HR 110
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 1, 2024
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Lori D. Wilson, Chair
HR 110 (Arambula) – As Introduced June 20, 2024
SUBJECT: Infrastructure
SUMMARY: Strongly encourages the United States Congress and the President of the United
States to pass the National Infrastructure Bank Act of 2023 to establish the National
Infrastructure Bank and facilitate financing urgently needed infrastructure projects in the United
States.
EXISTING FEDERAL LAW:
1) Establishes the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which allocates $550 billion in
new infrastructure spending over five years for roads and bridges, rail, transit, ports, airports,
the electric grid, water systems, and broadband, among other provisions. (Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 117-58)
2) Establishes the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, which authorizes $305
billion over fiscal years 2016 through 2020 for highway, highway and motor vehicle safety,
public transportation, motor carrier safety, hazardous materials safety, rail, and research,
technology, and statistics programs. (Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST),
Public Law 114-94)
3) Creates a state infrastructure financing authority under the Water Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act, as a new loan program exclusively for State infrastructure financing
authority borrowers. (Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2014 (WIFIA),
Public Law 116-94)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS: H.R.4052 - National Infrastructure Bank Act of 2023 of the 118th Congress
would establish the National Infrastructure Bank to facilitate the long-term financing of
infrastructure projects. Specifically, the bank is authorized to invest $5 trillion in infrastructure
projects and must provide loans to public and private entities for financing, developing, or
operating eligible infrastructure projects. An eligible project must have a public sponsor as well
as local, regional, or national significance. a not-for-profit government-sponsored enterprise that
would marshal both public and private funds and direct them to infrastructure projects.
The bill treats the bank as a government corporation exempt from tax and treats contributions to
the bank as charitable contributions, and also provides for criteria and preferences for deciding
whether to provide a loan, such as whether a project promotes job creation or provides
environmental benefits.
 HR 110
Page 2
Projects that receive a loan must; 1) Pay all laborers and mechanics locally prevailing wages; and
2) Use only certain United States (U.S.).-produced construction materials unless a waiver is
secured from the bank. The bill imposes requirements related to the bank's operation, such as
minimum reserve requirements and requirements for handling loan losses. In addition, the bank
must facilitate the organization of at least seven regional economic accelerator planning groups
to, among other activities, identify infrastructure needs and priorities.
Infrastructure bank benefits. An Infrastructure Financing Authority (IFA) was initially included
in the IIJA framework, but was removed from the final proposal. It is thought that infrastructure
banks have myriad benefits including; a sustainable, renewable source of funding, flexible and
affordable loans, assuming risk for local projects, promoting economic development, and
incentivizing regional solutions. A federal infrastructure bank could ensure continued investment
for years to come, not just for the coming few years.
It is estimated that infrastructure projects financed by the National Infrastructure Bank would
grow the economy by 5%, annually. Numerous state legislatures have either introduced or passed
resolutions supporting the creation of the National Infrastructure Bank, including the Nevada
State Legislature, the Maine State Legislature, the Rhode Island General Assembly, and the New
Jersey State Legislature. Many county governments and city councils, including the city councils
of Philadelphia, Toledo, Providence (Rhode Island), Chicago, Cleveland, as well as national
organizations, including the Public Banking Institute, the National Congress of Black Women,
the National Association of Counties, the U.S. High Speed Rail Association, the National Latino
Farmers and Ranchers, the American Sustainable Business Council, and the National
Association of Minority Contractors have expressed support for the National Infrastructure Bank
Need for infrastructure in California. Every four years, the American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE) issues a report card for the current status of infrastructure in the United States. In its
2021 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure is gave US infrastructure a score of a C-. In the
2019 “Report Card for California’s Infrastructure,” the ASCE did not issue California
infrastructure above a C-.
It is estimated that the condition of California’s roads is among the worst in the nation and is
ranked 49th in the nationwide, that approximately 50% of bridges in California have exceeded
their design life, and that over 7% of California’s bridges are structurally deficient.
California is projected to receive approximately $40 billion over five years of IIJA funding.
California’s Declining Transportation Infrastructure Dollars. Declining gas tax revenue from
increased electric vehicle sales is of significant concern. The Legislative Analyst’s Office
projects notable revenue declines over the next decade from the state’s gasoline excise tax ($5
billion or 64%), diesel excise tax ($290 million or 20%), and diesel sales tax ($420 million or
20%). State funding sources—which historically have accounted for roughly one‑third of total
transportation funding, including $14.2 billion in 2023‑24—consist of various fuel taxes and
vehicle fees. On net, the LAO estimates that if the state undertakes the steps envisioned in the
California Air Resources Board’s Scoping Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, annual state
transportation revenues will decline by $4.4 billion (31%) over the next decade as compared to
current levels.
 HR 110
Page 3
Attempted before, long term funding issues. H.R 8682 Federal Infrastructure Bank Act of 2022 of
the 118th Congress was introduced in 2022, and H.R. 3339 National Infrastructure Bank Act of
2021 of the 117th Congress was introduced in 2021; both bills were referred to the
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, and never heard. While a national
infrastructure bank has the potential to galvanize capital markets and generate funding on a long-
term basis, the sustainable source of public funding required has not been realized. This bill has
failed multiple times in the last three years.
According to the author, “infrastructure is essential to the economy. Roads, clean drinking water, and
modern schools are essential to the quality of life of Californians. Nationwide, the National
Infrastructure Bank will provide funding for infrastructure projects up to $5 trillion and will create 25
million new jobs. It will supercharge the economy to achieve long-term GDP growth of 5% per year.
HR 110 demonstrates California’s support for the federal effort to establish the National Infrastructure
Bank. The Bank will leverage private and state and local capital to invest in projects that are critical to
the economic progress of California and the nation. Financing public infrastructure and private
development in California will promote a healthy climate for jobs, contribute to a strong economy, and
improve the quality of life in California communities”.
Previous legislation. AJR 32 (Nazarian) of 2022 would have urged the United States Congress
and the President of the United States to pass the National Infrastructure Bank Act of 2021 to
establish the National Infrastructure Bank and facilitate the financing of urgently needed
infrastructure projects in the United States.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
None on file
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by: Julia Kingsley / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093