Urges Congress to establish national infrastructure bank.
Summary
Assembly Resolution 138 is a New Jersey resolution urging the United States Congress to pass H.R. 5356, which would establish a national infrastructure bank. The resolution argues that the nation’s infrastructure needs are large and long-term, citing roads, bridges, dams, transit, ports, energy systems, telecommunications, utilities, broadband, and water systems as areas requiring major investment. It emphasizes that aging infrastructure, supply-chain demands, and more frequent extreme weather events are straining existing systems and harming economic competitiveness, national security, and quality of life.
The resolution also frames a national infrastructure bank as a dedicated, regenerative funding mechanism that could help finance large-scale projects beyond what current grant programs and siloed financing tools can support. It points to New Jersey’s role as a major transportation and trade corridor, including the Northeast Corridor, as a reason the state has a strong interest in improved federal infrastructure financing. The measure is advisory only: it does not create a bank or change New Jersey law directly, but instead formally communicates the Assembly’s support to Congress and New Jersey’s congressional delegation.
Impact
AR138 does not amend New Jersey statutes or create state-level programs. Its legal effect is limited to expressing the Assembly’s position and directing that copies of the resolution be sent to federal leaders and New Jersey’s members of Congress. The practical impact is political rather than regulatory: it seeks to influence federal policy by endorsing legislation that would establish a national infrastructure bank to finance infrastructure projects affecting states, local governments, and interstate authorities.
Sentiment
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of infrastructure investment and favorable toward the concept of a national infrastructure bank. The resolution presents the proposal as a practical response to deteriorating infrastructure, climate-related stress, and funding shortfalls, and it frames the bank as a nonpartisan solution aligned with economic growth, public safety, and competitiveness. No committee transcript or recorded vote information was provided, so there is no additional evidence of opposition or divided sentiment in the available context.
Contention
The main point of contention implied by the resolution is whether a national infrastructure bank is the best or most effective way to fund large-scale infrastructure needs. The bill criticizes existing federal grant programs and siloed transportation banks as insufficient, suggesting disagreement with current funding approaches. Potential concerns that could arise around the proposal include the role of federal government ownership, the use of Treasury bonds and preferred stock, the guaranteed return structure, and whether a bank model would be preferable to direct appropriations or other financing mechanisms. However, no explicit opposition is documented in the provided materials.