Bill Overview
Title: Federal Infrastructure Bank Act of 2022
Description: This bill provides for the establishment of the Federal Infrastructure Bank Holding Company (FIBHC), which shall be the parent company of the Federal Infrastructure Bank (the bank). The bank shall provide equity investments, direct loans, and loan guarantees for the construction or maintenance of infrastructure projects in the United States with sufficient revenue sources and guarantees to support the payment of dividends, interest, principal, or fees to the bank. At least 10% of the loans, equity investments, and loan guarantees shall be for infrastructure projects in rural areas. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall have oversight and supervisory authority over the FIBHC and the bank. The bank shall establish an Infrastructure Guarantee Fund to cover loans and loan guarantees in the event of nonpayment by loan recipients. The bill provides for a taxpayer credit in an amount equal to 10% of the amount such taxpayer paid to the FIBHC for an equity investment at its original issue.
Sponsors: Rep. Webster, Daniel [R-FL-11]
Target Audience
Population: People impacted by US infrastructure investments
Estimated Size: 332000000
- The Federal Infrastructure Bank is designed to finance infrastructure projects, impacting the communities where these projects take place.
- These infrastructure projects could range from roads, bridges, energy systems, to public transport, affecting a wide array of residents and businesses.
- Such projects have the potential to create direct jobs in construction and engineering and indirect jobs as a result of improved infrastructure.
- The loan guarantees for rural areas specifically aim to impact rural communities, which often face challenges in obtaining investment for infrastructure upgrades.
- Taxpayers who invest in the FIBHC will receive credits, directly impacting those who choose to invest.
Reasoning
- The Federal Infrastructure Bank is a significant policy that will have varying effects on different demographics. The main purpose is to fund infrastructure projects, which inherently impacts construction sectors, communities undergoing infrastructure development, and potentially anyone using public infrastructure.
- A focus on rural investment means some urban areas might not see direct benefits as quickly, while rural communities might experience more noticeable changes.
- Taxpayer credits for investments suggest potential financial benefits for those who choose or are able to invest in the FIBHC.
- The budget constraints imply that not all proposed projects will receive funding, so there will be selective impact based on project approval.
Simulated Interviews
Construction Manager (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy will bring more work to the construction sector.
- The taxpayer credit is appealing and gives me a reason to encourage my firm to invest.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Rural Tennessee)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this will improve roads and utilities in my area.
- We often get overlooked when it comes to development. This sounds like a good chance for us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Tech Entrepreneur (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might provide more opportunities for collaborations in urban planning.
- Investing in the FIBHC seems like a smart move, considering the credit.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Public School Teacher (New York City, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful our school might get some funds for necessary repairs.
- It seems like a step in the right direction, though I'm cautiously optimistic.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Retired Engineer (Boston, MA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a retired engineer, I see this as a valuable initiative for infrastructure renewal.
- The credit for investing is a nice incentive for retirees like me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
City Planner (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this will facilitate more planning projects and smart city developments.
- There's a lot of potential to improve our transport system.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
College Student (Houston, TX)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could mean more internship and job opportunities post-graduation.
- It's good to see infrastructure being prioritized.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Nurse (Indianapolis, IN)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Infrastructure for our hospital is crucial, and this policy might help.
- I hope healthcare facilities get considered in these investments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Taxi Driver (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved roads would make my job easier and more pleasant.
- I'm skeptical about how quickly such projects will actually emerge.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Environmental Scientist (Miami, FL)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the projects will consider environmental impacts and sustainability.
- There's potential, but I hope it's executed well with environmental mindfulness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $8000000000 (Low: $7000000000, High: $9000000000)
Year 2: $7500000000 (Low: $6500000000, High: $8500000000)
Year 3: $7300000000 (Low: $6300000000, High: $8300000000)
Year 5: $7000000000 (Low: $6000000000, High: $8000000000)
Year 10: $6800000000 (Low: $5800000000, High: $7800000000)
Year 100: $5000000000 (Low: $4000000000, High: $6000000000)
Key Considerations
- The sustainability and effectiveness of the bank's operations depend on the quality and return of its investment and loan portfolio.
- Managing the risk associated with loan guarantees is critical for the long-term financial health of the FIBHC.
- Political and public reception to the taxpayer investment credit could influence future funding and policy adjustments.
- Long-term financial and economic benefits hinge on successful infrastructure project execution without significant cost overruns.