Urging the Congress of the United States to establish the National Infrastructure Bank.
Senate Resolution 132 is a nonbinding memorializing resolution in which the Pennsylvania Senate urges Congress to establish a National Infrastructure Bank (NIB). The resolution argues that the United States and Pennsylvania face large infrastructure funding gaps, citing needs related to drinking water, lead service lines, PFAS contamination, bridges, wastewater systems, stormwater assets, transit capital projects, and affordable housing. It presents the NIB as a federal financing tool that would invest only in infrastructure projects and, according to the resolution, would be capitalized using existing Treasury debt without new federal spending or new taxes.
The resolution also states that a National Infrastructure Bank could generate substantial economic benefits, including millions of jobs, prevailing wages, Buy America requirements, and contracting opportunities for disadvantaged business enterprises. It references historical federal banks and notes support from national organizations, local governments, and Pennsylvania municipalities and counties. The measure directs that copies be sent to the President, congressional leaders, and Pennsylvania’s congressional delegation.
SR132 does not change Pennsylvania statutes or create state regulatory authority; instead, it expresses the Senate’s official position and asks Congress to act. Its practical effect is political and advocacy-based, aiming to build support for federal legislation establishing a National Infrastructure Bank that could finance infrastructure projects affecting Pennsylvania and other states. The resolution highlights sectors and parties that would be affected by such a bank, including state and local governments, transit agencies, utilities, contractors, labor organizations, and communities needing infrastructure and housing investment.
The sentiment reflected in the resolution is strongly supportive of the National Infrastructure Bank concept. The bill text emphasizes urgency, economic opportunity, and broad coalition backing, and there is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials showing opposition or amendment. The listed endorsements from cities, counties, and labor groups suggest the measure was framed as a pro-infrastructure, pro-jobs initiative with bipartisan or cross-sector appeal.
Because no committee transcript or vote record is provided, there are no documented points of contention in the available materials. Based on the text itself, likely areas of debate would include whether a federal infrastructure bank is the best financing mechanism, whether the proposed structure truly requires no new taxes or spending, and how the bank would prioritize projects and distribute benefits among regions, labor, and contractors. The resolution’s claims about job creation and economic growth are presented as supporting arguments rather than contested findings.