California 2019-2020 Regular Session

California Senate Bill SJR2

Introduced
2/28/19  
Introduced
2/28/19  
Refer
2/28/19  
Refer
2/28/19  
Refer
3/7/19  
Refer
3/7/19  
Refer
3/25/19  
Refer
3/25/19  
Engrossed
4/4/19  
Engrossed
4/4/19  
Refer
4/22/19  
Refer
4/22/19  
Enrolled
5/14/19  
Enrolled
5/14/19  
Chaptered
5/22/19  
Chaptered
5/22/19  
Passed
5/22/19  

Caption

The President’s National Emergency Declaration.

Impact

SJR2 emphasizes that the diversion of approximately $7.5 billion intended for various military and public safety initiatives could severely undermine the readiness of military operations and essential infrastructure projects. Funds earmarked for critical upgrades, such as improving living conditions for military families and upgrading military training facilities, were at risk of being redirected under the emergency declaration. Furthermore, the resolution posits that reallocating these funds could detract from the readiness of local resources to address genuine emergencies, such as environmental concerns in California.

Summary

Senate Joint Resolution No. 2, introduced by Senator Umberg, addresses the national emergency declaration made by President Donald J. Trump on February 15, 2019. The resolution urges the U.S. Congress to block this declaration by overriding the President's veto of House Joint Resolution 46 and to consider terminating the emergency declaration within six months, as allowed by the National Emergencies Act. The bill's primary focus is on the potential negative impact of diverting funds from military and counterdrug projects to finance border security measures related to the declaration.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SJR2 is predominantly critical of the President's actions, with significant support from California's legislature for blocking the national emergency declaration. Legislators voiced concerns that such a declaration was unnecessary and that it risked undermining military efficiency and public safety. This perspective suggests a fundamental disagreement between federal priorities and the immediate needs of the states involved.

Contention

Notable points of contention within the discussions were the implications of cutting funding for drug interdiction programs and military construction projects. Opponents of the emergency declaration highlighted that reducing funds for these applications would not only hamper efforts to combat drug trafficking but also impact various military operations that directly contribute to public safety and regional security. Furthermore, the resolution brings forth legal challenges with numerous states, including California, filing suit against the declaration, indicating a widespread disagreement over the scope and necessity of the President's actions.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

VA HB2193

Virginia National Guard; deployment to active duty combat.

LA HCR11

Memorializes congress to provide funding for the Regional Counterdrug Training Academy

FL H8009

Major General James O. Eifert, Adjutant General of Florida

TX HR1368

Congratulating Donald R. Prince on his promotion to brigadier general in the Texas State Guard.

CA SB1250

Voting: domicile.

CA SJR9

Federal Encourage New Legalized Immigrants to Start Training Act.

CA AJR22

Transgender service members.

CA AJR13

Veterans cemeteries: Republic of Vietnam veterans.