PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 5, 2003
Southern Regional Commission Act of 2003 - Establishes a Southern Regional Commission to: (1) develop plans and programs to establish priorities and approve grants aimed at breaking the cycle of persistent poverty in the area consisting of specified counties in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia (the region) by increasing the capacity of individuals to participate in the economy and build wealth; (2) establish priorities in a targeted strategy for the region (regional development plan); (3) use the findings of Phase I of the Study on Persistent Poverty in the South, prepared by the University of Georgia, and assess any needs and capital assets of the region that are not addressed by the study based on available research, demonstration projects, assessments, and evaluations; (4) enhance the capacity of and provide support for local development districts in the region; (5) support and enhance State resources and activities designed to address persistent poverty; (6) promote multi jurisdictional efforts at the local level intended to maximize local resources; (7) support community-based efforts designed to address persistent poverty; (8) encourage private investment in industrial, commercial, and other economic development projects in the region; and (9) engage land-grant colleges and universities to provide research support for each State included in the region.Authorizes the Commission to: (1) approve grants to States and public and nonprofit entities for economic development projects; and (2) make grants to local development districts to pay administrative expenses.Requires: (1) State members to submit development plans to the Commission; and (2) the Governor of each member State to submit annually a strategy statement describing the State's program for achieving identified goals and objectives.Sets forth criteria for ranking projects to receive assistance. Requires the Commission to review State and regional and multi state subregional development plans.
People & committees
Sen. Miller, Zell [D-GA] · D–GA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.527 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.527 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.527 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.527 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.