Assembly Joint Resolution 22 is a nonbinding California Legislature statement that strongly encourages the U.S. Congress to create a Federal Infrastructure Bank. The resolution cites national and state infrastructure shortfalls — ASCE scoring and multi‑trillion dollar gaps — and frames a federal bank as a way to finance projects California cannot cover with existing state and local resources.
The measure points to federal bills (citing H.R. 1235 in the digest and describing H.R. 4052 as a model) that would establish national bank authorities capitalized by repurposing existing U.S. Treasury debt rather than new spending or taxes. It highlights program design elements that would matter to procurement and labor: projects financed would be subject to the Davis‑Bacon Act, include Buy American rules, and prioritize minority hiring and disadvantaged communities; the resolution also directs that copies be sent to federal leaders and California’s congressional delegation.
At a Glance
What It Does
AJR 22 is a joint resolution asking Congress to pass federal legislation to establish a Federal Infrastructure Bank; it does not create any state funding or regulatory program. The resolution cites specific federal bills and describes a capitalization approach that would repurpose existing Treasury debt instead of authorizing new taxes or appropriations.
Who It Affects
The resolution addresses federal lawmakers and signals priorities for any federal bank: state and local public owners seeking long‑term financing, construction contractors (subject to prevailing wage and Buy American rules), disadvantaged business enterprises, and communities prioritized for investment. It also speaks to public‑banking advocates and national infrastructure stakeholders.
Why It Matters
Although nonbinding, the resolution signals California’s policy preferences for federal infrastructure financing design — particularly labor, domestic sourcing, and equity conditions — and pushes Congress to adopt a model that could redirect large volumes of capital toward state projects. For compliance officers and project sponsors, the resolution previews procurement, labor, and eligibility expectations if a federal bank follows the described model.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AJR 22 does two things: it collects and lists California‑specific infrastructure findings and then asks Congress to establish a Federal Infrastructure Bank. The findings assemble ASCE metrics, estimates of bridge, dam, levee and water system needs, congestion costs, and a specific shortfall for projects such as California high‑speed rail, creating the factual foundation for urging federal action.
The resolution points to federal bills as templates. In one place it refers to H.R. 1235 and elsewhere cites the Federal Infrastructure Bank Act of 2023 (H.R. 4052), describing a structure of national bank authorities that would be capitalized by repurposing existing U.S. Treasury debt and purportedly require no new federal spending or taxes.
The text characterizes this model as built on historical national banks and as intended to partner with state and local governments to finance large projects.AJR 22 also catalogs program features it expects from a federal bank: projects financed would pay wages under the Davis‑Bacon Act, include Buy American provisions, and prioritize hiring and financing in communities with long‑term poverty while directing significant disbursements to disadvantaged business enterprises. The resolution repeats estimates—attributing them to proponents—that such financing would create 25 million jobs and raise annual GDP growth by 5 percent, framing these as rationale for federal action.Finally, the resolution directs formal transmittal of copies to the President, Vice President, the congressional leadership, and all California members of Congress.
That transmittal is the operative step AJR 22 takes: it is advocacy, not a change to state law or budget, but it signals how California wants federal program design to treat wages, domestic sourcing, equity, and project selection if a Federal Infrastructure Bank is enacted.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AJR 22 is nonbinding: it urges Congress to pass federal legislation (citing H.R. 1235 in the digest) to establish a Federal Infrastructure Bank but does not obligate California funds or create regulatory change.
The resolution describes the Federal Infrastructure Bank model in H.R. 4052 (Federal Infrastructure Bank Act of 2023) as capitalized by repurposing existing U.S. Treasury debt and asserts it would require no new federal spending or new taxes.
It specifies labor and procurement expectations for bank‑financed projects: wages subject to the Davis‑Bacon Act and inclusion of Buy American provisions.
AJR 22 highlights equity requirements attributed to the federal proposal: mandated large‑scale minority hiring, prioritization of projects in communities with long‑term poverty, and significant disbursements to disadvantaged business enterprises.
The resolution directs the Chief Clerk to transmit copies to the President, Vice President, House Speaker, Senate Majority Leader, and every California member of Congress — making its policy preferences part of the official record sent to federal decisionmakers.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Documenting California’s infrastructure gap
This cluster of findings compiles national and state data from ASCE and other sources: national C and California D+/C grades, dollar estimates for bridges, dams, levees, wastewater and water projects, congestion costs, and the financial shortfall for high‑speed rail. Practically, these findings are the political and technical justification for urging federal intervention; they frame the state’s capital needs and make the case that state and local resources alone are insufficient.
Pointing to federal legislation and the proposed capitalization model
The resolution references H.R. 1235 in its digest and describes H.R. 4052 (Federal Infrastructure Bank Act of 2023) as the model: new national infrastructure bank authorities capitalized by repurposing Treasury debt with no new federal spending or taxes. This section matters because it sets the expected mechanics for how a bank would be funded, a core implementation choice that affects federal balance‑sheet treatment, market reaction, and legal authority.
Programmatic conditions: labor, procurement and equity
AJR 22 lays out the programmatic features proponents promise: prevailing wages under the Davis‑Bacon Act, Buy American procurement, mandated minority hiring, and prioritization of long‑term poor communities and disadvantaged business enterprises. It also repeats high‑level impact claims — 25 million jobs and 5 percent annual economic growth — which serve as political selling points but would be subject to verification in program evaluation and budgeting.
Formal request and transmittal
The operative text is brief: the Legislature 'strongly encourages' Congress to establish a Federal Infrastructure Bank and instructs the Chief Clerk to send copies of the resolution to the President, Vice President, Congressional leaders, California’s senators and representatives, and the author. This is a lobbying tool: it creates a formal state position and directs official communication to federal actors but imposes no obligations on the state government itself.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Infrastructure across all five countries.
Explore Infrastructure in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State and local public owners of infrastructure (counties, cities, transit agencies): would gain access to a potential new pool of long‑term financing for large projects that state budgets cannot cover today, easing capital constraints for major repairs and expansions.
- Unionized construction workers and contractors who meet Davis‑Bacon requirements: prevailing‑wage rules increase wage floors and shift project economics toward contractors capable of meeting higher labor standards.
- Disadvantaged business enterprises (DBEs) and minority contractors: the resolution highlights prioritization and 'large‑scale' minority hiring that, if implemented, would channel financing and subcontracting opportunities toward historically excluded firms.
- California large projects with long funding gaps (e.g., high‑speed rail): projects that need multi‑decade financing could benefit from a federal bank’s longer horizon and lower cost of capital compared with short‑term municipal borrowing.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal fiscal authorities and Treasury markets: capitalization by repurposing existing Treasury debt alters federal balance‑sheet management and could shift fiscal risks — a cost borne at the federal level even if the resolution claims 'no new spending.'
- Contractors and smaller suppliers facing compliance and Buy American rules: domestic sourcing and wage rules increase procurement costs and administrative compliance burdens, potentially squeezing small firms unless the bank designs accessible contracting pathways.
- State agencies and local sponsors: they would need to prepare bankable projects and meet federal eligibility and reporting requirements, creating upfront planning costs and a new administrative coordination burden.
- Taxpayers and budget stewards (indirectly): while the bill asserts no new taxes, large-scale federal lending programs carry implicit fiscal risk and contingent liabilities that future taxpayers may ultimately absorb if loans underperform.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between scale and accountability: California wants a large, fast, targeted pool of federal capital to close infrastructure gaps and deliver equity and prevailing‑wage benefits, but scaling federal financing through a national bank—especially one capitalized by repurposed Treasury debt—raises fiscal, legal, and governance risks and may increase project costs or administrative burdens that undercut speed and private co‑investment.
AJR 22 is an advocacy instrument, not an implementation vehicle. That distinction matters because the resolution repeats program features and economic projections presented by proponents without establishing oversight, verification, or statutory mechanics for how those claims would be tested.
Key implementation questions remain: who governs the bank, how are credit risks shared between federal and sub‑federal partners, and what safeguards would prevent politicized lending or geographic allocation that favors some regions over others.
The resolution also relies on a specific capitalization claim — repurposing existing Treasury debt with no new spending or taxes — which raises technical and legal questions. Repurposing debt changes the Treasury’s portfolio and may require statutory authority; it could also affect Treasury yields and market perceptions.
The labor and Buy American requirements the resolution favors create trade‑offs: they advance local jobs and domestic industry but raise project costs and complicate procurement, which could slow delivery or deter private co‑investors. Finally, the text references two federal bill numbers (H.R. 1235 and H.R. 4052) in different places, creating ambiguity about which congressional vehicle the Legislature is endorsing and which specific provisions it expects to see enacted.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.