Asm. Bonnie Lowenthal

This measure would urge the President of the United States, the United States Congress, and the Department of Defense to take immediate and necessary actions to protect national security by ensuring continuation of C-17 production to meet future domestic and international airlift needs and to preserve the crown jewel of the American industrial base.

(1) Existing law requires an operator of a store, as defined, to establish an at-store recycling program that provides to customers the opportunity to return clean plastic carryout bags to that store. This requirement is repealed on January 1, 2013. Existing law prohibits a city, county, or other local public agency from taking specified regulatory actions with regard to the recycling of plastic carryout bags. This bill would repeal those at-store recycling program requirements on January 1, 2012, and would repeal, on January 1, 2011, the provision preempting local regulatory action. The bill would, as of January 1, 2012, prohibit stores that have a specified amount of sales or retail floor space from providing a single-use carryout bag to a customer. The bill would require these stores, from January 1, 2012, until June 30, 2013, to provide a specified type of reusable bag and after July 1, 2013, to only provide reusable bags that meet certain criteria. The bill would require these stores to make reusable bags available for purchase. The bill would allow a store, on and after January 1, 2013, to provide reusable bags to customers at no cost only when combined with a time limited store promotional program. The bill also would authorize a store, as of January 1, 2011, to provide recycled paper bags, but would require the store to charge the consumer, on and after January 1, 2012, the actual average cost of the recycled paper bag. The bill would require these stores, on and after January 1, 2012, to provide a plastic collection bin for its customers, for the purpose of collecting and recycling single-use plastic bags and reusable bags. The bill would, on and after July 1, 2013, additionally impose these prohibitions and requirements on convenience food stores, foodmarts, and certain other specified stores. The bill would, beginning January 1, 2013, require a reusable grocery bag producer to submit to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery a biennial certification, including a certification fee established by the department, that certifies that each type of reusable grocery bag that is imported, manufactured, sold or distributed in the state and provided to a store for sale or distribution meets specified requirements. The bill would require the department to deposit the certification fees into the Reusable Bag Account, which would be established by the bill in the Integrated Waste Management Fund. The bill would require that moneys in the account be expended by the department, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to implement the certification requirements. A violation of these certification requirements would be subject to an administrative civil penalty assessed by the department. The department would be required to deposit these penalties into the Penalty Subaccount, which the bill would create in the Reusable Bag Account, for expenditure by the department, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to implement the certification requirements. The bill would require the department, by January 1, 2015, to submit a report to the Legislature regarding the implementation of the bill's provisions. The bill would repeal this report requirement on January 1, 2016. This bill would, as of January 1, 2011, preempt local regulations on the use and sales of reusable bags, single-use carryout bags, recycled paper bags, or other specified bags at stores, as defined. The bill would allow a city, county, city and county or the state to impose civil penalties for a violation of the bill's requirements, except for the certification requirements. The bill would require these civil penalties to be paid to the office of the city attorney, city prosecutor, district attorney, or Attorney General, whichever office brought the action, and would allow the penalties collected by the Attorney General to be expended by the Attorney General, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to enforce the bill's provisions. (2) The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 creates the Recycling Market Development Revolving Loan Subaccount in the Integrated Waste Management Account and continuously appropriates the funds deposited in the subaccount to the department for making loans for the purposes of the Recycling Market Development Revolving Loan Program. Existing law makes the provisions regarding the loan program, the creation of the subaccount, and expenditures therefrom inoperative on July 1, 2011, and repeals them as of January 1, 2012. This bill would appropriate $2,000,000 from the Recycling Market Development Revolving Loan Subaccount in the Integrated Waste Management Account to the department for the purposes of providing loans and grants for the creation and retention of jobs and economic activity in the manufacture and recycling of plastic bags that use recycled content.

This measure would proclaim May 9 through 15 as California Nurses Week 2010.

This measure would have the Legislature join the Congress of the United States in further acknowledging the service of Filipino World War II veterans in the Armed Forces of the United States by recognizing that these veterans should be reunited with their children during their golden years, and would request that the President and the Congress of the United States pass S. 1337 and H.R. 2412, which would exempt children of certain Filipino World War II veterans from the numerical limitations on immigrant visas, thus allowing for family reunification.

This measure would designate the month of February 2010, and February 2011, as Step Up California Month, designate February 3, 2010, and February 3, 2011, as Step Up California Day, and encourage and support various activities relating to the reduction of poverty.

(1) Existing law establishes the California State University, administered by the Trustees of the California State University, and the University of California, administered by the Regents of the University of California, as 2 of the segments of public postsecondary education in this state. Existing law establishes the Hastings College of the Law, under the governance of the Board of Directors of the Hastings College of the Law, within the University of California. Existing law prescribes criteria for the disclosure of the names and addresses of alumni of the California State University, the University of California, and the Hastings College of the Law. Existing law requires that the names, addresses, and electronic mail addresses of alumni be disclosed only to provide those persons with informational materials relating to the California State University, the University of California, and the Hastings College of the Law, and its programs and activities; to provide those persons, or the trustees, auxiliary organizations of the California State University, as defined, or the Regents of the University of California, the Board of Directors of the Hastings College of the Law, or the alumni associations with beneficial commercial opportunities; or to promote and support the educational mission of the California State University, the University of California, the trustees, the regents, the Board of Directors of the Hastings College of the Law, or the alumni associations. Existing law authorizes this disclosure only if the trustees, auxiliary organizations, or the alumni associations, in the case of the California State University, or the regents, the board of directors, or the alumni associations, in the case of the University of California and the Hastings College of the Law, have a written agreement with a business, as defined, that maintains control over this data that requires the business to maintain the confidentiality of the names, addresses, and electronic mail addresses of the alumni, that requires that the university or the college retain the right to approve or reject any purpose for which the private information is to be used by the business and to review and approve the text of mailings sent to alumni, and that prohibits the business from using the information for any purposes other than those described, and the disclosure of alumni names, addresses, and electronic mail addresses does not include the names and addresses of alumni who have directed the trustees, the regents, the board of directors, or an alumni association or auxiliary organization, not to disclose their names, addresses, or electronic mail addresses. Existing law requires the California State University, the University of California, and the Hastings College of the Law to make available to its alumni a specified form or an alternative notice, including specified information, in a mailing or in an Internet posting, as prescribed, before alumni names, addresses, and electronic mail addresses may be disclosed. Under existing law, the above provisions are applicable to the University of California and the Hastings College of the Law only to the extent that the regents or the board of directors act, by resolution, to make them applicable. This bill would delete the Hastings College of the Law from the above-described provisions. With respect to the form that these institutions are required to make available to alumni prior to the disclosure of alumni information, this bill would require that form to be provided to alumni through a link on the homepage of the Internet Web site of the alumni association or in the alumni association's privacy policy. The bill would also express the intent of the Legislature that, by July 1, 2014, the California State University and the University of California submit reports to the Legislature regarding compliance with these provisions. (2) Existing law specifies that the above provisions are repealed as of January 1, 2011. This bill would extend those repeal dates to January 1, 2016.

Existing law provides for the licensing and regulation of residential facilities under the California Community Care Facilities Act and residential care facilities for persons with chronic life-threatening illness by the State Department of Social Services. Violation of these provisions constitutes a misdemeanor. Under existing law, bedridden persons may be admitted to, and remain in, any of the above-described residential facilities if the facility secures and maintains an appropriate fire clearance. Under existing law, a person is not classified as "bedridden" if he or she has a temporary illness that persists for 14 days or less. This bill would, instead, exclude from the definition of "bedridden" a temporary illness or recovery from surgery that persists for 14 days or less. The bill would also permit a residential facility to retain a bedridden client in excess of 14 days if prescribed conditions are met. This bill would prohibit a residential facility, except for an Adult Residential Facility for Persons with Special Health Care Needs (ARFPSHN) , from admitting or retaining a client if he or she requires 24-hour skilled nursing care. The bill would also require a residential facility that admits or retains a bedridden person, within 48 hours of admission or retention, to notify the fire authority of the estimated length of time that the person will retain his or her bedridden status in the facility. This bill would make other conforming changes. By creating a new crime, 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.

This measure would ask the Internal Revenue Service to issue a new ruling with respect to the federal income tax treatment of registered domestic partners and same-sex married couples.

This measure would request that Congress adopt a national freight policy as a component of the next federal transportation bill and subsequently direct the United States Department of Transportation to implement its provisions.

The California Whistleblower Protection Act prohibits a state employee from using his or her official authority or influence for the purpose of intimidating, threatening, coercing, or commanding any person for the purpose of interfering with his or her right to make a protected disclosure, defined to include the communication of information that may evidence an improper governmental activity. The act requires the State Auditor to investigate and report on improper governmental activities, as specified. The act authorizes an employee or applicant for state employment who files a written complaint alleging reprisal, retaliation, or similar prohibited acts to also file a copy of the written complaint with the State Personnel Board, together with a sworn statement that the complaint is true, under penalty of perjury. The act provides that any person who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, or similar prohibited acts against a state employee or applicant for state employment for having made a protected disclosure, is subject to punishment for a misdemeanor, and shall be liable in an action for civil damages brought by the injured party. The act defines "employee" as a person appointed by the Governor or employed or holding office in a state agency, as specified. This bill would include a person employed by the Supreme Court, a court of appeal, a superior court, or the Administrative Office of the Courts within the definition of "employee" for the purposes of the California Whistleblower Protection Act, except as specified. The bill would authorize an employee or applicant for employment with those judiciary entities who files a written complaint alleging actual or attempted acts of reprisal, retaliation, or similar prohibited acts for having made a protected disclosure, to also file a copy of the written complaint with the State Personnel Board, together with a sworn statement that the written complaint is true, under penalty of perjury. The bill would require the State Personnel Board to investigate any claim filed and make a recommendation regarding the alleged retaliation. The bill would provide that any person, except as specified, who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, or similar prohibited acts against an employee or applicant for employment with those judiciary entities for having made a protected disclosure, is subject to punishment for a misdemeanor, and shall be liable in an action for civil damages brought by the injured party. The bill also would prohibit an employee of those judiciary entities from using his or her official authority or influence in violation of these provisions, and would make that employee liable, except as specified, in an action for civil damages brought by the injured party. By expanding the scope of the crimes of perjury and the intentional reprisal, retaliation, or similar prohibited acts against a state employee, as described above, to include an employee of the Administrative Office of the Courts, the 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.