Find Bills

California Bills: Search Results

Results 1-10 of 570 bills

AB 1578 (2013-2014) - An Act to Amend Sections 127660, 127662, 127664, and 127665 of the Health and Safety Code, Relating to Health, and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately.

Health: The California Health Benefit Review Program

Richard Pan / The bill was voted on by the Senate on August 30, 2014.

Existing law establishes the California Health Benefit Review Program to assess legislation that proposes to mandate or repeal a mandated health benefit or service, as defined. Existing law requests the University of California, to provide the analysis to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature within 60 days after receiving a request for the analysis. Existing law also… More
Existing law establishes the California Health Benefit Review Program to assess legislation that proposes to mandate or repeal a mandated health benefit or service, as defined. Existing law requests the University of California, to provide the analysis to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature within 60 days after receiving a request for the analysis. Existing law also requests that the university report to the Governor and the Legislature on the implementation of the program by January 1, 2014. This bill would request the University of California to include essential health benefits and the impact on the California Health Benefit Exchange in the analysis prepared under the program. The bill would further request that the University of California assess legislation that impacts health insurance benefit design, cost sharing, premiums, and other health insurance topics. The bill would request that the university provide the analysis to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature not later than 60 days, or in a manner and pursuant to a timeline agreed to by the Legislature and the program, after receiving the request, as specified. The bill would also extend the date by which the university is requested to report to the Governor and the Legislature on the implementation program until January 1, 2016. Existing law establishes the Health Care Benefits Fund to support the university in implementing the program. Existing law imposes an annual charge on health care service plans and health insurers, as specified, to be deposited into the fund. Existing law prohibits the total annual assessment pursuant to that provision from exceeding $2,000,000. Under existing law, the fund and the program are repealed as of June 30, 2015. This bill would extend until June 30, 2016, the operative date of the program and the fund, including the annual charge on health care service plans and health insurers. The bill would repeal the above-described provisions as of June 30, 2016.This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. Hide

AB 2200 (2013-2014) - An Act to Add and Repeal Article 3.9 (Commencing with Section 8574.50) of Chapter 7 of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code, Relating to Cyber Security.

California Cyber Security

John Perez / The bill was voted on by the Senate on August 30, 2014.

Existing law establishes various advisory boards and commissions in state government with specified duties and responsibilities. Existing law establishes in state government the Governor’s office of Emergency Services and the Department of Technology. This bill would continue in existence the California Cyber Security Task Force, previously created by the Governor’s Office of Emergency… More
Existing law establishes various advisory boards and commissions in state government with specified duties and responsibilities. Existing law establishes in state government the Governor’s office of Emergency Services and the Department of Technology. This bill would continue in existence the California Cyber Security Task Force, previously created by the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services and the Department of Technology, in the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. This bill would require the office and the department to convene stakeholders to act in an advisory capacity and compile policy recommendations on cyber security for the state. The bill would require the task force to meet quarterly, or more often as necessitated by emergency circumstances. This bill would require the task force to complete and issue a report of policy recommendations to the Governor’s office and the Legislature. This bill would create the California Cyber Security Steering Committee in the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, consisting of 13 members comprised of representatives from state government, and appointed representatives with specific expertise or from the technology or cybersecurity industry and the utility or energy industry. This bill would require the steering committee to seek to implement the policy recommendations of the task force based on specified priorities. This bill would require the office and the department to collaborate with the steering committee. This bill would authorize the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services and the Department of Technology to conduct the strategic direction of risk assessments performed by the Military Department’s Computer Network Defense Team. The bill would abolish the California Cyber Security Task Force and the California Cyber Security Steering Committee, and repeal these provisions, on January 1, 2020. Hide

AB 2678 (2013-2014) - An Act to Amend Section 8670.40 of the Government Code, Relating to Oil Spill Prevention and Response, and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately.

Oil spills: oil spill prevention and administration fee

Sebastian Ridley-Thomas / The bill was voted on by the Senate on August 30, 2014.

The Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act generally requires the administrator for oil spill response, acting at the direction of the Governor, to implement activities relating to oil spill response, including emergency drills and preparedness, and oil spill containment and cleanup, and to represent the state in any coordinated response efforts with the federal… More
The Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act generally requires the administrator for oil spill response, acting at the direction of the Governor, to implement activities relating to oil spill response, including emergency drills and preparedness, and oil spill containment and cleanup, and to represent the state in any coordinated response efforts with the federal government.Existing law imposes an oil spill prevention and administration fee in an amount determined by the administrator to be sufficient to implement oil spill prevention activities, but not to exceed $0.065 per barrel of crude oil or petroleum products. Existing law requires the oil spill prevention and administration fee to be imposed upon a person owning crude oil or petroleum products at the time that the crude oil or petroleum products are received at a marine terminal or refinery by specified modes of delivery from within or outside the state, as provided. This bill would state legislative intent that the fee on crude oil or petroleum products be collected only upon first delivery to a refinery or marine terminal and not upon subsequent movement of that same oil or products derived after that first delivery.This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. Hide

AB 125 (2013-2014) - An Act to Amend Section 65962 of the Government Code, Relating to Water,and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately.

Water: floods

Susan Eggman / The bill was voted on by the Senate on August 30, 2014.

Existing law prohibits a city or county within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley from approving a discretionary permit or other discretionary entitlement, or a ministerial permit that would result in the construction of a new residence, for a project that is located within a flood hazard zone, unless the city or county finds, based on substantial evidence in the record, that certain criteria is… More
Existing law prohibits a city or county within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley from approving a discretionary permit or other discretionary entitlement, or a ministerial permit that would result in the construction of a new residence, for a project that is located within a flood hazard zone, unless the city or county finds, based on substantial evidence in the record, that certain criteria is met. This bill would prohibit a city or county within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley from approving a discretionary permit or entitlement that would result in the construction of a new building or construction that would result in an increase in allowed occupancy for an existing building for a project that is located within a flood hazard zone unless the city or county finds that the construction meets the criteria referenced above.Existing law authorizes the Department of Water Resources to administer funding, from various sources, for flood risk reduction projects.This bill would authorize the Department of Water Resources to provide reimbursement to funding recipients that execute a funding agreement under the Urban Flood Risk Reduction Projects program for expenditures associated with continued funding of a project initiated under the Early Implementation Project program and incurred after July 1, 2014, and before the execution of the funding agreement, but no later than July 1, 2015.This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. Hide

AB 2416 (2013-2014) - An Act to Add Chapter 3 (Commencing with Section 3000) to Title 14 of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, Relating to Liens.

Liens: laborers and employees

Mark Stone / The bill was voted on by the Senate on August 28, 2014.

Existing law grants specified persons, including laborers, as defined, who contribute labor, skill, or services to a work of improvement the right to record a mechanic’s lien upon the property so improved. Under existing law, when an employer fails to pay wages due, the employee has the right to file a claim against his or her employer, or former employer, with the Division of Labor Standards… More
Existing law grants specified persons, including laborers, as defined, who contribute labor, skill, or services to a work of improvement the right to record a mechanic’s lien upon the property so improved. Under existing law, when an employer fails to pay wages due, the employee has the right to file a claim against his or her employer, or former employer, with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, which is authorized to conduct investigations, hold hearings, and impose fines and penalties for nonpayment of wages. This bill would enact the California Wage Theft Recovery Act to authorize specified employees to request that the Labor Commissioner record, on his or her behalf, a wage lien upon real and personal property of an employer, or a property owner, as specified, for unpaid wages and other compensation owed the employee, and certain other penalties, interest, and costs. The bill would prescribe requirements relating to the recording and enforcement of the wage lien and for its extinguishment and removal. The bill would require a notice of lien on real property to be executed under penalty of perjury.The bill would authorize the employer or property owner to use a procedure to release the notice of lien or reduce the amount of the lien if the employer makes specified contentions, and would require a specific certification under the procedure to be made under penalty of perjury. The bill would also require the Department of Industrial Relations to issue a report to the Legislature by January 1, 2019, on the effect of these provisions, as specified. By expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Hide

$0
Support
Oppose

SJR 34 (2013-2014) - Relative to Water Storage.

Water storage: federal funding

Cathleen Galgiani / The bill was voted on by the Senate on August 29, 2014.

This measure would urge the Congress of the United States to help fund water storage projects in California.

SR 63 (2013-2014) - Relative to the Election of the Secretary of the Senate

Kevin De Leon, Bob Huff, Darrell Steinberg / The bill was voted on by the Senate on August 29, 2014.

Senate resolutions do not have summaries.

SB 1372 (2013-2014) - An Act to Amend Sections 18410.2 and 23151 Of, and to Add Section 23635 To, the Revenue and Taxation Code, Relating to Taxation, to Take Effect Immediately, Tax Levy.

Corporation taxes: tax rates: publicly held corporations: credits

Mark DeSaulnier, Loni Hancock / The bill was voted on by the Senate on August 28, 2014.

(1)The Corporation Tax Law imposes taxes according to or measured by net income at a rate of 8.84%, or for financial institutions, at a rate of 10.84%, as specified. This bill would, for taxable years beginning on and after January 1, 2015, revise that rate for taxpayers that are publicly held corporations, as defined, and instead impose a tax rate from 7% to 13%, or for financial… More
(1)The Corporation Tax Law imposes taxes according to or measured by net income at a rate of 8.84%, or for financial institutions, at a rate of 10.84%, as specified. This bill would, for taxable years beginning on and after January 1, 2015, revise that rate for taxpayers that are publicly held corporations, as defined, and instead impose a tax rate from 7% to 13%, or for financial institutions, from 9% to 15%, based on the compensation ratio, as defined, of the corporation. This bill would increase the applicable tax rate by 50% for those taxpayers that have a specified decrease in full-time employees employed in the United States as compared to an increase in contracted and foreign full-time employees, as described.(2)Existing law establishes the California Competes Tax Credit Committee, which has specified duties in regard to tax credits for economic development. Existing law establishes the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development, also known as “GO-Biz,” to, among other duties, serve the Governor as the lead entity for economic strategy and the marketing of California on issues relating to business development, private sector investment, and economic growth. The Corporation Tax Law allows various credits against the tax imposed by that law. This bill, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2015, would allow a credit to a qualified taxpayer, as defined, in an amount as provided in a written agreement between GO-Biz and the qualified taxpayer, agreed upon by the committee, and based on specified factors, including the number of jobs the qualified taxpayer will create or retain in the state and the amount of investment in the state by the qualified taxpayer. The bill would limit the total amount of the credit available to an amount equal to the amount of revenue generated by the application of the above-referenced tax rates on publicly held corporations. The bill would also impose various duties upon GO-Biz, including the adoption of regulations.(3)This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature. This act provides for a tax levy within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. Hide

20% more $
Support
Oppose

AB 233 (2013-2014) - An Act to Amend Section 706.121 Of, and to Add Sections 706.053 and 706.130 To, the Code of Civil Procedure, Relating to Wage Garnishment.

Wage garnishment: restrictions: student loans

Bob Wieckowski / The bill was voted on by the Senate on August 28, 2014.

The Wage Garnishment Law prescribes the procedure for withholding an employee’s earnings for purposes of paying a debt. The law requires that a levy of execution upon the earnings of an employee be made by service of an earnings withholding order upon the employer. An earnings withholding order is issued by a levying officer upon receiving an application submitted by a judgment creditor, as… More
The Wage Garnishment Law prescribes the procedure for withholding an employee’s earnings for purposes of paying a debt. The law requires that a levy of execution upon the earnings of an employee be made by service of an earnings withholding order upon the employer. An earnings withholding order is issued by a levying officer upon receiving an application submitted by a judgment creditor, as specified. An employer is required, except as otherwise provided by statute, to withhold the amounts required by an earnings withholding order from all earnings of the employee payable for any pay period of the employee which ends during the withholding period. This bill would provide that an earnings withholding order shall not be used for purposes of enforcing a judgment for the collection of debt that is from a student loan that is not made, insured, or guaranteed by the United State Government pursuant to the Federal Family Education Loan Program or the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program. The bill would require a court to terminate or modify an earnings withholding order issued on or after July 1, 2014, if the court determines, upon a request by the judgment debtor pursuant to specified requirements and procedures, that the withholding order enforces a judgment in violation of these provisions. The bill would provide that a judgment creditor is liable to the judgment debtor for all amounts collected by the judgment creditor in violation of these provisions. The bill also would make conforming changes. Hide

AB 1699 (2013-2014) - An Act to Add Chapter 5.9 (Commencing with Section 42360) to Part 3 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code, Relating to Waste Management.

Waste management: synthetic plastic microbeads

Richard Bloom / The bill was voted on by the Senate on August 21, 2014.

The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65) prohibits any person, in the course of doing business, from knowingly and intentionally exposing any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without giving a specified warning, or from discharging or releasing such a chemical into any source of drinking water, except as… More
The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65) prohibits any person, in the course of doing business, from knowingly and intentionally exposing any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without giving a specified warning, or from discharging or releasing such a chemical into any source of drinking water, except as specified. Existing law prohibits the sale of expanded polystyrene packaging material by a wholesaler or manufacturer. Existing law prohibits a person from selling a plastic product in this state that is labeled with the term “compostable,” “home compostable,” or “marine degradable” unless, at the time of sale, the plastic product meets the applicable American Society for Testing and Materials standard specification. This bill would prohibit, after January 1, 2019, a person, as defined, from selling or offering for promotional purposes in this state a personal care product containing synthetic plastic microbeads, as specified, unless the personal care product is an over-the-counter drug, and would prohibit a person, after January 1, 2020, from selling or offering a personal care product containing synthetic plastic microbeads, including a personal care product that is an over-the-counter drug. The bill would exempt from those prohibitions the sale or promotional offer of a product containing less than 1 part per million (ppm) by weight of synthetic plastic microbeads, as provided. The bill would make a violator liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $2,500 per day for each violation. The bill would authorize the penalty to be assessed and recovered in a civil action brought in any court of competent jurisdiction by the Attorney General or local officials, as provided. The bill would require the civil penalties collected in an action brought pursuant to the act to be retained by the office of the Attorney General or local official who brought the action. The bill would declare that its provisions occupy the whole field of regulation of the sale or offering for promotional purposes of personal care products containing synthetic plastic microbeads. The bill would prohibit a city, county, or other local public agency, on or after January 1, 2019, from adopting, enforcing, or otherwise implementing, an ordinance, resolution, regulation, or rule, or any amendment thereto, relating to the sale or offering for promotional purposes of personal care products that are not over-the-counter drugs and that contain synthetic plastic microbeads, and would prohibit a city, county, or other local public agency from taking similar actions, on or after January 1, 2020, relating to the sale or offering for promotional purposes of personal care products, including, but not limited to, over-the-counter drugs, that contain synthetic plastic microbeads, except as expressly authorized. Hide

4.7 times as much $
Support
Oppose