these
partnerships, communities across the lower Mississippi River and
Alabama Black Belt regions receive grant-writing assistance, project
development support, and project management training to strengthen
local capacity and improve project readiness. As part of this broader
technical assistance portfolio, DRA-supportive initiatives have helped
communities advance locally driven planning efforts, including the
adoption of strategic development plans in several Alabama Black Belt
communities, positioning them to pursue future economic and community
development investments.
Workforce Opportunity for Rural Communities (WORC)
Initiative: DRA provides technical assistance and capacity-building
support to both prospective applicants and grant recipients through the
WORC Initiative, which is a partnership between the U.S. Department of
Labor's Employment and Training Administration and three regional
commissions--the Appalachian Regional Commission, DRA, and the Northern
Border Regional Commission. In 2024, DRA delivered a technical
assistance webinar and a series of instructional videos to support
applicants in the DRA region, and it continues to provide direct
technical assistance to grant recipients throughout the grant period.
Since 2019, the WORC Initiative has awarded 67 grants to recipients in
the DRA region across the first six funding rounds.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. We appreciate the
opportunity to discuss the DRA's work in the region and look forward to
your questions.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Dr. Wiggins.
Mr. Saunders, you are now recognized for your 5 minutes of
testimony, sir.
TESTIMONY OF HON. CHRIS SAUNDERS, FEDERAL COCHAIR, NORTHERN
BORDER REGIONAL COMMISSION
Mr. Saunders. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member,
members of the subcommittee. My name is Chris Saunders. I am
proud to serve as the Federal Cochair of the Northern Border
Regional Commission.
As you have heard from my colleagues, the regional
commissions exist as Federal-State partnerships, and ours in
particular serves the economic and community development needs
in the northern counties across Maine, New Hampshire, New York,
and Vermont.
As with our peer commissions, we operate competitive grant
programs aimed at supporting locally driven economic
development initiatives. By design, the regional commissions
utilize a very highly collaborative model for directing Federal
public investment; in our case, particularly to rural America.
By requiring the participation of Governors and member States
in the operation of our commission, this structure demands that
States see themselves as true partners with the Federal
Government. And, as a result, rather than scattered investments
serving the needs of one particular State, common themes of
regional economic need emerge and receive support.
I think it is this structure along with the flexibility
that Congress has granted commissions which allows NBRC to
deliver assistance in a manner that not only reflects the
needs, but the capacity constraints of the communities in our
region. I am happy to highlight one such example, which is the
forest products industry. That has really emerged as one of the
defining areas of investment for our commission.
For generations, wood products and paper industries were an
important driver of the economy across northern New England and
New York. Over the past four decades, these industries have
really faltered. Pulp and paper mills, often the predominant
employer in small towns, they have closed, resulting in job
losses both at the mills as well as for foresters, loggers, and
the communities at large. And what we have heard from local
leaders and industry stakeholders that is made clear about this
situation is that these economic challenges did not arise
overnight. And, at the same time, there are no quick fixes to
dealing with these job losses.
Instead, what local leaders and communities have advanced
is a vision of innovation and economic diversification.
Congress has tasked NBRC to target resources to support this
vision, which the commission has done through specific grant
offerings that support innovation and infrastructure
development in the forest industry.
And we are starting to see the results of this approach.
They are becoming clear. Targeted investments are transforming
paper mills into factories that make new materials from wood
products, such as housing insulation, we have wood products
made from wood fibers, new building materials, a host of other
products which, in a State like Maine--the Maine Forest
Products Council has shown that between 2019 and 2024, while
paper manufacturing sales have declined by over 40 percent,
wood product manufacturing, including the products I
referenced, have increased by 45 percent.
Our commission has played a role as one of the funders in
this market evolution that represents what is possible through
sustained Federal investment in a specific sector.
Taking a step back and looking at the commission's work as
a whole, we have over 437 active awards that include projects
such as transportation infrastructure, drinking water and
wastewater infrastructure, workforce development, business
lending, among many others. In my prepared testimony, I shared
examples of some of the specific types of awards we have made
in recent years.
Our appearance in 2023 was referenced at the subcommittee,
and I am happy to provide an update to some of the statistics
NBRC shared at that time. In the past 2 years, of the nearly
200 awards from NBRC's Catalyst Program, 50 percent have been
made to infrastructure. Those projects were leveraged at nearly
a 1-to-2 ratio, bringing in an additional $273 million in non-
Federal investment into our region. Seventy-five percent of
NBRC awards were made to communities of under 5,000 people, and
66 percent were made to applicants of distressed communities.
I hope what you have heard is that regional commissions can
offer the ability to focus in a targeted way on a sector that
is important to the region that they serve. They also have a
governance model that really requires collaboration and, in our
estimation, produces a very highly effective way of delivering
resources to rural America.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to your questions.
[Mr. Saunders' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Chris Saunders, Federal Cochair, Northern
Border Regional Commission
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the invitation to appear before the Subcommittee today to
discuss the work of the Northern Border Regional Commission (NBRC).
Among federal funders, the regional commissions have a unique approach
to economic development, and I appreciate the opportunity to
participate in this hearing. As part of today's testimony, NBRC is
happy to provide a brief overview of its operations and areas of focus,
and how it has prioritized investment of federal funds.
NBRC Operations
Created by Congress in the 2008 Farm Bill, the Northern Border
Regional Commission is a federal-state partnership serving the economic
and community development needs in the northern counties across Maine,
New Hampshire, New York and Vermont. As with its peer Commissions, NBRC
operates competitive grant programs aimed at supporting locally driven
economic development initiatives. All NBRC awards involve the
recommendations of the Governors of member states and are approved by
votes from the Federal Co-Chair and Governors.
By design, the regional commissions utilize this highly
collaborative model for directing federal public investment to rural
America. In requiring the participation of Governors and member states
in the governance of a Commission, this structure demands that states
see themselves as regional partners with the federal government. As a
result, common themes of economic need emerge and receive investment--
rather than a specific need of an individual state.
This structure, along with flexibility Congress has granted
Commissions, allows for consideration of how best to deliver assistance
in a manner that reflects the needs, and recognizes the capacity
constraints of the communities within the region. One example is the
forest products industry, which has emerged as a defining area of focus
in the NBRC territory.
Promoting Increased Timber Production
For generations, the wood products and paper industries were
significant drivers of the economy in Northern New England and New
York. Over the past four decades these legacy industries have faltered.
Pulp and paper mills--often the predominant employer in small, rural
communities have closed. These closures have resulted in job losses
both at the mills as well as for loggers and foresters. There has been
a follow-on negative impact for small businesses located in these
communities who have lost customers and revenue. What local leaders and
industry stakeholders have made clear is that these economic challenges
did not sprout up overnight, and there are no quick fixes to replacing
these job losses.
In response, what local industry leaders and communities have
advanced is a vision of innovation and economic diversification.
Congress has directed NBRC to target resources to support this vision,
which the Commission has done through specific grant offerings that
support innovation and infrastructure within the forest products
industry.
The results of this approach are becoming clear. Targeted
investments are transforming paper mills into factories that make new
materials, such as housing insulation products, packing materials and
other products from wood fibers. In Maine, the Maine Forest Products
Council has shown that between 2019 and 2024, while paper manufacturing
sales declined by over 40%, wood product manufacturing sales, including
these new products, increased by 45% \1\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://maineforest.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2024-
Economic-Report-FINAL-for-printing-AK.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mass timber, an engineered wood product comprised of layers of wood
that are typically glued or nailed together, represents another
significant market opportunity for the region. The northeast lags
behind other areas of the country that have established markets for
buildings constructed with mass timber panels and columns.
Transportation infrastructure has been identified as a potential market
opportunity for mass timber. NBRC has awarded funds to spur the
adoption of this building material in bridges, airport terminals and
other transportation projects.
Prioritization of Infrastructure, Distressed and Rural Communities
In October 2023, the Subcommittee invited the Regional Commissions
to participate in a hearing about their role in economic development.
At that time, NBRC shared details of its investments, including its
approach to target resources to the most distressed areas in the
region, evaluating infrastructure projects and other investment
principles. I am pleased to provide an update to the information NBRC
shared at that hearing.
Investing in infrastructure--NBRC awards funds to
infrastructure projects with the goal of facilitating additional
private and public investments. Congress has determined this should be
a priority funding area for NBRC, stipulating in NBRC's statute that a
minimum of 40 percent of grant awards should be made to infrastructure
projects. NBRC meets and exceeds this threshold with its investments
across the region on an annual basis. Over the past two years of the
194 awards from NBRC's Catalyst Program, 50 percent were made to
projects classified as infrastructure.
Leveraging other sources of funding--While NBRC requires
a local match for its funding, the Commission has a track record of
supporting projects that incorporate non-federal funding sources. In
2024 and 2025 NBRC funds were matched at a nearly 1:2 ratio, leveraging
an additional $273 million in non-federal investment across our four-
state region.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/Annual%20Reports/NBRC-
2024-Annual-Report-Web-version%20(1).pdf
Centering the needs of rural communities--The regional
commission model is designed around the origination of projects at the
local level, and developing the capacity of rural communities. In the
NBRC region, the Commission maintains a network of built-in technical
assistance providers referred to as Local Development Districts. These
partners support rural leaders and collaborate with municipalities and
non-profits for grants administration and management of federal funds.
In 2024 and 2025 75% of NBRC awards were made to communities with under
5,000 people and 66% of NBRC awards were made to NBRC applicants in
distressed communities.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Award Examples
NBRC is currently managing 437 active awards. Across its grants
portfolio, the Commission has funded projects including transportation
infrastructure, drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, workforce
development, and business lending, among many other categories. The
following are a few examples of the types of awards NBRC might make in
a typical year.
The St. Lawrence County Industrial Development Agency in New York
was awarded funding to establish a purification pilot facility for
Empire State Mines' new graphite processing operation. This public-
private partnership will support the first fully integrated U.S.
natural flake graphite production since 1956, a critical access to
mineral supply chains. It will create jobs, attract investment, and
position the region as a leader in domestic graphite production.
The town of Jonesport, Maine was awarded funding to construct a
commercial working waterfront facility at Henry Point, including a boat
launch, parking, and floating docks. The project will support 250
fishers and 20-50 marine businesses, enhancing economic resilience and
access to deep water. This initiative supports infrastructure,
fisheries, and rural economic development.
Paul Smith's College, located in the Adirondacks of New York, was
awarded funding to launch the Troops to Timber program, which will
train veterans and transitioning service members for careers in
forestry and logging. The program offers stackable credentials and
hands-on training in collaboration with Fort Drum and regional
employers. It addresses workforce shortages in the forest economy and
supports veteran employment in rural communities.
These three examples represent the types of awards NBRC makes in a
typical grant round. I hope this brief overview offers insight into the
role regional commissions play in the economic development ecosystem.
We appreciate the opportunity to answer questions regarding the
Commissions' work in the region. Thank you again for the opportunity to
testify and I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Saunders.
We now turn to Dr. Reed for your testimony. You are
recognized for 5 minutes, ma'am.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JENNIFER CLYBURN REED, Ed.D., FEDERAL
COCHAIR, SOUTHEAST CRESCENT REGIONAL COMMISSION
Ms. Reed. Good morning, Chairman Perry, Ranking Members,
and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity
to testify on behalf of the Southeast Crescent Regional
Commission.
When I last appeared before this subcommittee in 2023, SCRC
was just getting started. At that time, our focus was on
establishing the governance, accountability, and data systems
necessary to deploy Federal resources responsibly. Today, SCRC
marks 4 years of operations. Statutorily, SCRC serves 428
counties across 7 States and covers more than 210,000 square
miles where 51 million Americans call home. Nearly 40 percent
of these counties are classified as economically distressed,
where economic growth is constrained by workforce shortages,
infrastructure gaps, and limited access to essential services
on which employers rely.
SCRC has prioritized strategic discipline over speed,
recognizing that effective economic development requires
alignment, not duplication. Fiscal investments have followed a
structured process. SCRC's planning and outreach efforts
included sustained coordination with Governors' offices, State
economic development agencies, and local development districts.
Regionwide, data collection efforts allowed SCRC to target
unmet needs and prioritize projects that deliver measurable
economic returns. Furthering this approach, SCRC conducted a
428-county regional health assessment. Three consistent
findings emerged from this data: Strong labor markets are
foundational to economic stability. Two, Federal dollars
deliver the highest return when they strengthen organizations
executing the work on the ground. And, three, regional
coordination improves efficiency and returns on investment.
One of the most urgent constraints validated through this
assessment was the shortage of medical professionals
exacerbated by rural hospital closures. In response, SCRC
developed the Crescent Care Collaborative and partnered with
the Department of State to place qualified physicians in
designated shortage areas. This targeted workforce strategy is
funded through application processing fees, allowing it to
operate without Federal cost and administrative overhead. To
date, 397 physicians have been placed in high-need counties,
helping stabilize essential services and reversed stagnation
where economic growth was at risk.
In addition, SCRC has completed two grant cycles of the
State Economic and Infrastructure Development grant program,
investing nearly $53 million on 139 projects. For example, in
Bluffton County, Georgia, $1.2 million will fund a workforce
training center that will train more than 200 individuals in
agriculture and small business development, with a focus on
transitioning veterans into agricultural careers. In Henry
County, Alabama, $2 million will develop a workforce technology
center, providing hands-on training and dual enrollment that
creates seamless career pathways for students and adults. In
Lauderdale County, Mississippi, $475,000 will expand training
in diesel, automotive, and aviation maintenance, supporting 159
new jobs, leveraging nearly $33 million from local investments.
In Clarke County, Mississippi, $600,000 for a cofferdam to
restore Archusa Lake, reviving tourism and retaining jobs.
As outlined in the 5-year strategic plan, investments are
evaluated on access to infrastructure and services, job
creation, and retention. The two grant cycles' funds leveraged
significant State, local, and private investment, producing a
return of $2 per every Federal dollar. These positive returns
on investment are tied to quantifiable outcomes in jobs,
infrastructure, and economic capacity.
SCRC is designed for accountability and efficiency. The
commission maintains a lean Federal footprint while Governors
of member States play an active role in setting priorities and
overseeing investment. This governance model ensures local
relevance, minimizes administrative duplication, and aligns
Federal spending with State economic strategies.
I appreciate the opportunity to report on SCRC's growth and
strength in this region, critical to America's long-term
economic growth. Thank you for your time. I look forward to
your questions.
[Ms. Reed's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jennifer Clyburn Reed, Ed.D., Federal
Cochair, Southeast Crescent Regional Commission
Good morning Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Stanton, and Members of
the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of
the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission (SCRC).
When I last appeared before this Subcommittee in 2023, the
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission was just getting started. At
that time, our focus was on establishing the governance,
accountability, and data systems necessary to deploy federal resources
responsibly.
Today, SCRC marks four years of operations. I am here to report
activities and outcomes across the Southeast Crescent region.
Statutorily, SCRC serves 428 counties across seven states and
covers more than 210,000 square miles where 51 million Americans call
home. Nearly 40 percent of these counties are classified as
economically distressed. In many of these communities, economic growth
is constrained by workforce shortages, infrastructure gaps, and limited
access to essential services that employers rely on to operate and
expand. Many of these challenges are regional in nature.
From the outset, SCRC prioritized strategic discipline over speed,
recognizing that effective economic development requires alignment, not
duplication. Fiscal investments followed a structured process.
SCRC's planning and outreach efforts included sustained
coordination with Governors' offices, state economic development
agencies, and Local Development Districts.
Regionwide data collection efforts such as the Love Where You Live
survey; and a county-by-county review of economic conditions alongside
current state and federal programs allowed SCRC to target unmet needs
and prioritize projects capable of delivering measurable economic
returns.
To further strengthen this evidence-based approach, SCRC conducted
a comprehensive 428-county regional health assessment. This analysis
confirmed the interconnected relationship between workforce
participation, access to essential services, and regional economic
stability. Three consistent findings emerged:
1. Strong labor markets are foundational to economic stability.
Employers are less likely to invest or expand in communities where
workforce participation is constrained by deficiencies in
transportation, housing, healthcare, or basic infrastructure.
2. Targeted investments deliver the highest return when they
strengthen organizations already executing work on the ground. In
distressed and rural areas, these institutions--community colleges,
hospitals, workforce entities, and local governments--form the backbone
of local economies.
3. Regional coordination improves efficiency and return on
investment. Addressing challenges at the scale they exist--not through
fragmented, jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction solutions--delivers greater
impact for communities.
One of the most urgent constraints validated through this
assessment was the shortage of medical professionals across rural
counties in the region. Persistent provider shortages--exacerbated by
rural hospital closures--directly undermine workforce participation,
increase employer risk, and weaken regional competitiveness.
In response, SCRC developed the Crescent Care Collaborative,
partnering with the U.S. Department of State to place qualified
physicians in designated shortage areas where the domestic labor supply
is insufficient or unavailable.
This initiative exemplifies smart federal design: it is a targeted
workforce placement strategy funded through application processing
fees, allowing it to operate without federal cost and administrative
overhead.
To date, 397 physicians have been placed in high-need counties,
with approximately 50 applications currently under review. These
placements have stabilized essential services, reduced business
operating risk, and helped reverse stagnation in communities where
economic growth was at risk.
In addition to workforce-driven interventions, SCRC has completed
two cycles of the State Economic and Infrastructure Development (SEID)
Grant Program. SEID grants deliberately target job creation, address
infrastructure gaps, and increase access to capital.
Of the 139 SEID projects funded to date, I would like to highlight
four:
Georgia: A $1.2 million investment in Bluffton funded a
workforce training center that will train more than 200 individuals in
agriculture and small business development, with a focus on
transitioning veterans into agricultural careers.
Alabama: A $2 million investment in Henry County to
develop a Workforce Technology Center, providing hands-on training and
dual enrollment partnerships that create seamless career pathways for
students and adults.
Mississippi: A $475,000 investment to expand training in
diesel, automotive, and aviation maintenance--directly addressing
skilled labor shortages and supporting 159 new jobs while leveraging
nearly $33 million in regional investment.
South Carolina: A $500,000 investment in trail
construction supporting immediate construction jobs and creating a
long-term tourism asset to drive sustained employment and visitor
spending in Georgetown and Williamsburg Counties.
Structurally, SCRC is designed for accountability and efficiency.
The Commission maintains a lean federal footprint, while Governors of
member states play a direct and active role in setting priorities and
overseeing investments. This governance model ensures local relevance,
minimizes administrative duplication, and aligns federal spending with
state economic strategies.
From the beginning, SCRC paired this structure with clear
performance measures. As outlined in our five-year strategic plan,
investments are evaluated based on expanded access to infrastructure
and services, job creation and retention, strengthened local capacity,
and long-term economic sustainability.
Across the 2024 and 2025 grant cycles, SCRC invested nearly $53
million in 139 projects across six states. These funds leveraged
significant state, local, and private investment--producing an
estimated return of $2.49 for every federal dollar invested in 2024 and
$1.52 per federal dollar in 2025. These positive returns on investment
are tied to quantifiable outcomes in jobs, infrastructure, and economic
capacity.
I appreciate the opportunity to report before the Subcommittee on
SCRC's work to strengthen a region critical to America's long-term
economic growth.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to answering your
questions.
Mr. Perry. All right. I was considering--we would like to
get all of you done, but I don't know if I can. As you can see
the board over there--I know Washington works on a different
timetable, but that is why nobody is ever on time around here,
so I would like not to feed into that too much. But I will just
say thank you, Dr. Reed. And we are going to let Mr. Sanchez
testify and see what we have left. And then we will figure out,
Ms. Fenton, if you can go before we have to recess for a little
while.
So, go ahead, Mr. Sanchez. You are recognized for 5
minutes.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JUAN SANCHEZ, FEDERAL COCHAIR, SOUTHWEST
BORDER REGIONAL COMMISSION
Mr. Sanchez. Thank you, Chairman. I will be as quick as I
can.
Good morning, Chairman Perry, Ranking Members, and members
of the committee. Thank you for the invitation to testify today
on behalf of the Southwest Border Regional Commission. I am
Juan Sanchez. I am the commission's Federal Cochair, and I am
honored to share our progress and challenges as we work to
foster economic development across the Southwest region.
The SBRC is a partnership between the Federal Government
and the States of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas.
Congress created the commission in the 2008 farm bill and most
recently reauthorized it under the 2024 WRDA bill.
The SBRC's mission is to improve economic infrastructure,
foster economic development, and help create jobs by addressing
barriers to growth and providing Federal grants to distressed
communities. The commission's region comprises 103 counties and
approximately 36 million people across our 4 States. The
commission evaluates each one of our counties on a yearly
basis, utilizing their economic data, including poverty rates,
per capita market income, and unemployment rates, and compares
them against counties nationwide. Of our 103 counties, 43 were
classified as economically distressed, 44 as transitional, and
13 as attainment.
Commissionwide, the average poverty rate was 18 percent,
significantly higher than the national average of 12.4 percent,
and representing 5 million people who live in poverty. The
average 3-year unemployment rate for the region was 5.2, also
exceeding national averages, and our per capita market income
was 20 percent lower than the national average in 2023.
These challenges are most acute in distressed counties.
Although they represent 11 percent of the population, they
account for approximately 21 percent of the individuals living
in poverty. These counties experience a poverty rate of 24
percent, twice the national average.
Additionally, within our region, we have unique and
isolated distressed communities. Colonias, which is a Spanish
word for ``neighborhoods,'' are distressed communities located
within 150 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border. These communities
are inhabited by individuals and families with very low income.
They often lack a governance structure and a meaningful tax
base. Many residents live without adequate housing and
essential services such as potable water, plumbing, sewage,
utilities, broadband, and paved roads.
Approximately 800,000 people in colonias lack adequate
drinking water and sanitation. One-third of those have no
access to water or a wastewater facility. Even those with
access face water quality and quantity issues, posing serious
health threats.
The commission also includes 51 federally recognized
Tribes. Collectively, these Tribes experience a poverty rate of
44 percent, which is almost four times the national average,
and an unemployment rate of almost three times the national
average. Likewise, these Tribal communities face critical
infrastructure challenges with limited access to drinking
water, sanitation, roads, and broadband.
Another critical challenge faced by the commission's region
is access to healthcare. All 103 counties in our area contain a
federally designated health professional shortage area. These
shortages are most pronounced in our distressed counties where
71 percent are classified as whole county shortages, meaning
the provider shortage affects the entire population. The
commission views disparities as a fundamental barrier to
workforce participation, economic stability, and long-term
community resilience.
We surveyed our region, meeting with universities,
nonprofits, local officials, to identify the most common
barriers to economic growth. What we have heard constantly was
the capacity gap; communities lack technical, managerial,
financial capacity. Distressed communities often report that
their minimal staff is overburdened by administrative duties.
Capacity constraint prevents them from accessing funds which
they would otherwise qualify for.
The high cost of infrastructure and matching requirements
is another barrier. These are among the poorest communities in
the Nation, which lacks a tax base to generate matching funds.
The high cost of infrastructure projects often require these
communities to piece together multiple funding sources, adding
to the administrative burden. These communities feel that the
grant process is an uneven and unfair playing field, as they
are disadvantaged when competing against larger municipalities
that have grant writers, technical support, and grant
administrators.
In response to those barriers, the commission directed our
grant funding towards distressed areas. In 2025, we awarded our
first grant cycle, awarding $11.3 million in Federal funding,
over 22 projects across the region. Seventy-eight percent of
these awards were directed to economically distressed
communities. We invested in water and wastewater systems that
expanded access to clean water, rural roads, and transportation
alternatives that improved safety and connected communities. We
invested in equipment to train high-need professionals such as
engineers, chemists. We invested in new medical clinics to
expand access to healthcare shortage areas.
Overall, our $11.3 million investment will leverage an
additional $10.2 million in local funding, nearly a dollar-for-
dollar match. The commission estimates that investment supports
700 to 800 permanent jobs, 500 to 600 retained positions, and
creates 200 to 250 temporary jobs, will assist more than 1,400
small businesses; individuals will receive training, technical
assistance, and infrastructure support.
I want to thank our Governors, Members of Congress, and the
commission staff for their dedication and time. I look forward
to working with Congress and pleased to answer any questions.
[Mr. Sanchez's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Juan Sanchez, Federal Cochair, Southwest
Border Regional Commission
Good morning, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Stanton, and
distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity
to testify today on behalf of the Southwest Border Regional Commission
(SBRC). My name is Juan Sanchez, and I serve as the Commission's
Federal Co-Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the progress
the Commission has made and the challenges that remain in supporting
economic development across the Southwest Border region.
The Southwest Border Regional Commission is a federal-state
economic development partnership between the federal government and the
states of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. The Commission
provides federal grant funding to economically distressed and
persistent poverty communities for infrastructure improvements and
economic development projects. Congress created the Commission in the
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, (the Farm Bill), and most
recently reauthorized it through the Thomas R. Carper Water Resources
Development Act of 2024.
The Commission is governed by a Federal Co-Chair and the Governors
of the four member states, one of whom serves as the State Co-Chair.
State Governors appoint state staff to jointly administrate and oversee
the Commission's performance and deliverables. Administrative costs are
shared with our state partners, minimizing federal overhead while
advancing locally driven projects that align with both state and
federal administration priorities.
The Southwest Border Commission's region encompasses 103 counties
and approximately 36.3 million people across Arizona, California, New
Mexico, and Texas. This region is rich in cultural diversity, natural
resources, economic activity, international trade, and potential, yet
it also includes some of the most economically distressed and
persistently low-income communities in the nation. The Commission's
mission is to create and retain jobs, maximize private and public
funds, increase regional and tax revenue while empowering underserved
communities, reducing economic disparities, and improving quality of
life throughout this four-state region.
SBRC Region
Of the 103 counties in the SBRC's service area, 46 are classified
as economically distressed, 44 as transitional, and 13 as attainment
counties. Distressed counties account for approximately 11 percent of
the region's population, transitional counties account for 77 percent,
and attainment counties comprise the remaining 12 percent. Economic
distress designations are determined through a statutory process that
evaluates county-level unemployment rates, per capita income, and
poverty rates. These designations guide the Commission's investment
decisions to ensure that resources are targeted first at communities
facing the most severe economic challenges.
Challenges
The Southwest Border region continues to face persistent and
significant economic challenges. The average poverty rate across the
SBRC region is approximately 18 percent, well above the national
average of 12.4 percent, representing an estimated five million
individuals living in poverty. The three-year average unemployment rate
within the SBRC region is 5.2 percent, compared to a national average
of 4.2 percent. Per capita market income in the SBRC region was more
than 20 percent lower than the national average in 2023.
Distressed counties illustrate the severity of these challenges.
Although they represent only 11 percent of the region's population,
they account for approximately 21 percent of individuals living in
poverty. These counties experience an average poverty rate of 24
percent, nearly double the national average, and an average
unemployment rate of approximately 6 percent. Even among working
households, poverty rates remain high, underscoring the depth and
persistence of economic hardship in these communities.
Unique and Isolated Distressed Communities
Colonias
Colonias are geographic areas located within 150 miles of the U.S.-
Mexico border that are predominantly inhabited by individuals and
families of very low income. These communities often lack formal
governance structures and a meaningful tax base. Many residents live
without access to safe, sanitary, public schools, libraries, sound
housing and lack basic services such as potable water, adequate
wastewater systems, drainage, utilities, and paved roads. All
communities defined as colonias fall within the SBRC's service area.
An estimated 800,000 people lack adequate drinking water and
sanitation facilities, such as household plumbing or proper sewage
disposal systems. Approximately one-third have no drinking water or
wastewater facilities. The Rural Community Assistance Partnership
(RCAP), a national non-profit studying access to water, estimates that
these historically underinvested colonias need over $10 billion in
water and wastewater infrastructure investment across the four Border
States (CA, AZ, NM, & TX).\1\ Even when access exists, water quality
and reliability are often compromised, posing significant public health
risks. Providing safe and clean drinking water and adequate sanitation
facilities to these severely underserved communities continues to pose
challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Rural Community Assistance Partnership (RCAP). (2016). Colonias
phase II assessment report. Retrieved from https://rcap.org/wp-content/
uploads/2016/03/RCAP_Colonias-Phase-II-Assessment-Report_FINAL_web.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Government Accountability Office, in report GAO-24-106732,
found that infrastructure investments in colonias are frequently cost-
prohibitive due to rural and dispersed development patterns and
distance from existing systems. GAO documented instances in which
officials determined that system connections were not economically
feasible, leaving residents reliant on hauled water or inadequate
sanitation. The GAO also found these challenges are compounded by
limited local fiscal and administrative capacity to meet matching fund
requirements or manage complex federal funding programs.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ GAO, Rural Development: Actions Needed to Improve Assistance to
Southwest Border Communities Known as Colonias, GAO-24-106732
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2024) https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-24-
106732.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tribal Communities
The SBRC region includes 51 federally recognized tribes. Tribal
communities in the region experience a poverty rate of approximately 44
percent and an unemployment rate of 12 percent, compared to national
averages of 12.4 percent and 4.2 percent, respectively. Tribal
communities face severe infrastructure challenges, including limited
access to reliable drinking water, sanitation facilities, and broadband
connectivity.
Nearly half of tribal households lack access to reliable water
sources, clean drinking water, or basic sanitation.\3\ A 2022 study by
Columbia University found that tribal communities in the Southwest are
disproportionately exposed to elevated levels of arsenic and uranium in
public drinking water systems, contributing to serious health
disparities and long-term risks.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Tribal Clean Water. (2024). Universal access to clean water for
tribal communities. Retrieved from https://tribalcleanwater.org/.
\4\ Martinez-Morata, I., Bostick, B.C., Conroy-Ben, O. et al.
Nationwide geospatial analysis of county racial and ethnic composition
and public drinking water arsenic and uranium. Nat Commun. 13, 7461
(2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-35185-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is committed to strengthening tribal capacity,
supporting self-governance, and ensuring tribal communities are full
partners in regional economic development. To that end, the SBRC has
established a policy reserving a minimum of five percent of total grant
funds for projects benefiting tribal communities.
Healthcare Workforce Shortages
The SBRC service area faces a systemic healthcare workforce crisis
characterized by both the pervasiveness and severity of provider
shortages. All 103 counties in the SBRC region contain at least one
federally designated Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA),
underscoring that unmet healthcare need is universal across the
region.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ HRSA.gov, and tabulated by SBRC. https://data.hrsa.gov/topics/
health-workforce/shortage-areas/hpsa-find.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HPSA designations in the SBRC region take multiple forms, including
countywide geographic designations as well as population-group and
facility-based designations. These distinctions reflect how shortages
are distributed--not whether they exist. For example, the absence of a
countywide HPSA designation does not imply that shortages are less
acute; designation patterns are shaped by application processes, data
availability, and administrative thresholds, not solely by the level of
need.
Nearly two-thirds of SBRC counties (65 of 103, or 63.1%) are
designated as countywide HPSAs, meaning provider shortages affect the
entire population rather than being limited to specific neighborhoods,
facilities, or subgroups. In the remaining counties, population-based
and sub-county designations still signal serious access barriers,
particularly for low-income and medically underserved residents.
When viewed through SBRC's economic distress classifications, a
stark health equity pattern emerges. All 42 counties designated as
economically distressed contain HPSAs, and their shortages are more
likely to be widespread and severe. More than 7 in 10 distressed
counties (30 of 42, or 71.4%) are designated as countywide HPSAs--
meaning that in most distressed communities, provider shortages affect
the entire population. By contrast, only 6.5% of transitional counties
(3 of 46) and none of the attainment counties carry countywide
designations. This indicates that shortages in more economically stable
areas are more likely to be geographically or demographically
concentrated, while shortages in distressed areas are more likely to be
comprehensive and structural.
This pattern demonstrates that healthcare workforce shortages in
the SBRC region are not randomly distributed. They track closely with
economic vulnerability. Communities with the fewest resources are also
the most likely to face shortages that are widespread, persistent, and
difficult to address through incremental interventions alone. Even
where HPSAs are formally designated for specific populations or
facilities, these designations often reflect deeper systemic barriers
tied to poverty, rurality, and historical underinvestment.
The Commission views these inequities as a fundamental barrier to
regional economic stability, workforce participation, and long-term
community resilience.
Barriers to Economic Development
The Commission conducted extensive outreach and engagement with
stakeholders across the four-state region, including meetings and
surveys involving local officials, tribal leaders, nonprofit
organizations, industry representatives, state agencies, universities,
chambers of commerce, and development districts. Through this outreach
and engagement, stakeholders reported the following recurring barriers
to economic development:
Capacity: Distressed communities often lack the
technical, managerial, and financial capacity needed to fully access
federal and state resources and funding opportunities. Unincorporated
areas, such as colonias, frequently lack governing structures, while
communities with formal governance report limited staff who are
overburdened by administrative duties. Stakeholders noted that with
appropriate support, many communities could qualify for state or
federal funding but are currently constrained by these capacity
limitations.
High Cost & Cost-Prohibitive Matching Requirements: The
SBRC serves some of the nation's poorest communities, many of which
lack a sufficient tax base to generate revenue or secure required
matching funds. Because matching funds are often necessary to compete
for federal and state grants, this requirement presents a significant
barrier for the most underserved communities. High capital costs of
infrastructure project often mean these communities have to cobble
together multiple funding sources, adding to the historical challenge.
Data Availability and Limitations: Respondents reported
insufficient access to data and research related to challenges facing
their communities, citing persistent gaps in the availability and
accessibility of publicly available information.
Uneven Playing Field: Distressed communities reported
disadvantages in competing for grants and infrastructure funding due to
structural biases and limited access to technical support, resources,
predevelopment studies, and specialized staff need to apply and manage
federal grants.
In response, the SBRC adopted guiding principles that prioritize
investment in the most economically distressed communities, build local
capacity, funding predevelopment studies and technical assistance,
reduce barriers to economic development, and leverage partnerships to
maximize the impact of federal funding.
Grant Program Summary and Awards
In 2025, the SBRC completed its first year of grantmaking, awarding
$11.3 million in federal funding in response to project funding
requests of more than 10 times the available amount. In its first year,
the program invested in some of the poorest and most underleveraged
regions of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas, awarding grants
to 22 projects across the four states.
Funds were concentrated where need is greatest. Seventy-eight
percent of awards were directed to economically distressed counties,
exceeding the statutory requirement that at least 50 percent of funds
benefit distressed areas. The remaining 22 percent supported
economically transitional counties.
The 11.3-million-dollar investment will leverage an additional 10.2
million in local and state matching funds. SBRC estimates that its
federal investment will support roughly 750-800 permanent jobs, help
retain approximately 500-600 positions, and create approximately 200-
250 temporary jobs.
More than 1,400 small businesses and individuals will be assisted
with training, technical support, or infrastructure improvements, with
potential multiplying effects on job creation, retention, and economic
stabilization in the places that need it most.
SBRC investments will strengthen essential infrastructure and
expand economic opportunity through investments in water and wastewater
systems, rural road rehabilitation, workforce training, new medical
clinics, entrepreneurship support, and equipment to train high-demand
professionals.
Projects will expand clean water access and redevelop blighted and
underutilized properties in some of the nation's most impoverished
communities, and repair long-neglected rural roads to improve safety,
reduce costs for farmers, and reconnect local economies.
Our workforce development investments focus on training Americans
for high-need, high-demand jobs, including engineers needed for
critical mineral extraction, medical professionals in shortage areas,
and workers in both traditional skilled trades and emerging industries
such as superconductors, while supporting small businesses and long-
term economic growth.
I appreciate the opportunity to report before the Subcommittee on
SBRC's work to strengthen a region critical to America's long-term
economic growth.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to answering your
questions.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
You can see that clock says we've got 3 minutes. I don't
like going when it says zero, right? You don't want to miss
this stuff. So I apologize, Ms. Fenton. I promise you will be
the star when we return. My best guess is probably 10 after to
quarter after if we are lucky. You can watch. It is a three-
vote series. This is the first one. You can watch on the board.
But at this time, the subcommittee shall stand in recess
subject to the call of the chair.
[Recess.]
[11:31 a.m.]
Mr. Perry. The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management will reconvene the
previously recessed hearing.
Ms. Fenton, you are now recognized for 5 minutes of
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF JOCELYN FENTON, DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS, DENALI
COMMISSION
Ms. Fenton. Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you, everyone, for
the opportunity for the regional commissions to be here with
you today. My name is Jocelyn Fenton, and I serve as the
director of programs for the Denali Commission.
The Denali Commission is the only Alaska-headquartered
Federal agency and a 25-year Federal-State partnership focused
on the most remote, high-cost communities in the Nation.
Alaska's communities are linchpins for Arctic posture, disaster
response, and resource development. So every Federal dollar
invested there has both local and national security
implications.
Reauthorized in 2024, the commission is tightly aligned
with President Trump's Executive orders on unleashing Alaska's
resource potential, strengthening American energy, and
improving maritime and transportation infrastructure, among
others.
The commission stretches limited resources by braiding
multiple Federal tools into a single streamlined entity for
rural infrastructure. The commission blends congressional
appropriations, interest from the Trans-Alaska Pipeline
Liability Fund, and interagency transfers to build
comprehensive projects instead of scattering one-off grants.
Section 311 transfer authority and the section 305(c) gift
authority allow multiple Federal partners to pool even small
amounts of funding into a single project management pipeline,
reducing fragmentation, duplicative designs, and competing
timelines.
Annual work plans go through a public comment process and
are approved by commissioners and the Secretary of Commerce,
ensuring alignment with congressional intent, administration
priorities, and community-driven needs. With these tools, the
commission currently manages more than 300 active projects,
totaling roughly $386 million while operating with a 1.4-
percent administrative overhead, an efficiency level that
rivals or exceeds many larger programs.
The Denali Commission's core value proposition is
partnership. Federal, Tribal, State, local, and private
partners all leverage a shared platform instead of building
parallel systems.
Through direct partnerships with the Alaska Native Tribal
Health Consortium, Alaska Energy Authority, and Alaska Village
Electric Cooperative, the commission has deployed $100 million
to modernize bulk fuel tank farms that power rural clinics,
schools, and homes.
Collaboration with the Department of War's Innovation and
Readiness Training Program has delivered dual-use projects like
the Shepard Point Road Extension and Port Complex in Cordova,
combining local emergency access with national readiness and
strategic defense benefits.
Following Typhoon Halong, the commission convened with the
National Guard, U.S. Coast Guard, FEMA, State of Alaska, and
Tribal partners to align recovery investments and explore a
design for a regional network of multiuse emergency response
centers and public safety buildings in western Alaska.
These partnerships mean that agencies do not have to build
separate project pipelines for the same communities, reducing
duplication and accelerating delivery in places where
construction seasons are short and logistics are complex.
In rural Alaska, a single dock, powerhouse, or clinic often
has to do the work of many facilities. That is why the
commission focuses on projects that serve multiple purposes,
stretching each Federal dollar across several missions. This
dual and multiuse approach strengthens local resilience while
also advancing national security and economic priorities.
We are emphasizing three main areas. First, infrastructure
hardening. We are upgrading energy systems, transportation
links, and emergency communications so that docks, barge
landings, airstrips, and public buildings can operate as
reliable staging areas when disasters strike.
Second, technology and innovation. We are partnering with
national energy labs and others to test cold-weather
technologies, develop value-added local lumber and biomass
products, and explore energy-resilient data and communication
facilities that can operate off grid or in islanded systems.
And third, resource and access corridors. We are investing
in Arctic and inland roads, bridges, and marine facilities that
can open access to critical minerals, timber, and fisheries,
while also ensuring redundant routes for delivering fuel, food,
and medical supplies during emergencies.
The commission's waterfront investments illustrate this
multiuse strategy. Since 2022, approximately $16.5 million has
been directed to marine infrastructure, leveraging more than
$70 million from other sources to build barge landings, small
ports, and related facilities over two dozen coastal
communities. These assets function much like rural highways in
intermodal facilities in other States. They are often the only
freight and fuel lifeline for communities with no road access,
with direct implications for emergency response and Federal
disaster costs when they fail.
Broadband and communications are another dual-use priority.
The commission has helped secure 187 Tribal spectrum licenses,
and more than $200 million in broadband-related funding,
coordinating with NTIA, USDA's Reconnect Program, FEMA, Tribes,
and private providers. These investments reduce dependence on
single points of failure and create redundant land-based fiber
routes that can keep communications functioning during severe
weather and emergency events.
Recently expanded authorities allow the commission to
support housing and critical community facilities that address
overcrowding and homelessness in rural areas. Health clinics,
community buildings, and public service facilities frequently
double as emergency shelters and coordination centers,
mirroring the multiuse demands of public facilities nationwide,
but under far more extreme conditions.
The commission's interagency transfer model, low overhead,
and dual-use focus offer a practical template for stretching
limited Federal resources in high-cost, high-risk environments.
Instead of multiple agencies each paying for their own
procurements, design teams, and mobilizations, the commission
provides a shared platform where costs and risks are spread and
investments are sequenced logically across sectors: energy,
transportation, communication, and community facilities.
Projects are prioritized through a clear, strategic
evaluation process that ensures the most consequential dual-use
facilities rise to the top, those that strengthen community
well-being while advancing national security and resilience
objectives.
By coupling infrastructure with targeted technical
assistance--for example, working with the Alaska Small Business
Development Center to build local business capacity--the
commission turns place-based Federal investments into long-
term, private-sector opportunity.
For more than 25 years, this model has shown when Congress
empowers a locally grounded, partnership-driven entity with
flexible tools and clear authorities, it is possible to reduce
duplication, deliver durable infrastructure, and multiply the
impact of every Federal dollar.
Thank you for your attention and for your continued support
of the commission's proven efficiency models for rural
infrastructure and national readiness.
[Ms. Fenton's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jocelyn Fenton, Director of Programs, Denali
Commission
Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Stanton, and Honorable Members of
the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss
the Denali Commission and ``Smarter Spending, Stronger Results:
Reducing Duplication and Ensuring Effectiveness Through Economic
Development Reforms.'' As a federal-state partnership with 25 years of
experience, the Commission has worked to address the critical
infrastructure and development needs of rural Alaska, as well as the
nation's growing Arctic and security imperatives.
Strategic Reauthorization and Executive Alignment
The Denali Commission was recently reauthorized in section 213 of
the Economic Development Reauthorization Act of 2024 (Division B, Title
II, P.L. 118-272), signed into law on January 4, 2025. The Commission
has aligned its operations with President Trump's Executive Orders to
ensure consistency with Administration priorities, with its work
strongly aligning with Executive Order 14153, ``Unleashing Alaska's
Extraordinary Resource Potential,'' which emphasizes energy and mineral
development, national security, and efficient federal investment in
Alaska's resources.
As the only Alaska-headquartered federal agency, the Denali
Commission has unique access to--and trust from--remote communities. We
have aligned our work with both civilian and defense objectives. In
rural Alaska, this means hardening power, fuel, and broadband systems
that serve as community lifelines and as part of the national
communications backbone. The Commission has prioritized dual-use
infrastructure--projects that meet civilian needs while supporting
homeland and national security--stretching limited resources to address
critical priorities.
Several projects have included partnerships with the Department of
War's Innovation and Readiness Training (IRT) program to advance dual-
use objectives. In partnership with the Native Village of Eyak, the
Denali Commission funded critical equipment for the Shepard Point Road
Extension and Port Complex Project in Cordova, strengthening local
emergency response capacity while supporting national readiness and
strategic defense operations. IRT partnerships have also supported
shipping and logistics to Nome, as well as road construction, housing
development, and workforce training in Mertarvik as part of the Newtok
relocation effort.
Following Typhoon Halong and other recent natural disasters along
Alaska's west coast, the Denali Commission convened the Alaska National
Guard, U.S. Coast Guard, FEMA, Association of Village Council
Presidents (AVCP), and State department Commissioners to coordinate
recovery, align infrastructure projects, and advance a regional public
safety concept for Bethel and surrounding hub communities. The
Commission funded AVCP to design an emergency response center in Bethel
and plan a network of five regional centers, each supporting multiple
uses--emergency training, search and rescue, critical supply storage,
and homeland security operations--strengthening both community
resilience and strategic readiness.
In addition to Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource
Potential, many Executive Orders mesh with our existing programs and
focus areas like energy (Unleashing American Energy, Unleashing
America's Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources), transportation
(Restoring America's Maritime Dominance), workforce development
(Preparing Americans for High-Paying Skilled Trade Jobs of the Future),
and land and water resources partnerships with USDA Forest Service and
Natural Resources Conservation Service (Unleashing American Commercial
Fishing in the Pacific, Immediate Expansion of American Timber
Production), among others.
Alaska's National and Strategic Significance
Alaska is one-fifth the size of the continental U.S., with over
33,000 miles of shoreline--longer than the rest of the U.S. combined--
and plays a central position in U.S. Arctic policy. The state hosts
over 100 F-35 aircraft, missile defense systems, and Arctic maritime
operations, and sits astride emerging Arctic shipping lanes whose
viability is increasing as sea ice recedes.
Russia holds more than half of the Arctic landmass and continues to
assert dominance in the region, while China has declared itself a
``near-Arctic'' state and is pursuing infrastructure and resource
access across the circumpolar North. In this context, sustained U.S.
presence--anchored by reliable energy, transportation, communications,
health, and waterfront infrastructure in rural Alaska--is essential to
homeland security, economic opportunity, and emergency readiness.
The Denali Commission has served as a centralized mechanism for
infrastructure investments in rural Alaska, coordinating with federal
agencies, the State of Alaska, and local communities to deliver high-
priority projects in some of the most remote parts of the United
States. This includes assets that function simultaneously as economic
lifelines and as platforms for disaster response and recovery, directly
intersecting this Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
Programmatic Impact and Efficiency
Since its inception in 1998, the Denali Commission has invested
over $1 billion in Alaska, and currently manages 322 active projects
totaling approximately $386 million while operating with about 1.4
percent administrative overhead. The Commission's model blends
Congressional appropriations, interest from the Trans-Alaska Pipeline
Liability Fund, and interagency transfers to braid funding together.
The Commission's statutory program areas include: energy
reliability and security; bulk fuel safety and access; public
infrastructure, communications, and housing; surface and waterfront
transportation; water and sanitation; and job training and rural
development. Many of these projects directly intersect with this
Subcommittee's responsibilities--public buildings and clinics that
serve as community shelters, waterfront and barge landing facilities
that act as lifelines for supply chains, and critical access roads that
support both daily commerce and emergency response.
Every year since its creation, the Commission developed an annual
workplan that set project and program priorities based on statutory
authorities, community needs, and federal policy direction. Workplans
are reviewed and approved by the Commission's Federal Co-Chair and
Commissioners, go through a public comment process, and then are
approved by the Secretary of Commerce, ensuring alignment with
Administration priorities and Congressional intent. To further sharpen
its focus, over the last year the Commission has explored additional
tools--such as a strategic-location decision matrix--to help ensure
that the most consequential projects, including those with dual-use
benefits, rose to the top of the annual workplan.
Dual-Use Infrastructure: Strategic Pivot
In recent years, the Commission's portfolio has emphasized dual-use
infrastructure--projects that meet year-round civilian needs while
advancing homeland and national security objectives. This approach has
been especially critical for communities that rely on the same docks,
airstrips, powerhouses, and public buildings for daily life, economic
activity, and disaster response. Such infrastructure also enables
private sector access to natural resources, local commerce, and energy
development, amplifying the economic return on federal investments.
Key areas of emphasis have included:
Infrastructure Hardening: Improving energy systems,
transportation links, emergency communications, and search and rescue
capabilities so that rural docks, barge landings, and public buildings
can function as reliable staging areas for disaster response and
recovery.
Technology and Innovation: Working with national energy
laboratories and partners to test cold-weather technologies, extend
battery life, and explore energy-resilient data and communications
facilities suitable for off-grid or islanded systems.
Resource and Access Corridors: Supporting Arctic and
inland infrastructure--roads, bridges, and marine facilities--that
enable access to critical minerals, timber, and fisheries while also
ensuring redundant routes for emergency fuel, food, and medical
transport.
These dual-use investments have complemented the Subcommittee's
work to strengthen FEMA programs and improve the durability and cost-
effectiveness of public facilities and transportation links before and
after disasters.
Key Initiatives and National Relevance
The Commission's current initiatives demonstrate how targeted
investments in rural Alaska support national economic, security, and
emergency management objectives.
Bulk Fuel and Energy Security--The Commission's $100
million investment in bulk fuel infrastructure is a cornerstone of its
efforts to strengthen energy security, reduce costs, and support
emergency preparedness in rural Alaska. Through a direct partnership
with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) and subcontracts
with the Alaska Energy Authority and Alaska Village Electric
Cooperative, this investment targets aging bulk fuel tank farms that
are critical to electricity generation, heating, and transportation in
remote communities. Many of these facilities are decades old and must
be upgraded to remain code-compliant, prevent environmental spills, and
ensure fuel can be delivered efficiently by barge during short seasonal
windows rather than by significantly more expensive air transport.
Strategic federal investments in bulk fuel infrastructure have
already reduced fuel costs by more than $2.00 per gallon in some
communities, directly benefiting households, schools, clinics, and
local governments. The Commission's $100 million commitment helps
address a portion of the more than $1 billion backlog of needed
upgrades across approximately 400 rural tank farms, while reinforcing
the durability of power systems, water and sewer utilities, and
emergency services during extreme weather events and disasters.
The Executive Orders underscore the urgent need for robust
public investment in critical energy infrastructure, including the role
of advanced reactors in supporting national, energy, and economic
security. This emphasis has direct relevance for Department of War and
Department of Energy applications in Alaska, where the state is
uniquely suited to serve as a proving ground for small modular and
micro-nuclear technologies due to its energy isolation, remote
communities, and extreme operating conditions.
Transportation and Waterfront Investments--Through its
Waterfront Program, the Commission has directed approximately $16.5
million since 2022 to marine infrastructure that ensures vital access
to fuel, food, and emergency services for remote Alaska communities.
These investments have leveraged over $70 million from other sources
and improved reliability and connectivity across more than two dozen
coastal communities, strengthening both daily commerce and Arctic
readiness.
Barge landings, small ports, and related waterfront structures
in Alaska play a role similar to rural highways and intermodal
facilities in other states: they are the only freight and fuel lifeline
for communities with no road access. When these facilities fail or are
destroyed in storms, whole regions can be cut off from supply chains,
with direct implications for emergency response and the federal cost of
disaster relief. These investments not only strengthen emergency and
public service access but also create conditions for private investment
in resource transportation, local manufacturing, and commercial
logistics, enabling communities to leverage federal infrastructure for
broader economic growth.
Broadband and Communications--The Commission has helped
secure 187 Tribal spectrum licenses and more than $200 million in
broadband-related funding for rural Alaska. In coordination with NTIA,
USDA Reconnect Program, FEMA, Tribal and private entities, the
Commission has supported efforts to complete projects that prevent
service losses and build redundancy--such as land-based fiber routes
that reduce dependence on single points of failure.
Timber, Working Lands, and Food Security--In partnership
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and regional entities, the
Commission has participated in initiatives that support local wood-use
innovation, fire fuel mitigation, and localized food production. These
efforts are designed to reduce disaster risk, strengthen local building
materials supply chains, and create new economic opportunities in areas
where traditional wage employment is scarce.
Housing and Critical Community Facilities--Recently
expanded authorities have allowed the Commission to support housing and
community facilities that address overcrowding and homelessness in
rural Alaska. Health clinics, community buildings, and public service
facilities frequently double as emergency shelters and coordination
centers in disasters, mirroring the multi-use demands on public
buildings across the country.
National Security Support--The Commission can support
strategic systems, critical communications, and emergency readiness in
the Arctic. We have contributed to over 175 village health clinics and
two regional hospitals, further supporting public health infrastructure
critical to homeland security.
Strengthening Alaska's Business Ecosystem
Commission-supported infrastructure has helped create the
conditions under which private capital and entrepreneurship can succeed
in rural Alaska. Reliable barge landings, roads, bridges, and
waterfront facilities reduce logistics risk and costs for small
manufacturers, processors, and service firms, while modern clinics,
community buildings, and communications infrastructure make it possible
for businesses to attract and retain workers in remote communities.
A recent technical assistance project with the Alaska Small
Business Development Center (SBDC), supported by the Denali Commission,
illustrates this connection between infrastructure and the business
ecosystem. Through this project, SBDC established a Rural Business
Working Group that brought together Tribal governments, Native
corporations, and regional economic development organizations;
developed a statewide marketing and outreach strategy; and deployed a
comprehensive rural business training program built around completing
business plans and preparing for lending.
During the project period, SBDC's digital outreach grew
significantly: social media impressions rose to over 700,000,
engagement and link clicks increased several-fold, and the
organization's audience expanded to more than 13,000 followers, while
its newsletter subscriber base climbed to approximately 24,000 with
open rates more than double industry benchmarks. These efforts,
combined with workshops, one-on-one advising, and integration with
federal programs such as the State Small Business Credit Initiative,
helped more rural entrepreneurs access capital, improve financial
literacy, and take advantage of the opportunities created by improved
infrastructure.
By coupling place-based infrastructure--such as barge landings that
lower freight costs, bridge and road segments that connect resource
hubs to markets, and broadband that enables online training and e-
commerce--with targeted technical assistance, the Commission has
contributed to an environment where private lenders, investors, and
entrepreneurs can participate in Alaska's economy on more comparable
terms to the rest of the nation. This linkage between federal
infrastructure investment, small-business capacity, and private capital
formation is central to long-term economic resilience.
Interagency Resource Pooling: A Scalable Model
The Denali Commission is, at its core, about partnerships. Using
its Section 311 transfer authority and Section 305(c) gift authority,
the Commission has developed a multi-agency transfer model that allows
federal partners to pool funds--even in small amounts--for high-
priority projects managed by the Commission. This approach has been
applied in coordination with agencies such as the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior, the Department of
Energy, and many others to deliver bulk fuel, power, and community
infrastructure projects in high-risk communities more quickly and
efficiently than would be possible through separate, duplicative
efforts.
These models align with the Subcommittee's interest in ensuring
that federal disaster and mitigation dollars are used efficiently, that
programs avoid fragmentation, and that public buildings and essential
facilities are delivered and maintained in a cost-effective manner.
In a state defined by vast distances, limited road access, and
extreme operating conditions, this partnership-driven model is a
practical way to deliver hardened, cost-effective infrastructure that
meets critical community and national needs.
Conclusion
For more than 25 years, the Denali Commission has demonstrated a
practical, place-based approach to delivering infrastructure and
economic development in some of the most remote and hazard-prone
communities in the United States. Alaska's infrastructure needs amount
to several billion dollars, far exceeding available resources, so we
have deliberately focused on projects that provide multi-use benefits--
encouraging private investment and meeting critical community needs
while supporting national and homeland security objectives. The
Commission's work shows that when Congress directs resources through
mechanisms that are close to communities, coordinated across agencies,
and focused on dual-use outcomes, rural infrastructure can support
economic opportunity, national security, and emergency readiness at the
same time.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I welcome your
questions.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady.
Thank you all for your testimony. We will now turn to
questions for our witnesses.
The Chair will recognize himself for 5 minutes for
questions.
And I was told by one of my colleagues, Representative
Cuellar from Texas, to be particularly rough on Mr. Sanchez.
And, while I considered what he was telling me, I thought,
well, this committee really--we might not agree on everything,
but it is not about being rough. It is about getting answers.
So, when you see Representative Cuellar, Mr. Sanchez, I hope
that you will tell him that we treated you with the dignity and
respect and decorum that the institution so warrants.
With that, as I started off at the 2023 hearing, through no
fault of your own, Congress has created all your agencies that
seem duplicative of one or another Federal program. The Water
Resources Development Act of 2024 added even more regional
commissions but did include clear requirements for transparency
and coordination, which I think is a good thing.
I am going to turn to Mr. Page. Section 2212 of WRDA, the
Water Resources Development Act of 2024, requires the Secretary
of Commerce to convene a meeting with the regional commissions
within 1 year of enactment and every 2 years thereafter. I
understand EDA has set a date for the first meeting, and maybe
that is the one you referenced in February in West Virginia.
But can you provide the committee any details on the meeting,
what you plan to discuss? If there is a good reason why there
was a delay in scheduling the first meeting? And we will get
into a conversation depending on what you say there, sir.
Mr. Page. Absolutely. And thank you for the question.
So yes. The convening in West Virginia in February is the
convening to fulfill the requirement in the statute. I have
been using the opportunity here today to pigeonhole some of the
other panel members here to make sure that they will be in
attendance.
Obviously, the real intent of the legislation there was to
improve coordination, and that was obviously what we will be
focusing on, and we will do it through a report that follows
it. But I think, most importantly, we don't want this to just
be platitudes about how we can better coordinate. We are going
to focus on three specific topics: How do we ensure that we are
closing the urban-rural divide? Many of the areas represented
by the commissions here represent some of the areas that have
specific and very acute distress. We want to make sure they
don't fall further behind.
The second topic is going to be addressing workforce
issues. So how do we make sure we have a skilled workforce that
meets private-sector needs?
And, finally, obviously the economy is changing with the
advent of new technologies. We want to have a fruitful
discussion around how we can best support making sure that
these communities can participate in the economy as these
emerging technologies develop.
A subcurrent throughout every one of those topics will be,
how do we coordinate in addressing those acute problems?
Mr. Perry. I appreciate that. And I know you are fairly new
to the operation, and I understand you kind of have, as you
mentioned in your opening remarks, somewhat a Damocles sword
hanging over your head, but I appreciate that you are on the
mission now and focused on it as you should be. You can't
predict the future.
Do you actively communicate on any kind of regular basis
with your colleagues here from the various commissions? And is
there a tenor to that? Is there, like, an agenda that we might
be privy to at some point?
Mr. Page. Yes, sir. Thanks for the question.
We do not actively communicate at a leadership level.
However, our regional staff are communicating on a project-by-
project basis all the time. We have several working
partnerships, particularly with ARC, where we will jointly
manage a project so that we can both reduce the burden on
applicants, but also be more efficient at a Federal level. We
also do some of that work with DRA. And, on the ground, some of
our partners and our local staff are working with many of these
other commissions.
Mr. Perry. So I am running out of time here, but
performance metrics--I have talked about this before. I think
that the American people are due--they want to see how well
you're doing, right? And that is appropriate. We are told that
the core mission of your agencies is to support investment in
distressed communities that leverage private investment and
create long-term jobs. At some point, if these investments are
working, we should see counties or areas moving out of the
distressed column.
Can each of you at some point provide this committee, for
the record, snapshot maps of your areas that show some
progression of how well you have done over the course--and I
know some of the commissions are fairly new, but at least a
starting point so we have a benchmark and then we can look at
some goal. Because I would think--and look. Maybe you can tell
me, ``Look, Representative, the map is not indicative of our
success, and this is why,'' or ``We don't really use that in
that fashion.'' But I will tell you, for a quick snapshot,
members of this committee look at that to determine if you are
being successful or not. So, if we are wrong, we need to know.
And, if there is a better way of doing it, we need to know.
But, if there isn't, then we want to see how you are
progressing.
And look. You can all just kind of raise your hand or tell
me, ``I can't do it'' or ``I can do it,'' because I am beyond
my time here. So is that something each one of you can provide?
Ms. Reed. Yes. We will get that to your office.
Mr. Page. Yes, sir.
Mr. Perry. Ms. Fenton? Thank you, ma'am.
All right. I will now turn to the ranking member, Mr.
Figures, 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Figures. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Page, I will start with you. I represent Mobile,
Alabama, as part of my district, which is right along the gulf
coast right in Hurricane Alley, so the work of the Office of
Disaster Recovery and Resilience is something that is
particularly relevant to us. And obviously, the 2024
reauthorization of the Public Works and Economic Development
Act established that office within EDA, and it is expected to
report annually on EDA's activities and disaster response here
to Congress. So can you briefly give me an update on the status
of the Office of Disaster Recovery and Response, and how many
people are employed there as well as what disasters they have
responded to?
Mr. Page. Absolutely. And thanks for the question,
Congressman.
The office has been officially established as part of our
reorganization that was submitted to Congress earlier this
year. We have the exoskeleton. We are working through the
particulars internally about all of the authorities. Because we
did a comprehensive reorg of the whole agency as a result of
the two new offices, we actually--on net, we reduced the number
of organizational offices within the organization by six, even
when adding the two.
But the team and the expertise was brought to bear in the
development of our 2025 disaster supplemental notice of funding
opportunity. And it is a novel approach that I think is really
designed to both leverage the expertise that EDA has built
through some of its programs that we have developed tech hubs
and recompetes so we can go large scale. It focuses on kind of
our traditional programming of infrastructure. And it also can
provide capacity assistance. And it allows us to seamlessly
meet communities where they are at along that continuum. That
is a direct development based on the expertise, the engagement
of that Office of Disaster Recovery in supporting different
disasters.
One in particular is we have been on the ground supporting
the FEMA-designated mission in North Carolina. That has been a
big focal point following Hurricane Helene.
Mr. Figures. All right. Thank you. We will follow up to see
if we can get some more specifics with you regarding it, but I
am pressed for time.
Mr. Wiggins, or Dr. Wiggins, rather, my hometown regional
authority, my home State regional authority, but infrastructure
remains a major barrier to growth in Delta communities. You
mentioned in your opening statement some of the work that you
guys had done in Union Springs, Alabama, which, for those who
don't know, that part of the country suffers from some very
unique barriers from an infrastructure standpoint.
A lot of those communities are too rural for traditional
sewer systems, and the soil composition in that part of the
country is actually not conducive to septic tanks, and so you
end up with large swaths of people that have some significant
sewage issues, which creates some of those health concerns that
you guys have helped address.
Can you speak a little bit to the investments in water and
sewer and broadband and transportation to support long-term
economic development, particularly in those sorts of areas?
Mr. Wiggins. Sure. Thank you. What I will say, what we are
seeing across our region is there is a strong need for some of
the basic building blocks of economic development: water,
sewer. We see some of our communities who are progressing well.
They have those basic building blocks, but it has been a
struggle in some of our rural communities.
I guess to give an example of how much need is out there,
our annual appropriations last year was $31.1 million, but for
our Community Infrastructure Fund, which only does public
infrastructure, our request from the region was about $245
million from the region.
And so, speaking to the need, we are leveraging our funding
at DRA by partnering with our Federal partners. There are even
some times that we are able to partner with regional
commissions like ARC where there is some overlap.
And so, I think the need exists. We are meeting the need as
best as we can, not only from a funding standpoint, but also
how we support communities with some of the technical
assistance and support they need along the way in the project
development process, too.
Mr. Figures. We certainly appreciate the work that you guys
are doing down there.
Dr. Reed, EDRA allowed EDA to lower cost-sharing
requirements for small and economically distressed communities,
and has that lower cost-sharing requirement impacted the number
or volume of applications or the types of projects that have
been proposed to you guys?
Ms. Reed. Yes, it has had a positive effect on the number
of applications. In round 1, we received 363 applications and
only granted 56 projects. In round 2, 357 applications and 83
projects. In many of those, that cost share has been a positive
factor in not only the applications, but in the execution of
the grants themselves.
Mr. Figures. Well, thank you.
I appreciate the work that you guys do. I look forward to
working with you guys in ways to better support what you guys
do and the service you guys provide to this country.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes Representative King-Hinds from the
Northern Mariana Islands. That is a long way from home.
Ms. King-Hinds. It sure is.
Good morning, everybody, and thank you for your testimony
today, and I want to especially thank Mr. Page. We had a little
bit of an opportunity to chat back in the waiting room back
here.
So, in the Marianas, EDA investments have supported
economic recovery, workforce development, and long-term
resilience. These include the Garapan revitalization project,
the Marpi tourist site improvement project, and the Oleai
Sports and Cultural Complex, which are central to revitalizing
our tourism industry.
EDA has also invested in economic diversification and
workforce readiness through projects such as the new Department
of Finance Economic Resiliency Center, new educational
facilities at Northern Marianas College and the Northern
Marianas Technical Institute, a public school system vocational
training center, amongst others.
For a small, remote, and highly distressed Territory, these
projects are foundational. They support small businesses,
expand workforce training, strengthen government capacity, and
help the CNMI build a more resilient economy beyond tourism.
And so my focus is ensuring that the flexibility Congress
provides is translating into timely support for Territories
like the CNMI and that the ongoing investments are protected.
So, right now, our economy is at the brink of collapse.
Some would say that it has already collapsed, right, and so the
government is operating under severe cash flow constraints and
at this point in time must front costs for EDA-funded projects.
So, under EDA's original grant procedures, the CNMI was
able to submit reimbursement requests based on costs incurred,
allowing these projects to move forward through phase
disbursement. From what I have been told, EDA has since changed
this process to require proof of payment before reimbursement
is issued, which has created significant challenges for an
economically distressed government, particularly given what is
happening with the economy and to the point where the
government itself has had to take out a loan to be able to
cover some of these costs, right.
And so, I just kind of want to understand the rationale for
that change and whether there is consideration for what the
CNMI is going through right now as it relates to some of these
processes.
Mr. Page. Yes. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman,
and, again, I appreciated talking in the back there a little
bit about the challenges that you do face, and I know we are
tracking it.
As I look here at just the investments that EDA has made in
the area, it is about $100 million that is expected to create
or retain almost 5,000 jobs, which I did not realize until we
were just talking is somewhere between 8 and 12 percent of your
total population out there. So I understand the impact these
can have.
To your specific question about the way that we can make
payments, we do operate on a reimbursement model, and that is
really so that we can make sure that we are operating and
protecting the American taxpayers' interests. When we make an
award, we, obviously, lay out terms, conditions. The
disbursement of funds is one of our final checks to make sure
that those terms are being met and adhered to, and it is a good
way of fiscal control and also for us to make sure that the
projects are progressing and that we are not leaving any costs
out there that shouldn't be paid, but we are also not paying
costs that weren't applicable.
There are some limited instances where we can do
advancements, and we are happy to work with you and your staff
and the grantees to explore this.
Ms. King-Hinds. Thank you very much for that.
So it has been very fascinating to listen to the different
commissions. In particular, I was fascinated by the
presentation of the Denali commissioner, and so I just wanted
to ask, right, because we don't have a commission that directly
speaks to the Territories, and the challenges, obviously, are
very unique in comparison to what Appalachia is experiencing or
Alaska--actually, very similar to what Alaska is experiencing.
So I wanted to kind of hear, from your perspective, Mr.
Page, how do these partnerships improve project delivery and
outcomes in distressed regions when you do work with these
commissions?
Mr. Page. Absolutely. So the partnerships with these
commissions tend to bring localized knowledge about the
challenges for these very distinct geographic regions. We,
obviously, have State representatives that cover the entire
country and the Territories, including CNMI. I think the
regional commissions can help in a doubling down and bringing
an on-the-ground perspective that can help with that.
That being said, I do know that we have an outstanding
economic development representative that does cover all of the
Territories in the Pacific. He makes sure that he is spending
time to be very attuned to the challenges so that he can speak
to it and recognizes that they are unique versus many of the
other parts of the country.
Ms. King-Hinds. I am out of time. I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady.
The Chair now recognizes the Representative from the
District of Columbia, Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I strongly oppose the Trump administration's efforts to gut
the Federal workforce and the Federal contractor workforce and
to move Federal agencies out of the District of Columbia.
Last year, DC lost at least 24,000 Federal Government jobs.
Deputy Secretary Page, how is the Economic Development
Administration working to support the creation of new jobs and
industries in the District of Columbia?
Mr. Page. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
We are tracking what you cite here. At the end of the day,
the projects that EDA receives are developed from the ground
up, consistent with economic development strategies and
projects that can meet the unique distressed characteristics of
a community. So a workforce disruption, unemployment levels,
things like that can be a qualifying event.
And our local Philadelphia regional office, I believe, is
already working with entities in the District to explore
projects. I know that there is one that is already in
consideration.
But I would also say, longer term, the District of Columbia
and the National Capital region is not actually covered by an
economic development district where you would actually have a
comprehensive economic development strategy that would lay out
the long-term goals for diversification of the economy and
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.
I am happy to report that we have actually engaged with
some local entities, most notably the Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments, to start discussions around how they
could actually start to develop a CEDS and create an EDD so
that they can lay out those strategies and identify the
programming that can support the District.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Deputy Secretary Page.
And I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman, Representative
Barrett.
Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
panelists that are here. I appreciate your testimony.
I served in the State legislature before coming here to our
Nation's Capital, and we had some robust debates about economic
development back home in Michigan.
I kind of start from the position that Government doesn't
create jobs. Government can create Government jobs, but private
industry creates the jobs that ultimately pay for Government
jobs. So you might maybe consider me a bit of a skeptic around
some economic development programs and some of the lofty
prognosis of what they are set to bring in, what
accomplishments we have had, kind of glossing over some of the
failures of certain economic development programs that I think
deserve rational debate. And then sometimes maybe the data that
we get is a little bit optimistic.
But, with that being said, I do appreciate you being here
today. I know that we have a lot of programs that were
initiated during the COVID-19 pandemic. There was, obviously, a
massive disruption to the economy, and Congress and really all
levels of Government took action to really manage as best we
were able, and in hindsight, maybe things could have been done
differently, but I do acknowledge that there was a lot of
uncertainty then.
At the time, though, Congress provided the EDA with
significant supplemental funding to support economic recovery,
including, I think, $1\1/2\ billion from the CARES Act, $3
billion from ARPA. The EDA played a sizable role administering
these COVID-related economic recovery funds that were intended
to stabilize communities quickly, predominantly under the
previous administration.
Mr. Page, I am curious if you know if these funds were
targeted well and if they produced measurable results? And, for
COVID projects, did the EDA use the same performance metric
framework that it currently uses for infrastructure and
noninfrastructure data, or was some other metric used at that
time?
Mr. Page. Yes, sir. Thanks for the question.
And, yes, you are correct. We did receive substantial
supplemental funding, $4.5 billion total through two
supplementals in response to those. Many of those projects are
still in development, and they are actually producing results
now, particularly construction.
A lot of the awards went out at the end of 2021, and they
are just kind of finishing their design phase. They are about
to enter into construction, or they are in construction, but
they are not quite complete.
But I am happy to report that with our portfolio of grants
that we have right now, $5.8 billion in total, we are seeing an
8-to-1 return on private investment for every dollar invested.
That being said, we are actively monitoring these projects. We
now have a risk assessment tool that we have put in place for
every one of these awards to make sure that they are advancing,
and if they are not--if for some reason the beneficiary has
changed and, therefore, the actual expected value has changed,
if there are complications, if there are cost overruns--we are
willing to work with the applicant to terminate the grant.
Mr. Barrett. Sure. And I appreciate that. To me, sometimes
we force an idea that we are going to do something that the
market may not necessarily otherwise demand, and I think when
it comes to infrastructure, those are community funded and then
sometimes have State and Federal money combined for roads,
bridges, pipelines, and other things that provide a benefit to
everyone in that community and can hopefully then attract more
economic development, less so than some other projects that may
be like, oh, we are going to guarantee this many jobs, and
then, 10 years go by, and new people are sitting in your seat
and my seat.
Those jobs don't materialize, and it is impossible to hold
accountable then at that point, and I want to make sure that we
prevent that circumstance from happening.
I guess, to go through a design phase for 5 years, I mean,
we are 5 years post-2021 right now. I flipped the calendar over
like everybody else a few weeks ago, and it said 2026 on it.
How are we supposed to effectively deploy these resources
when it takes 5 years to get through just the design phase of a
project?
Mr. Page. Yes, sir. And I should have said the CARES Act
was earlier. The ARC funds did not deploy until a little bit
later because they were appropriated in 2021.
But, at the end of the day, I understand what you are
saying about the private investment. At EDA, we look at the
private investment not as an outcome, but actually as a market
signal that the investment that we are going to make actually
has real benefit. We have named beneficiaries for projects that
are local entities. Oftentimes, we will get letters of support
from them.
And then we do follow up at 3, 6, and 9 years to make sure
that we are getting reporting from the grantee that those have
actually materialized.
Mr. Barrett. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the ranking member from Arizona,
Representative Stanton.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to all of the commissioners for being here today
and the important work you do for the citizens of the United
States.
I was a former mayor before I got to Congress. I know
firsthand the Federal Government can be an important and
powerful economic development partner, but economic development
is not one-size-fits-all. Federal support for regional economic
development is crucial because every community faces unique
challenges. What works in Appalachia won't necessarily work in
the desert Southwest that I represent.
That is why regional commissions, quasi-governmental
partnerships between the Federal Government and States, are
essential Federal tools. The partnership structure represents a
unique Federal approach to economic development requiring
substantial input from leaders who know their communities best.
Chair Sanchez, the Southwest Border Regional Commission is
one of the newer regional commissions, and it is doing
important work in my home State of Arizona. One grant allocated
last year funds advanced manufacturing workforce development in
collaboration with partners in the private sector and our State
universities.
Other grants are going toward funding critical water
infrastructure projects in rural Arizona and on Tribal lands,
because in Arizona, water security and economic security go
hand in hand.
Chair Sanchez, how does the SBRC maximize its investments
in impoverished communities in the Southwest?
Mr. Sanchez. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member
Stanton.
We prioritize funding to distressed communities. Eighty
percent of our funds went to distressed communities, and we did
that by targeting outreach specifically to these communities,
working with our local development districts, with our mayors,
county judges, but we also did that in a structural way where
we provided additional points in the grant competition if your
project was from a distressed area.
What was surprising is that we managed to get a $1 per
dollar matching from these communities. So, for every dollar
the Federal Government invested, these folks provided
additional funds. So I think that leveraged our projects
immensely, and we are providing the infrastructure that is
necessary for the private sector to thrive. We are providing
the roads and the water and the sewage that is needed to
develop businesses.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you so much.
In December of 2024, Congress reauthorized and modernized
the Economic Development Administration for the first time in
20 years. I was proud to back that legislation. The bipartisan
reauthorization was crafted to help EDA carry out its founding
mission, bringing new investment and good jobs to every corner
of this country.
To bring EDA into the 21st century, the reauthorization
bill prioritized investments like manufacturing, supply chain
capabilities, and industry-led workforce training partnerships.
This investment is critical not just for strengthening
struggling economies around this country, but also improving
our Nation's ability to compete on a global scale. I am
concerned that staff reductions under this administration are
limiting this important bipartisan goal.
Deputy Assistant Secretary Page, what are EDA's staffing
levels compared to a year ago, and what effects have those
staffing reductions had on EDA's operational capacity?
Mr. Page. Thank you for the question.
EDA, as a whole, the staffing levels are down, but we do
have adequate staff to meet the mission. We have been able to
streamline the agency. We have been able to increase our
efficiency through the reorg that we submitted to Congress and
was approved by Congress and through some reforms internally.
Things like we were able to consolidate from three grant
systems into one. It reduces our administrative burden. We have
standardized some of our operating procedures, which is saving
over 4,000 hours of staff time.
So, while the overall staffing level is down, we were able
to adapt, and we have made great progress to still be able to
meet the mission. We actually also have a staffing plan that
will allow us to backfill for certain critical vacancies.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Nevada, Ms.
Titus.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I represent Las Vegas. That is Nevada's First Congressional
District. And so you can't talk about economic development
without talking about tourism and hospitality.
In my district alone, the industry supports $1.6 billion in
State and local taxes as the top industry for employment. It is
not just the strip that draws people. We have got all the
sports teams now, and we have got the beautiful scenery around
Las Vegas. There is kind of something for everybody.
However, tourism is in a slump, as you know, I am sure. It
is down about 7 percent from what it was last year. So a lot of
people's jobs are being threatened, over 300,000 hospitality
workers, but I believe the expertise at the EDA could help us
with your assistance programs kind of during these tough times.
I was the ranking member of this subcommittee last
Congress, and I was proud to play a role in the reauthorization
of the Economic Development Administration for the first time
in 20 years, as was mentioned by the ranking member.
Now, there are provisions that we have got in the bill to
consider travel and tourism when making grant decisions. So,
Mr. Page, would you talk about how you all are implementing
that provision in section 2219?
Mr. Page. Yes, and thanks for the question.
I appreciate the authorities that you did provide in the
reauthorization act. I think it helped clarify that travel and
tourism and outdoor recreation entities are eligible entities
for our PWEAA, Public Works and Economic Adjustment Assistance,
programming, and this is one of the self-effectuating pieces of
the legislation. And so those entities became immediately
eligible to apply for funding through our notice of funding and
our regular programming that is out on the street right now.
Ms. Titus. So the grant process is in the works? Are there
people applying for the grant? Have you done anything to let
folks knows that it is available? Could you give me a little
detail about how you are implementing it?
Mr. Page. Sure. I think ultimately the projects are locally
driven. We have on-the-ground representation. In fact, we have
a new economic development representative who is covering the
State of Nevada. I know that she just was able to visit there
and meet a lot of the stakeholders in the State last week.
And she will work with the local economic development
districts, nonprofits, State and local entities. They will
identify projects consistent with their own economic
development strategies and then advance them. But one thing
that she is being able to communicate now is the eligibility
and how to best apply for EDA funds.
Ms. Titus. Well, great. Would you ask her to come and get
in touch with Claire in my office and let us know kind of what
is going on and see if any of those groups locally might need
our assistance to help push these grants forward?
Mr. Page. Absolutely. We would be happy to make that
connection.
Ms. Titus. Okay. Well, thank you. We look forward to that.
The second thing that you all look at that is so important
in my district is water. We are in the desert. And, last
session, we did my legislation, the Water Conservation Economic
Adjustment Act, and that is part of your reauthorization, too,
and it clarifies that you can use economic assistance funding
for industrial water conservation in areas where you have got
decreased water supplies as a result of droughts so we attract
businesses that aren't big water users.
I don't see anything about water conservation as an
eligible use in the notice of funding opportunity that you all
published in September. Are you planning on doing new guidance?
Where does that stand? Could you talk about that for a minute?
Mr. Page. Yes. I am happy to talk about that.
The notice of funding opportunity really represents a high-
level frame of the types of investments. It does not list out
every single type of project, and that is really because the
variety of projects that a local community may need is almost
limitless.
So what we do is we do train our staff, and our economic
development representatives are on-the-ground representatives
of the agency. They are experts in our funding announcement.
They are experts in our programming, and they work hand in
glove with local entities to identify types of projects that
could advance.
They are there to provide consultation on ``is it
eligible'' and then how to best structure an application such
that it can be reviewed and deliver the type of impact
necessary consistent with an economic development strategy.
Ms. Titus. So you don't really have any guidance that you
have issued? Is it the same lady that is doing the tourism
stuff on the ground out there that you mentioned, the staff on
the ground?
Mr. Page. Yes.
Ms. Titus. Maybe, when she meets with Claire, she could
talk about what is going on with the water projects, too,
because we don't see any evidence of it, as well as tourism.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady.
The Chair is now going to stall a little bit to see if some
other Members show up. Many of you came from long, long
distances to be here, and, quite honestly, it is embarrassing
that more Members aren't here, and we would like to hear from
you, and you are here, and we appreciate that. We want to honor
the sacrifice that you have made.
So I will start kind of down at this end of the row and go
down that way. Look, one of the things that people want to know
is kind of what you do and how you measure it. And, if you
could, and you don't have to get too indepth, but just kind of,
generally speaking, we will start with Ms. Fenton. If you can
share like the top two or three performance metrics that you
use to measure the effectiveness of the money that is coming in
and the management of it and how your selection process--how do
you do that?
Ms. Fenton. Well, first I would say our administrative
overhead is an easy indicator of the funds that we are able to
manage and deploy compared to our staffing. That is the boots
on the ground. In Alaska, local expertise, other agencies look
to us to provide that expertise in deploying funds in an
efficient manner.
Our bulk fuel and energy program is one of our top
programs, top funding coming into the State, top needs across
the State, and so the performance metrics we get lower costs
per gallon of diesel in these series of microgrids across the
State, lowering the cost of fuel, making efficiencies for
delivery and consolidating fuels into bulk fuel to maximize
gallons per dollar and lowering that kilowatthour cost among
communities.
And then, also, every gallon saved through energy
efficiency projects, I know ``energy efficiency'' is kind of a
negative term these days, but it means a lot to rural Alaska
and arctic conditions, making sure the envelope of the house is
secure and we are using every kilowatthour of power and
electricity to maximize its use.
So those are two, I think, top performance metrics that we
have at the commission, but we can provide additional
information to your office as well. We continually communicate
with GAO on some of their inquiries on the commission's report
on various metrics and whatnot, as well.
Mr. Perry. Thank you.
I am going to recognize Mr. Sanchez. I know you have been
writing there, so I want to honor your--you are thinking about
it, so I want to know what you have to say.
Mr. Sanchez. Thank you, Chairman Perry.
We, as I mentioned in my testimony, we track the
unemployment rate, the poverty rate, and the per capita income
in each of our counties. We focus our investments in the
counties that have those metrics in the bottom of the 25
percent in the country.
Our projects are underway now. They are just getting
started, but we are tracking on a monthly basis how they are
using the Federal investment, how they are using the local
investment that they provided, the jobs that they have created
on a quarterly basis, jobs retained, how many households they
have served, and the estimated population that would benefit
from the grants.
So every quarter, we make grantees explain to us exactly
how they spend the money and how they have met those metrics.
Mr. Perry. And, look, I am not trying to be difficult, and
I get that each one of your regions provides--there are
different projects and different challenges that you have, and
every project is not the same. So, you can't have a boilerplate
template that just says ``this much in equals this much out
equals this is what we get.'' I get that, but it is important
that we know and that the American people know that the value
is coming out of this, and we are actually achieving what we
are trying to achieve.
So I would encourage you to work with maybe Mr. Page and
each other to come up with at least some kind of common
standard that you all can agree with that generally captures
some of that information--not only for our well-being but,
quite honestly, yours. You don't want to come here and try and
explain this if you don't have it wired in already, and then I
am up here asking you questions, and you are trying to figure
it out. That is not the time you want to figure it out, right.
Dr. Reed, do you have anything you would like to impart?
Ms. Reed. Yes. Thank you so much.
We do track--and these are projections at this point. Our
first round is in their second year of implementation, the
grants, and the second round is in the planning phase of
implementation. So these are projections that we are using.
What we do calculate, new jobs projected and households
supported, businesses impacted, and, as I said in the
testimony, we look at infrastructure and economic capacity when
we are evaluating the successes of these grants.
But, to your point, we are also working with our
communications firms and working on a map that will be
interactive so that, when you hover over the actual grant, it
will give you the information that you provided for that
particular grant and that particular county.
Mr. Perry. I think in laymen's terms, we would like to know
how many jobs created, over what period of time, so the
longevity of those jobs, and maybe the income level generally
speaking or something so that we see that this is making
progress; it is improving lives; it is having the impact that
it so intended.
Mr. Saunders.
Mr. Saunders. I think we collect a comparable level of KPIs
as our peer commissions: businesses served, jobs created,
households served, linear-feet of water infrastructure.
Mr. Perry. That would be one you could measure, right?
Mr. Saunders. I think we have this data, and I am happy to
take your suggestion to collaborate with our commissions and
the EDA to standardize some base level that is useful for the
committee.
Mr. Perry. It would help us, right, because we want to feel
comfortable that this is all happening the right way, as it
should be, and we have questions of our bosses, too, right.
They demand that their money is spent wisely, and that is
reasonable as well.
Dr. Wiggins.
Mr. Wiggins. Yes, sir. As Federal Cochair Saunders
mentioned, our metrics: jobs created, jobs retained, families
affected by infrastructure projects, also looking at
individuals trained from our workforce programs, and we have
tracked this data for a number of years.
The thing I will add is that we have a really strong,
robust monitoring program. So, not only do we look at these
numbers coming in, our monitoring team is going out, checking
in on these projects, quarterly reports being issued on these
projects, and tracking the numbers as the project is
progressing, as well.
Mr. Perry. Okay, great.
I am going to just select you, Ms. Manchin, because you are
probably one of the most experienced people here.
Do you have like an annual report that you could--I mean,
is that something that you do on a regular basis or some other
iteration that we can see that kind of outlines all that kind
of thing?
Ms. Manchin. Absolutely. We do an annual report every year.
I think, if you look at the framework, you are right. We have
been here for an historical period of time, but economic
development is the focus. So every grant that comes in is
weighed on how it is going to affect as an economic stimulator.
Mr. Perry. Right.
Ms. Manchin. So, again, as everyone says, it's new
businesses, jobs created, infrastructure, communities improved.
And every grant is evaluated on the outcomes, how many jobs,
how many people.
So, as we look at that and we look at this year winding
down, we have found that our grants have met or exceeded their
input, their outcomes for that grant.
Mr. Perry. When do you do the reports, just out of
curiosity? Do you all do it at the same time? Is it a certain
point of the year, like it has got to be done by September 30
or November 5? Is there a particular period of time or a
suspense date, as an old Army guy would call it?
Ms. Manchin. Well, interestingly for us, we have a 5-year
strategic plan, and that is coming to an end. So, obviously, we
are looking not only at 1 year but at this 5-year strategic
plan and how we met that. One of our measures is that we have
the number of distressed States, counties, is lower than it has
been. It is the lowest in the last 20 years. So we, obviously,
have made an impact----
Mr. Perry [interrupting]. Well, that is the goal, right.
Ms. Manchin [continuing]. In our most distressed areas.
And the fact that, while we have to commit 50 percent, we
do more. We actually committed 73 percent of our
appropriations. So all of this we believe does lead to this
kind of lifting the most distressed counties through
infrastructure----
Mr. Perry [interrupting]. And I agree, and we want to see
that, and I think maybe if you guys could work together to
harmonize when you do that, and then, if we could get that in
advance of you coming up, then we can have a discussion about
the things you want to highlight and your successes. But I am
taking a lot of time.
Representative Ezell is recognized.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you and thank you all for being here today
and being so patient. The only bad thing about going last is
everything has been asked. So, if I repeat some of the
questions, that is just part of the program. So thank you all
for being here today, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Water Resources Development Act of 2024 included
important economic development reforms intended to improve
coordination, reduce duplication, and ensure Federal dollars
are producing real results. As Congress continues its work on
WRDA in 2026, it is critical that we understand what is and
what is not working under these new authorities.
In coastal communities, Mississippi's Fourth District,
economic development is closely tied to ensuring reliance in
our infrastructure, ports, waterways, and disaster recovery.
Everybody in this country has been hit with some kind of
disaster. And, ideally, WRDA authorized programs to complement,
not complicate, these efforts.
Today, I hope to hear how WRDA 2024 reforms are being
implemented, whether agencies are meeting our standards, and
what changes Congress should consider making for WRDA 2026 to
further streamline programs and strengthen outcomes for local
communities.
Mr. Page, what WRDA 2024 economic development reforms have
been implemented that are most relevant to coastal disaster-
prone regions, and how are these reforms affecting communities
along the Mississippi gulf coast?
Mr. Page. Congressman, thanks for the question.
I think the most important for the communities that you
referenced was the establishment of our disaster recovery
office and then the input that they provided to shape our
fiscal year 2025 disaster supplemental funding opportunity.
Congress appropriated $1.5 billion to support economic recovery
for communities that were hit by natural disasters in 2023 and
2024. And, in June of last year, we were able to release that
notice of funding opportunity.
I think it takes a very novel approach and one that is a
first of its kind for EDA based in large part on our experience
with different disasters and leveraging the expertise of our
disaster office. It basically allows us to meet a community
where it's at, either providing readiness funding--we have a
readiness path which can support predevelopment costs and
capacity. We have an infrastructure path, implementation path
that can do traditional types of infrastructure projects,
workforce training projects as kind of single entities.
But then also it has a much broader path 3, which we call
industry transformation, which allows us to cluster projects
together where the whole can be greater than the sum of the
parts in order to really change the economic trajectory of a
community. And this is based on some of our programming there.
So that is on the street. We have already been able to make
our first round of awards underneath that notice only 2 months
after it was released. We have had active engagement with
communities throughout the South and active tracking of all
those engagements through a recently implemented CRM system so
we can actually know everybody we have talked to and follow up.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you.
One more. For coastal communities that rely on ports,
maritime industries, and disaster recovery, how has the WRDA
2024 improved coordination between EDA and regional
commissions, and what can Congress do with WRDA 2026 to
continue to improve it?
Mr. Page. Yes, sir. So I think there were some inherent
pieces in the legislation that can help us better coordinate,
including the ability for regional commission funds to serve as
matching funds for EDA investments.
But we are actually scheduled to have a convening of all
the regional commissions in February where we are going to
really dive deep into this topic to figure out how do we best
work together, a little bit under the hood. As I said earlier,
we do work together at a staff level on a project-by-project
level as we are trying to help assess how to best help
communities, but I think what we hope to do through this is
look at a few broad topics and figure out how we can better
coordinate together.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you.
One more? I will just kind of throw this out there for all
of you. In your experience implementing the WRDA 2024, are
there specific lessons that could help guide Congress in
ensuring that investments support long-term coastal resilience
and port-related growth rather than duplicative or short-term
projects?
Anybody? Go ahead.
Mr. Page. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ezell. Anybody.
Mr. Page. In addition to what I have already been able to
articulate, and I will actually reference back to the
conversation I had with Congresswoman Titus, the
reauthorization bill did provide some clarity around
eligibility of outdoor recreation projects and travel and
tourism. I believe that could help with many of the coastal
communities, and we are working to educate through our local
representatives how those projects are eligible so that we can
work with communities to bring them in and evaluate them for
their effectiveness.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you. And thank you all for being here
again today.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
And, in case you wondered, it is all of us that have the
accent. If you didn't understand the guy from Mississippi,
that's why.
The Chair now recognizes again the gentlelady from Nevada
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What accent? I don't
know what accent you are talking about.
I was going to ask Mr. Page about something else that was
in the reauthorization bill, and that was to update and
modernize the use of university centers programs. I noticed
that, in the December 2025 blog post, you have discontinued
funding for the university centers programs.
And I wonder, are you in compliance with the law that we
passed and that President Trump signed, or are you just
ignoring it, or what is the reason you quit funding it? And I
would ask other members from regional offices if they benefited
from having university centers or have they worked with them,
or they didn't notice that they are gone or what is going on?
Mr. Page. Yes, Congresswoman. Thanks for the question.
So the fiscal year 2025 appropriation for EDA appropriated
$400 million, but $30 million of that was disaster-delegated
funding and was not available for obligation. So we did have to
identify $30 million within our programming where we would not
expend those funds.
In order to make that decision, we did a comprehensive
review of all of our programs to assess them based on the
stakeholder impact and the level of effort. Through that
process, we did identify three programs that we were going to
discontinue funding for in 2025. That was the university
centers, the STEM talent partnership, and the trade adjustment
assistance for firms.
As it pertains to the university centers, they have had a
several decade carveout within our programming to provide
assistance and to serve as a central coordinating function for
technical assistance in communities. With a more limited
portfolio, it was our perspective that we needed to broaden
that, and we are no longer going to have the carveout for a
university center, but those universities that still provide
the greatest benefit can still apply for technical assistance
funding if they are best positioned to help their communities.
But, by removing that specific set-aside, we have actually
opened the aperture so that if there are other entities that
are best positioned to provide that type of organizing
principle and capacity building in a community, they can also
apply.
Ms. Titus. What about the STEM program that you just
mentioned? I would think that would be very important right
now, all the emphasis on STEM and its connection to future
jobs.
Mr. Page. Yes, ma'am. One of the things that I often talk
about with my team and how to think about our programming, and
I think it particularly relates for this panel, is, what is our
comparative advantage? We are $400 million in a $30 trillion
economy, so we can't solve everything.
The STEM talent partnership was a $2.5 million program. It
was very costly to administer, and when you look at the other
STEM programs that are out there that are supported by the
Federal Government, we just did not have the comparative
advantage or the reach. So, as I mentioned, as we evaluate our
programs on those two axes of stakeholder impact and level of
effort, STEM talent partnership, relative to our other
programs, did score substantially lower.
Ms. Titus. The juice wasn't worth the squeeze.
Mr. Page. Pardon?
Ms. Titus. The juice wasn't worth the squeeze. Is that what
you are telling us?
Mr. Page. At $2.5 million, this is not an indictment on
STEM education efforts. It is an indictment on EDA's effort and
funding at that level.
Ms. Titus. Do the regional offices have any input into
these three programs that you decided not to fund?
Mr. Page. The regional commissions?
Ms. Titus. Yes.
Mr. Page. They did not. This was an internal exercise
because of the way that the Congress had appropriated the funds
and with $30 million being unavailable for obligation, we did
have to make those tradeoffs.
Ms. Titus. Did that have a negative impact on the work that
you all do on the ground and in those regional areas?
Anybody?
It didn't have any impact?
Ms. Reed. Not that we are aware.
Just so we know, the Federal-State partnership requires our
communication with the Governors' offices and their priorities.
So the Governors of each State, they have their priorities, and
we work together in order to actualize those priorities. So, if
that were to be a priority, then we would, of course, be
involved, but to insert ourselves in that, we have not done
that.
Ms. Titus. So you just don't have any input at the Federal?
Ms. Reed. Correct.
Ms. Titus. You are just subject to what they hand out to
you. Okay. I got it.
Well, wouldn't it work better if you did have some input of
what you are seeing on the ground that you all need in your
States that you would advise the Federal-level agencies that
when they are making decisions of where to put money for what
kind of grants, that they would hear from you all directly? It
just doesn't work that way?
Mr. Wiggins. Well, I think part of what we are doing as we
are getting together and meeting next month is doing more
around coordination. As Federal Cochairwoman Reed mentioned, we
do work a lot with our States. Most all of us do have regional
development plans that have input from the local community and
our State partners, our member States, so we try to align those
resources.
As mentioned earlier, our team, our programmatic teams also
do work with the program staff at EDA for the very purpose of
just hearing and making sure we have more alignment, and we are
not duplicating services. From the focus I think of at least
from the DRA perspective as a commission, making sure we are
meeting the regional needs of the 255 counties in our region
that we are serving but getting local input as well.
Ms. Titus. Well, thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady.
The Chair now recognizes the Representative from
Pennsylvania, Representative Bresnahan.
Mr. Bresnahan. Well, thank you, Chairman Perry and Ranking
Member Stanton, for holding this hearing today and to all the
witnesses for being here.
Just last week, I had the opportunity to tour Tobyhanna
Army Depot to highlight a $68 million investment in its radar
systems, a project that supports both our national security and
good-paying jobs in northeastern Pennsylvania. I was joined on
that tour by representatives from the NEPA Alliance, the
regional development organization that serves the five counties
in my district.
During that visit, we discussed how they work with the EDA
and the ARC to help bring Federal investment dollars back to
our community. So this hearing times out very well.
My first question will be for Mr. Page and Honorable
Manchin. Both of your testimonies emphasize strengthening
coordination with regional commissions and local partners. Can
you expand on how you gather local feedback and how that input
is used to identify and prioritize and ultimately shape
projects and funding opportunities to ensure they reflect real
local community needs?
Mr. Page. Absolutely. I am happy to answer that question,
Congressman.
For us, EDA really is about funding locally driven
projects, and that starts with a community-developed economic
development strategy. It sounds like you were there with one of
our economic development districts. They are our partners on
the ground, and in order to be eligible for our funding through
our Public Works and Economic Adjustment Assistance program,
they have to have a strategy, either an EDA-sponsored CEDS,
comprehensive economic development strategy, or something
equivalent that lays out the strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats that they have within their
community and how they plan to address it and leverage local
assets and resources.
As part of those plans, they will often articulate
partnerships that they have with other regional commissions or
Federal entities so that we can make sure that we are doing
complementary investments, not duplicative investments.
Ms. Manchin. And, not to repeat, because everything that he
said, obviously, also matches the mission of the Appalachian
Regional Commission in terms of economic development.
But what I would say is, due to the collaboration, the way
that we don't duplicate is that we come in with offering some
gap funding, matching money, which for many of these rural
areas, that becomes some of the most difficult part of getting
a grant is getting the match money. So we make sure that our
resources, and, as he said, when grants come in, they are
highly evaluated on meeting both the outcomes for economic
development for ARC, but also what other moneys are they
receiving so that, as he said, they are both evaluated.
But, at the end of the day, this allows resources to go
into ways that provide resources from ARC that that grant
money, once it ends, there is some sustainability, that that
project can continue to grow and develop and create what they
are trying to do: economic development, more jobs created.
And so the very fact of this collaboration and working
together is what strengthens the end result of these grants and
what happens in these communities. So it is not a duplication.
It actually strengthens and elongates how those resources are
used.
Mr. Bresnahan. Just as a quick followup, is there anything
that you would suggest that could be done better, different,
more efficiently, or is there anything that Congress can help
ultimately get these projects funded quicker, faster, more
efficiently? I will just redirect it to both Mr. Page and
Honorable Manchin.
Mr. Page. Sure. I think we are really hoping--we have
referenced this a couple of times. We are going to be getting
together in February as a group to discuss and to meet the
legislative requirement from the WRDA bill last year, to get
together and talk about that exact thing. So I think we hope to
have some of those recommendations that come out of that
convening and the report that is due out of it.
Mr. Bresnahan. I appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman
yields back.
Are there any further questions from any members of the
subcommittee who have not been recognized?
Seeing none, that concludes our hearing for today.
I want to thank all the witnesses. I appreciate you taking
the time to be here. It is important, and we are very grateful
that you took the time and made the travel and were prepared,
and we look forward to seeing you again soon as we kind of go
on this journey together.
So, with that, that concludes the subcommittee, and the
subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix
----------
Post-Hearing Questions for the Record to Ben Page, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Economic Development and Chief Operating Officer, U.S.
Economic Development Administration, from Hon. Rick Larsen
Question 1. The 2024 reauthorization of the Economic Development
Administration (EDA) established within EDA an Office of Disaster
Recovery and Resilience. What is the status of the Office of Disaster
Recovery and Response, how many people work there and which disasters
have they supported?
Answer. In August 2025, the Department notified Congress of a
reorganization to stand up the Office of Disaster Recovery and
Resilience (Disaster Office). EDA is currently updating its internal
organizational structure to reflect the office's duties fully and
remains hard at work implementing the office's missions. Staff that
would subsequently become the Disaster Office helped design EDA's FY
2025 Disaster Supplemental Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), which
was released on June 4, 2025, and is currently accepting applications
to help areas recover from disasters that occurred in calendar years
2023 and 2024, including Hurricanes Helene and Milton.
EDA was able to quickly onboard additional critical term staff to
help it process awards for those areas eligible for funding from the FY
25 Disaster Supplemental. To date, 17 people have been onboarded. EDA
will continue to assess workload and leverage the hiring authority
provided in the reauthorization act as necessary to deliver assistance
to impacted communities.
Question 2. What are EDA's staffing levels today compared to one
year ago? What effects have staff reductions had on EDA's operational
capacity? Are EDA staff currently allowed to travel?
Answer. While EDA staffing levels are lower than last year, EDA has
sufficient staff to meet its mission due to operational and
organizational reforms. Yes, in accordance with Department of Commerce
guidance, EDA is approving mission-critical travel for staff.
Question 3. How is EDA planning to help communities, businesses,
and workers adjust to changes stemming from artificial intelligence
(AI)? How will EDA make AI-related initiatives available to workers and
businesses in distressed rural communities?
Answer. In December 2025, EDA announced its intention to set aside
$25 million in grant funding for workforce initiatives in support of
the Administration's AI Action Plan. This initiative aims to upskill
workers in AI tools that are in demand by industry. EDA recognizes that
AI proficiency is becoming a must-have skill across many industries,
and workers without skills will be overlooked. This pilot program will
provide valuable information to EDA and help direct future federal
investments in support of America's workforce, which includes workers
in distressed rural communities.
Question 4. The 2024 reauthorization of the Public Works and
Economic Development Act established as the sense of Congress that EDA
should continue to promote access to its programs through its use of
economic development representatives. How many economic development
representatives worked at EDA one year ago and how many work at EDA
today?
Answer. Economic Development Representatives (EDRs) play a critical
role in EDA programming as the interface with communities and
districts. EDA currently has 29 EDRs on board. These positions are
assigned geographic coverage areas based on a number of factors
including level of distress, disaster impacted areas, economic
conditions, and geography. By taking each of these factors into
account, EDA is able to balance workload across its staff while
ensuring coverage for all states.
Question 5. The 2024 Public Works and Economic Development Act
updated and modernized EDA's existing University Centers program. But
according to your December 2025 blog post, EDA has discontinued funding
for the University Centers program. Is EDA in compliance with the law
which was passed by Congress and signed by President Trump?
Answer. EDA's reauthorization language authorizes the program
pending Administration priorities and adequate appropriations and does
not require EDA to execute the University Centers program in any given
year. While University Centers no longer have a dedicated funding line,
universities that previously received funds are eligible to apply for
funding via other EDA programs, including Economic Adjustment
Assistance and Technical Assistance, to support local economic growth.
Question 6. The 2024 Public Works and Economic Development Act
directed EDA's regional directors to designate a regional staff member
to act as a ``Technical Assistance Liaison'' for their office. Have the
regional offices complied with this mandate?
Answer. EDA recognizes the value of technical assistance and is
exploring the best model to meet this mandate as it implements the
broader reorganization communicated to Congress last year.
Question 7. Has EDA's regional office structure changed in the last
year? If so, how?
Answer. In the past year, the Regional Office structure has not
changed. EDA still operates in six offices and considers applications
for disaster, public works, economic adjustment assistance, technical
assistance, and planning grants through investment review committees
convened by each of those six offices.
[all]