BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 442|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 442
Author: Irwin (D)
Amended: 3/16/15 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE VETERANS AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: 5-0, 6/23/15
AYES: Nielsen, Hueso, Allen, Nguyen, Roth
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/17/15
AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 4/30/15 (Consent) - See last page for
vote
SUBJECT: Governors Military CouncilGovernors Military
Council.
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill codifies the Governors Military Council,
under the direction of the California Military Department (CMD);
provides for appointment to the Council by the Governor; and
self-repeals on January 1, 2021.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Establishes the State's active militia, which consists of the
National Guard, State Military Reserve, and Naval Militia,
under the direction of the Adjutant General (TAG).
AB 442
Page 2
2)Authorizes a state active duty (SAD) program, which provides
full-time uniformed state military personnel, who serve
full-time on state active duty at the Governor's call and
perform a wide variety of military-related tasks.
3)Provides for the CMD, which, among other things, manages the
active militia and SAD program, under the direction of the
TAG.
This bill:
1)Codifies the Governor's Military Council, under the direction
of the CMD.
2)Provides for appointment to the Council by the Governor.
3)Requires the appointments to include, but not be limited to,
bipartisan representatives from both houses of the
Legislature.
4)Self-repeals on January 1, 2021.
Background
California and the Military. California has a strategic
location, unique landscape and valuable resources that help
further U.S. military readiness for actions around the globe. As
a result, the Department of Defense (DoD) has made many economic
and technological investments in the state, including large
investments in land and military installations. The state's
unique resources and the military's investments have fostered a
strong partnership, and the ensuing collaboration is vital for
economic, resource management, and military readiness reasons.
State and local economies are influenced by the military's
presence. The burden of maintaining this partnership often falls
on the shoulders of cities and counties. In addition to juggling
the competing demands of expanding development, promoting
economic development and upholding environmental quality
standards, local governments also must consider the needs of
local military installations in their land use planning.
Traditionally, military installations were strategically located
in underdeveloped areas so as to avoid land use conflicts. As
AB 442
Page 3
the population of the state has continued to grow and
communities continued to expand outward, the need for stronger
relationships and communication between local governments and
the military developed. Without adequate communication and
coordinated land use efforts, military missions, quality of life
and public safety are increasingly jeopardized. Growth
encroaching on a military installation so as to hinder its
mission can contribute to the installation's closure.
The federal government worked its way through four initial
iterations of the BRAC process between late 1988 and 1993.
Nationally, that process led to the closing of 350 large and
small military bases and 55 major realignments. Reportedly, this
saved federal taxpayers more than $16 billion through 2001 and
six billion dollars more each subsequent year.
Prior to 1988, California had, by far, the largest military
presence of any state, and was home to 335,979 (14.7%) of DoD's
total 2,275,264 personnel and 91 (18.3%) of the 495 major
military bases then scattered around the nation. Not
surprisingly, the 1990s' Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
cuts fell heavily on California.
Through the first four rounds (1988, 1991, 1993, 1995), the
state suffered the loss of 93,546 uniformed and civilian DoD
jobs, which represented 53.8% of the net cuts nationally.
California lost nearly 28 percent of its military personnel,
while the rest of the nation saw a reduction of just 3.6
percent. In terms of major base closures, California lost 24
installations; Texas, seven; Pennsylvania, six; Illinois and New
York, five each; and Florida, Indiana, Maryland and Virginia,
four each. (Unlike the previous rounds, the fifth BRAC round in
2005 focused more on realignment than closure and had little
negative impact on California.)
Governor's Military Council. On March 28, 2013, the Governor
announced the creation of the Governor's Military Council. The
Council's mission is to help position California to maintain and
grow military operations within the state. The DoD has announced
several strategic shifts, including increasing force strength in
the Pacific theater and prioritizing cyber-security, which
provide opportunities to increase military investment in our
state. The Council also is intended to provide insight to state
leaders who are developing a strategy to support and grow
AB 442
Page 4
military operations.
The Council also is charged with articulating the military value
of California bases and operations as federal leaders consider
cuts and realignment to federal military operations. The
Secretary of Defense recently explained that coming military
cuts "will impact all 50 states and many districts across
America." The Council's website says that, in recognizing these
threats to military operations, the Council will highlight the
ongoing military value of California installations, and of the
Californians and businesses that support them.
Current Council membership includes many retired flag officers,
high-ranking military leaders from all the branches of the armed
forces, civic and state leaders, and includes bipartisan
representation from both houses of the Legislature. Currently,
Senators Fuller and Roth and Assembly Members Chávez and Irwin
serve as the state legislative representatives to the Council.
Related Legislation
SB 506 (Fuller, 2015), among other things, (1) establishes a
process for designating a local retention authority to serve as
the lead local government entity responsible for efforts to
retain local military installations; and (2) creates the
Military and Aerospace Program under the Governor's Office of
Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) to address concerns
relating to state and local defense retention, base conversion
and base reuse activities. (Pending, Senate Committee on
Appropriations)
SB 121 (Fuller, 2015) requires that school construction projects
on military installations that are eligible for specified
federal grants are given priority for funding under the State
School Facility program. (Pending, Senate Committee on
Education)
AJR 11 (Burke and Atkins, Res. Chapter 68, Statutes of 2015)
memorialized the President and Congress of the United States to
recognize the unique military value of California's defense
installations and the disproportionate sacrifices California
endured in previous BRAC rounds.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
AB 442
Page 5
Com.:YesLocal: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the CMD
"indicates minimal fiscal impact to the department."
SUPPORT: (Verified8/18/15)
American Legion - Department of California
AMVETS - Department of California
California Association of County Veterans Service Officers
California State Commanders Veteran Council
Military Officers Association of America - California Council of
Chapters
San Diego Military Advisor Council
San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation
Veterans of Foreign Wars - Department of California
Vietnam Veterans of American - California State Council
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/18/15)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 4/30/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Chang, Chau,
Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd,
Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia,
Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove,
Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones,
Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low,
Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin,
Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea,
Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago,
Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber,
Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins
NO VOTE RECORDED: Campos, Chávez, Gomez
AB 442
Page 6
Prepared by:Wade Cooper Teasdale / V.A. / (916) 651-1503
8/19/15 20:53:29
**** END ****