ReportWire

Tag: senate bill

  • NTSB chair slams House aviation bill as ‘watered-down’ after 67 deaths near Washington

    [ad_1]

    The head of the National Transportation Safety Board said Thursday it’s misleading for members of the House to say their package of aviation safety reforms would address the recommendations that her agency made in January to prevent another midair collision like the one last year near Washington, D.C., that killed 67 people.NTSB Chairwoman Jennifer Homendy said the House bill’s “watered-down” requirements wouldn’t do enough to prevent a future tragedy, and wouldn’t be nearly as effective as a Senate bill that came up just one vote short of passing in the House earlier this week. The full NTSB followed up Thursday afternoon with a formal letter to two key House committees, saying that they can’t support the bill right now“We can have disagreements over policy all day. But when something is sold as these are the NTSB recommendations and that is not factually accurate, we have a problem with that. Because now you’re using the NTSB and you’re using people who lost loved ones in terrible tragedies,” Homendy said. “You’re using their pain to move your agenda forward.”The key concern of Homendy and the families of the people who died in the crash on Jan. 29, 2005, is that they believe all aircraft should be required to have key locator systems that the NTSB has been recommending since 2008, which would allow the pilots to know more precisely where the traffic around them is flying. The Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast Out systems that broadcast an aircraft’s location are already required around busy airports. It’s the ADS-B In systems that can receive data about the locations of other aircraft that isn’t yet standard.The House bill would ask the Federal Aviation Administration to draft a rule to require the best locator technology instead of just requiring ADS-B In, and even when it does suggest that technology should be required, the bill exempts business jets and small planes in certain parts of the airspace. Homendy said the bill is also weak in other areas, such as limits on when the military will be able to turn those locator systems off and the steps they must take to ensure those systems are working.House leaders defend their billThe leaders of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee declined to respond to Homendy’s criticism Thursday, but Reps. Sam Graves and Rick Larsen have said they believe the ALERT bill they crafted effectively addresses the 50 recommendations that NTSB made at the conclusion of their investigation into the collision between an American Airlines jet and an Army Black Hawk helicopter.They defended their bill and pledged to work with the families, the Senate and the industry to develop the best solution as soon as possible. The committee will likely markup the bill within the next few weeks.“From the beginning, we have stressed the importance of getting this right, and we are confident that we will achieve that goal,” Larsen and Graves said. House Speaker Mike Johnson also said he is committed to getting the bill done.Victims’ families say they can’t support the bill as writtenThe NTSB released a side-by-side comparison of its recommendations and the House bill to highlight all the ways the bill falls short of fully addressing the needed changes.Doug Lane, who lost his wife and son in the crash, and many of the other victims’ families said the House bill “is not really a serious attempt to address the NTSB recommendations.” He said the introduction of this bill just a few days before the vote on the ROTOR Act, which the Senate unanimously approved, seemed designed to “scuttle” that bill and send the ADS-B In recommendation into limbo to be considered in a lengthy rulemaking process.Matt Collins, who lost his younger brother Chris in the disaster, said that the bill must require ADS-B In to be acceptable to the families.“As far as the ALERT act — the way it’s written now, I can’t endorse the way its written now. It needs to include ADS-B In,” Collins said. “It’s non-negotiable for us as family members, extremely non-negotiable.”Missed warnings led to the crashThe NTSB cited systemic weaknesses and years of ignored warnings as the main causes of the crash, but Homendy has said that if both the plane and the Black Hawk had been equipped with ADS-B In and the systems had been turned on, the collision would have been prevented. The Army’s policy at the time of the crash mandated that its helicopters fly without that system on to conceal their locations, although the helicopter involved in this crash was on a training flight, not a sensitive mission.But Homendy said the House seemed to pick and choose what they wanted to include from the NTSB recommendations.“We were very explicit of what needed to occur,” Homendy said. “When we issue a recommendation, those recommendations are aimed at preventing a tragedy from happening again. And if you’re just going to give us half a loaf, it’s not going to do it. We’re not gonna save lives.”

    The head of the National Transportation Safety Board said Thursday it’s misleading for members of the House to say their package of aviation safety reforms would address the recommendations that her agency made in January to prevent another midair collision like the one last year near Washington, D.C., that killed 67 people.

    NTSB Chairwoman Jennifer Homendy said the House bill’s “watered-down” requirements wouldn’t do enough to prevent a future tragedy, and wouldn’t be nearly as effective as a Senate bill that came up just one vote short of passing in the House earlier this week. The full NTSB followed up Thursday afternoon with a formal letter to two key House committees, saying that they can’t support the bill right now

    “We can have disagreements over policy all day. But when something is sold as these are the NTSB recommendations and that is not factually accurate, we have a problem with that. Because now you’re using the NTSB and you’re using people who lost loved ones in terrible tragedies,” Homendy said. “You’re using their pain to move your agenda forward.”

    The key concern of Homendy and the families of the people who died in the crash on Jan. 29, 2005, is that they believe all aircraft should be required to have key locator systems that the NTSB has been recommending since 2008, which would allow the pilots to know more precisely where the traffic around them is flying. The Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast Out systems that broadcast an aircraft’s location are already required around busy airports. It’s the ADS-B In systems that can receive data about the locations of other aircraft that isn’t yet standard.

    The House bill would ask the Federal Aviation Administration to draft a rule to require the best locator technology instead of just requiring ADS-B In, and even when it does suggest that technology should be required, the bill exempts business jets and small planes in certain parts of the airspace. Homendy said the bill is also weak in other areas, such as limits on when the military will be able to turn those locator systems off and the steps they must take to ensure those systems are working.

    House leaders defend their bill

    The leaders of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee declined to respond to Homendy’s criticism Thursday, but Reps. Sam Graves and Rick Larsen have said they believe the ALERT bill they crafted effectively addresses the 50 recommendations that NTSB made at the conclusion of their investigation into the collision between an American Airlines jet and an Army Black Hawk helicopter.

    They defended their bill and pledged to work with the families, the Senate and the industry to develop the best solution as soon as possible. The committee will likely markup the bill within the next few weeks.

    “From the beginning, we have stressed the importance of getting this right, and we are confident that we will achieve that goal,” Larsen and Graves said. House Speaker Mike Johnson also said he is committed to getting the bill done.

    Victims’ families say they can’t support the bill as written

    The NTSB released a side-by-side comparison of its recommendations and the House bill to highlight all the ways the bill falls short of fully addressing the needed changes.

    Doug Lane, who lost his wife and son in the crash, and many of the other victims’ families said the House bill “is not really a serious attempt to address the NTSB recommendations.” He said the introduction of this bill just a few days before the vote on the ROTOR Act, which the Senate unanimously approved, seemed designed to “scuttle” that bill and send the ADS-B In recommendation into limbo to be considered in a lengthy rulemaking process.

    Matt Collins, who lost his younger brother Chris in the disaster, said that the bill must require ADS-B In to be acceptable to the families.

    “As far as the ALERT act — the way it’s written now, I can’t endorse the way its written now. It needs to include ADS-B In,” Collins said. “It’s non-negotiable for us as family members, extremely non-negotiable.”

    Missed warnings led to the crash

    The NTSB cited systemic weaknesses and years of ignored warnings as the main causes of the crash, but Homendy has said that if both the plane and the Black Hawk had been equipped with ADS-B In and the systems had been turned on, the collision would have been prevented. The Army’s policy at the time of the crash mandated that its helicopters fly without that system on to conceal their locations, although the helicopter involved in this crash was on a training flight, not a sensitive mission.

    But Homendy said the House seemed to pick and choose what they wanted to include from the NTSB recommendations.

    “We were very explicit of what needed to occur,” Homendy said. “When we issue a recommendation, those recommendations are aimed at preventing a tragedy from happening again. And if you’re just going to give us half a loaf, it’s not going to do it. We’re not gonna save lives.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Cheap insulin pens will soon be available through state-backed deal, Newsom announces

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday announced a plan to offer $11 insulin pens through the state’s pharmaceutical venture.

    Beginning Jan. 1, consumers can purchase a five-pack of pens for a suggested price of $55, according to the governor’s office. The packs will be available to California pharmacies for $45.

    California is the first state in the nation to sell its own brand of generic prescription drugs as Newsom and other state leaders seek ways to drive down rising healthcare costs.

    Insulin users without health insurance today can pay $400 for a small vial.

    Newsom, in a statement Thursday, said that Californians shouldn’t “ration insulin or go into debt to stay alive.”

    “California didn’t wait for the pharmaceutical industry to do the right thing — we took matters into our own hands,” Newsom said.

    Officials hope the drug will lower costs across the board, not just for the consumers ultimately picking up the drug. Major drug companies have also cut prices on insulin, but critics contend those cost savings are passed on to other consumers.

    Earlier this week, Newsom signed legislation, Senate Bill 40, capping insulin co-pays at $35 for the first time in California.

    “This law ensures no family will be forced to choose between buying insulin and putting food on the table in California again,” the bill’s author, Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), said in a statement.

    Newsom, who vowed to be the “healthcare governor” during his campaign, in 2020 unveiled a proposal for California to make its own line of generic drugs.

    Three years later, he announced a $50-million contract with the nonprofit generic drugmaker Civica to produce insulin under the state’s own label.

    Earlier this year, the state began selling Naloxone, a medication that blocks the effects of opioids, at below market prices.

    [ad_2]

    Dakota Smith

    Source link

  • Here’s how the 2025 legislative session closed: The lowdown on the environment

    [ad_1]

    Gov. Gavin Newsom wrapped up the 2025 legislative session with the usual flurry of activity, signing several important environmental, energy and climate bills and vetoing others ahead of Monday’s deadline.

    Among the newest laws in California are efforts to accelerate clean energy projects and advance the state’s position as a climate leader — but also decisions to ramp up oil drilling and reject the phase-out of forever chemicals.

    Here’s a look at what happened this year:

    In September, Newsom signed a blockbuster suite of bills including the reauthorization of California’s signature cap-and-trade program, which sets limits on greenhouse gas emissions and lets large polluters buy and sell emissions allowances at quarterly auctions. The Legislature extended the program by 15 years to 2045, rebranded it as “cap-and-invest” and specified how its revenues will be allocated for wildfire prevention efforts, high-speed rail and other projects.

    The greenhouse gas trading program is seen as essential for the state to meet its climate targets, including reaching carbon neutrality by 2045.

    “California really needed to act this year to decisively try to put in policies to meet our climate goals [and support] the economy and different sectors,” said Susan Nedell, senior western advocate with the nonpartisan policy group E2. She called state legislative efforts especially important as the Trump administration aims to erode California’s authority on tailpipe emission standards, electric vehicle initiatives and renewable energy projects, among others.

    “This is the time for California to lead, and I really feel like they came through on it as a state,” Nedell said.

    WHAT ELSE BECAME LAW

    • One of the more controversial bills of the year was Senate Bill 237, which makes it easier to drill up to 2,000 new oil wells in Kern County. It’s a tradeoff that also makes it more difficult to drill new oil or gas wells offshore. Legislators said it will help address the volatility of gasoline prices following announcements from oil companies Phillips 66 and Valero that they are shutting down two big refineries in the state. Environmental groups were quick to condemn the bill.
    • Also controversial was Assembly Bill 825, which will expand California’s participation in a regional power market — enabling the state to buy and sell more clean power with other Western states. Opponents feared that it will cede some control of California’s power grid to out-of-state authorities, including the federal government. Supporters said it will improve grid reliability and save money for ratepayers.
    • January’s firestorm in L.A. led to a renewed focus on the state’s approach to fires, including Senate Bill 254, which contains various policies to address California’s aging electric infrastructure and wildfire prevention goals. It will secure about $18 billion to replenish the state’s wildfire fund — a state insurance policy for utilities — which officials say will help protect ratepayers from excessive utility liability costs. It also will establish a program to speed up the construction of power lines needed for clean energy projects.
    • Assembly Bill 39 requires cities and counties with at least 75,000 residents to plan for more electrification infrastructure by 2030, including electric vehicle charging and building upgrades. The measures must address the needs of low-income households and disadvantaged communities.
    • Senate Bill 80 will create a $5-million fund to accelerate research and development for fusion energy. Fusion creates energy by slamming two atoms together. The state hopes to launch the world’s first fusion energy pilot project by the 2040s. “Fusion energy has the immense potential to provide consistent, clean baseload power on demand that will help us meet our clean energy goals,” said Sen. Anna Caballero (D-Merced), the bill’s author, in a statement.
    • Assembly Bill 888 creates a grant program to help low-income homeowners clear defensible space around their houses and install fire-safe roofs. It is “exactly the kind of proactive, people-first policy California needs,” said Eric Horne, California director for the nonprofit Megafire Action, which is geared to ending large wildfires.
    • Senate Bill 653 means that state agencies have to pay more attention to using native species in their fire prevention work and use science-based standards to avoid introducing invasive, fire-prone species.
    • Senate Bill 429 establishes the Wildfire Safety and Risk Mitigation Program at the California Department of Insurance, which will fund research into developing and deploying a public wildfire catastrophe model — a computer simulation that estimates property damage from large wildfires and helps communities better assess and prepare for risk.
    • Assembly Bill 462 streamlines approvals for accessory dwelling units on properties affected by the 2025 wildfires in the California Coastal Zone, requiring decisions on coastal permits within 60 days and eliminating some appeals.
    • Assembly Bill 818 accelerates local permitting for rebuilding homes and allows residents to place temporary homes, such as manufactured homes or ADUs, on private lots during reconstruction.
    • Assembly Bill 245 gives residents additional time to rebuild their homes or businesses in the wake of the 2025 wildfires without experiencing a property tax increase.
    • Senate Bill 614 will establish new regulations for the safe transport of carbon dioxide captured from large polluters or removed from the atmosphere. The legislation will authorize the development of dedicated pipelines to move CO2 to underground geological formations for permanent storage, and was described by Newsom as a vital next step for the state’s burgeoning carbon capture, removal and sequestration market.
    • Assembly Bill 14 expands the “Protecting Blue Whales and Blue Skies Program” statewide. The program encourages large vessels to voluntarily reduce their speed in designated areas in order to reduce air pollution and reduce the risk of fatal vessel strikes and harmful underwater acoustic impacts on whales.

    WHAT WAS VETOED

    • The governor vetoed Senate Bill 34, which would have required the South Coast Air Quality Management District to consider certain factors before implementing regulations at the region’s ports. Opponents, including health and environmental groups, said it would have ultimately weakened its authority and ability to meet clean air standards. In its place, the air district and the ports are pursuing a voluntary cooperative agreement that will include obligations for zero-emissions infrastructure and other clean-air efforts. “With the current federal administration directly undermining our state and local air and climate pollution reduction strategies, it is imperative that we maintain the tools we have,” Newsom wrote in his veto.
    • Assembly Bill 740 would have directed the state’s energy agencies to create an implementation plan for “virtual power plants” — networks of small energy resources such as smart thermostats, home batteries and rooftop solar panels that can help reduce strain on the grid. Newsom vetoed it earlier this month, stating that it would result in additional costs for the California Energy Commission’s already depleted operating fund. But Edson Perez, California lead at the nonprofit Advanced Energy United, called its veto a “costly mistake” and said the bill would have saved ratepayers more than $13 billion.
    • Newsom this week also vetoed Senate Bill 682, which would have phased out the use of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS, or “forever chemicals,” in consumer products such as nonstick cookwear and products for infants and children. The governor cited concerns about affordability in his veto.

    Earlier this year, the governor also signed the most significant reforms to the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, since it originally became law in 1970. Signed in June, Assembly Bill 130 and Senate Bill 131 exempt a broad array of housing development and infrastructure projects from CEQA in an effort to ease new construction in the state. Supporters said it will help address the state’s housing crisis, while many environmental groups were outraged by the move.

    “While California was able to advance on grid regionalization, strengthen energy affordability, uphold local air quality protection, and protect endangered species, we’re frustrated by the Governor’s vetoes of measures that would have banned forever chemicals, prioritized cost effective energy consumption, expanded virtual power plants to lower electricity bills, and banned microplastics,” said Melissa Romero, policy advocacy director with the nonprofit California Environmental Voters.

    [ad_2]

    Hayley Smith

    Source link

  • New California law will guarantee Cal State admission to qualified high school graduates

    [ad_1]

    NEW LAW GRANTS AUTOMATIC ADMISSION INTO CAL STATE SCHOOLS FOR QUALIFIED HIGH SCHOOL GRADS. YEAH, A LOT OF STUDENTS VERY EXCITED ABOUT THIS. GOVERNOR NEWSOM SIGNED THE BILL TO STREAMLINE THE COLLEGE ADMISSIONS PROCESS AND BOOST ENROLLMENT. KCRA 3’S DUNCAN CORTEZ SHOWS US WHAT THIS NEW LAW WILL DO. IT’S A NEW DOOR TO HIGHER EDUCATION, QUALIFIED HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE MEETS, MINIMUM CAL STATE REQUIREMENTS, COLLEGE ACCEPTANCE. EASY ENOUGH. WHAT’S THE CATCH? SO WE’RE JUST CONNECTING THE TWO. AND SO IT DOESN’T COST ANYTHING BUT A POSTAGE STAMP. GOT IT. SO YEAH, TAXPAYERS DON’T HAVE TO PAY ANYTHING. CORRECT. YOU HEARD THAT RIGHT. IT’S A NEW LAW FROM A PILOT PROGRAM THAT LAWMAKERS ARE HOPING WILL IMPROVE. SOME CAL STATE SCHOOLS SEEING LOW ENROLLMENT NUMBERS AND STREAMLINE THE ADMISSIONS PROCESS. WE ALREADY KNOW WHO IS COMPLETED THE COURSES WITH A 2.5 GPA. LIKE, WHERE DO YOU KNOW THAT HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES THAT MEET THE MINIMUM CSU REQUIREMENTS OF A 2.5 GPA OR C GRADE AVERAGE WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE ADMITTED INTO 16 CSU SCHOOLS THAT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO TAKE THEM IN, BYPASSING THE APPLICATION PROCESS. YOU’LL GET YOUR LETTER IN SEPTEMBER, WHICH MEANS THAT THEN YOU CAN THEN YOU CAN STILL DECIDE, HEY, I MIGHT. I DIDN’T KNOW I WAS A UNIVERSITY OF MATERIAL. THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SHARING A STATEMENT WITH KCRA 3 SAYING BY FORMALIZING AND EXPANDING THIS PROVEN MODEL STATEWIDE, SB 640 WILL CREATE A MORE STREAMLINED, DATA DRIVEN PATHWAY FROM CALIFORNIA’S PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS TO ITS PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES. IT’S SOMETHING FRESHMAN MECHANICAL ENGINEER AHMED DAVIS SAYS COULD BE USEFUL, AS HE JUST WENT THROUGH THE APPLICATION PROCESS MONTHS AGO. A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THE CHANCE TO GO TO COLLEGE. SO A STATE UNIVERSITY AND THEY REALLY LIKE HELP WITH THAT FOR THE MOST PART. COULD THIS POTENTIALLY DILUTE ACADEMIC REQUIREMENTS IF STUDENTS JUST HAVE TO MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS IN HIGH SCHOOL AND THEN AUTOMATICALLY GET INTO COLLEGE? NO. SO SO I MEAN, WE’RE VERY WE MADE SURE IT’S GOT TO BE RIGOROUS. IT’S THE SAME EXACT ADMISSION STANDARDS THAT APPLY TODAY IN SCHOOLS WILL BE USING TRANSCRIPT DATA FROM THE CALIFORNIA COLLEGES EDU WEBSITE TO DETERMINE STUDENT ELIGIBILITY, ALL FOR A MORE STREAMLINED APPROACH. IN SACRAMENTO STATE, DENNIS CORTEZ KCRA THREE NEWS. THIS NEW LAW WILL START WITH 43 SCHOOL DISTRICTS ACROSS CALIFORNIA, AND IT WILL EXPAND

    New California law will guarantee Cal State admission to qualified high school graduates

    Gov. Newsom signs SB 640, expanding statewide admissions program

    Updated: 8:09 PM PDT Oct 10, 2025

    Editorial Standards ⓘ

    The California State University Direct Admissions Program has been expanded statewide with the signing of Senate Bill 640 by Gov. Gavin Newsom this week, aiming to increase access to higher education amid post-pandemic enrollment declines.Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, District 3, who authored the bill, said it drew broad bipartisan support and emphasized that the new law does not use taxpayer dollars.“The only cost — a postage stamp to students letting them know they are accepted in,” Cabaldon said.Sixteen CSU campuses, including Sacramento State, will participate in the program. Six campuses are currently too full to take part: San Jose State, San Diego State, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, Cal Poly Pomona, Cal State Fullerton and Cal State Long Beach. Students can still apply to those campuses through the traditional admissions process.Lawmakers hope the new law will make it easier for students to pursue higher education, particularly at campuses such as Sonoma State, which has seen the largest decline, nearly 4,000 students.SB 640 builds on CSU’s first systemwide direct admissions program, launched last year as a pilot with the Riverside County Office of Education. It also expands CSU’s existing Dual Admission Program, known as the Transfer Success Pathway, to ensure more students — especially those who might not have otherwise applied — see a clear and supported route to earning a CSU degree.The new law takes effect Jan. 1, 2026, with full statewide participation beginning for fall 2027 applicants. For students applying now for fall 2026, the priority application period runs from Oct. 1 through Dec. 1. CSU’s existing direct admissions program — which includes the Riverside County Office of Education’s 23 districts and 20 additional districts statewide — will remain in effect, and eligible students in those districts have begun receiving notifications.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    , Calif. —

    The California State University Direct Admissions Program has been expanded statewide with the signing of Senate Bill 640 by Gov. Gavin Newsom this week, aiming to increase access to higher education amid post-pandemic enrollment declines.

    Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, District 3, who authored the bill, said it drew broad bipartisan support and emphasized that the new law does not use taxpayer dollars.

    “The only cost — a postage stamp to students letting them know they are accepted in,” Cabaldon said.

    Sixteen CSU campuses, including Sacramento State, will participate in the program. Six campuses are currently too full to take part: San Jose State, San Diego State, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, Cal Poly Pomona, Cal State Fullerton and Cal State Long Beach. Students can still apply to those campuses through the traditional admissions process.

    Lawmakers hope the new law will make it easier for students to pursue higher education, particularly at campuses such as Sonoma State, which has seen the largest decline, nearly 4,000 students.

    SB 640 builds on CSU’s first systemwide direct admissions program, launched last year as a pilot with the Riverside County Office of Education. It also expands CSU’s existing Dual Admission Program, known as the Transfer Success Pathway, to ensure more students — especially those who might not have otherwise applied — see a clear and supported route to earning a CSU degree.

    The new law takes effect Jan. 1, 2026, with full statewide participation beginning for fall 2027 applicants. For students applying now for fall 2026, the priority application period runs from Oct. 1 through Dec. 1.

    CSU’s existing direct admissions program — which includes the Riverside County Office of Education’s 23 districts and 20 additional districts statewide — will remain in effect, and eligible students in those districts have begun receiving notifications.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘We’re not North Korea.’ Newsom signs bills to limit immigration raids at schools and unmask federal agents

    [ad_1]

    In response to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration raids that have roiled Southern California, Gov. Gavin Newsom on Saturday signed a package of bills aimed at protecting immigrants in schools, hospitals and other areas targeted by federal agents.

    He also signed a bill that bans federal agents from wearing masks. Speaking at Miguel Contreras Learning Complex in Los Angeles, Newsom said President Trump had turned the country into a “dystopian sci-fi movie” with scenes of masked agents hustling immigrants without legal status into unmarked cars.

    “We’re not North Korea,” Newsom said.

    Newsom framed the pieces of legislation as pushback against what he called the “secret police” of Trump and Stephen Miller, the White House advisor who has driven the second Trump administration’s surge of immigration enforcement in Democrat-led cities.

    SB 98, authored by Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Alhambra), will require school administrators to notify families and students if federal agents conduct immigration operations on a K-12 or college campus.

    Assembly Bill 49, drafted by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Rolling Hills Estates), will bar immigration agents from nonpublic areas of a school without a judicial warrant or court order. It will also prohibit school districts from providing information about pupils, their families, teachers and school employees to immigration authorities without a warrant.

    Sen. Jesse Arreguín’s (D-Berkeley) Senate Bill 81 will prohibit healthcare officials from disclosing a patient’s immigration status or birthplace — or giving access to nonpublic spaces in hospitals and clinics — to immigration authorities without a search warrant or court order.

    Senate Bill 627 by Sens. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Jesse Arreguín (D-Berkeley) targets masked federal immigration officers who began detaining migrants at Home Depots and car washes in California earlier this year.

    Wiener has said the presence of anonymous, masked officers marks a turn toward authoritarianism and erodes trust between law enforcement and citizens. The law would apply to local and federal officers, but for reasons that Weiner hasn’t publicly explained, it would exempt state police such as California Highway Patrol officers.

    Trump’s immigration leaders argue that masks are necessary to protect the identities and safety of immigration officers. The Department of Homeland Security on Monday called on Newsom to veto Wiener’s legislation, which will almost certainly be challenged by the federal government.

    “Sen. Scott Wiener’s legislation banning our federal law enforcement from wearing masks and his rhetoric comparing them to ‘secret police’ — likening them to the gestapo — is despicable,” said DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.

    The package of bills has already caused friction between state and federal officials. Hours before signing the bills, Newsom’s office wrote on X that “Kristi Noem is going to have a bad day today. You’re welcome, America.”

    Bill Essayli, the acting U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, fired back on X accusing the governor of threatening Noem.

    “We have zero tolerance for direct or implicit threats against government officials,” Essayli wrote in response, adding he’d requested a “full threat assessment” by the U.S. Secret Service.

    The supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution dictates that federal law takes precedence over state law, leading some legal experts to question whether California could enforce legislation aimed at federal immigration officials.

    Essayli noted in another statement on X that California has no jurisdiction over the federal government and he’s directed federal agencies not to change their operations.

    “If Newsom wants to regulate our agents, he must go through Congress,” he wrote.

    California has failed to block federal officers from arresting immigrants based on their appearance, language and location. An appellate court paused the raids, which California officials alleged were clear examples of racial profiling, but the U.S. Supreme Court overrode the decision and allowed the detentions to resume.

    During the news conference on Saturday, Newsom pointed to an arrest made last month when immigration officers appeared in Little Tokyo while the governor was announcing a campaign for new congressional districts. Masked agents showed up to intimidate people who attended the event, Newsom said, but they also arrested an undocumented man who happened to be delivering strawberries nearby.

    “That’s Trump’s America,” Newsom said.

    Other states are also looking at similar measures to unmask federal agents. Connecticut on Tuesday banned law enforcement officers from wearing masks inside state courthouses unless medically necessary, according to news reports.

    Newsom on Saturday also signed Senate Bill 805, a measure by Pérez that targets immigration officers who are in plainclothes but don’t identify themselves.

    The law requires law enforcement officers in plainclothes to display their agency, as well as either a badge number or name, with some exemptions.

    “Ensuring that officers are clearly identified, while providing sensible exceptions, helps protect both the public and law enforcement personnel,” said Jason P. Houser, a former DHS official who supported the bills signed by Newsom.

    [ad_2]

    Matthew Ormseth, Dakota Smith, Laura J. Nelson

    Source link

  • Bill overhauling disaster emergency response misses final approval in Texas Senate

    [ad_1]

    Efforts to overhaul local emergency response to disasters failed after the Texas Senate concluded its business early Thursday without taking up a bill that would have mandated new training and licensing requirements.

    Senate Bill 2 would have created license requirements for local emergency coordinators, initiated registration requirements for disaster volunteers and established a mass-casualty disaster training program for certain justices of the peace. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who leads the upper chamber, did not state on the Senate floor why the bill was not taken up before the chamber adjourned Thursday morning.

    SB 2 was one of several bills aimed at remedying problems made evident during the July 4 floods, in which more than 130 people were killed and dozens of homes and businesses were destroyed. The Legislature passed House Bill 1 and Senate Bill 1 on Wednesday night, which would create new requirements and restrictions for camps operating in or near floodplains. SB 2 had already received initial approval from the Senate in August, but underwent changes in the House that the two chambers disagreed on.

    Representatives in the House added amendments that allowed counties to be reimbursed by the state comptroller’s office for helicopter use during certain disasters and give emergency coordinators more input on proposals for transmission lines built in floodplains. Lawmakers from both chambers needed to agree on a new, final version, or have the Senate agree to the House changes before the bill could be sent to Gov. Greg Abbott for signing.

    With both chambers adjourned, Abbott would have to call a third special session for any of the proposals in SB 2 to be heard again. Abbott has not given any immediate indication as to whether a third special session would occur.

    More all-star speakers confirmed for The Texas Tribune Festival, Nov. 13–15! This year’s lineup just got even more exciting with the addition of State Rep. Caroline Fairly, R-Amarillo; former United States Attorney General Eric Holder; Abby Phillip, anchor of “CNN NewsNight”; Aaron Reitz, 2026 Republican candidate for Texas Attorney General; and State Rep. James Talarico, D-Austin. Get your tickets today!

    TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Gov. Newsom signs law allowing restaurants and bars to charge service fees with prior disclosure

    Gov. Newsom signs law allowing restaurants and bars to charge service fees with prior disclosure

    [ad_1]

    Those 3, 5 and 20% fees at the bottom of your menu could be here to stay. With little time to spare, a new law will allow restaurants and bars to continue charging service fees, healthcare costs and other surcharges when listed clearly for diners to see. The practice was set to be outlawed beginning Monday.

    On Saturday, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 1524, an emergency measure to exempt California food and beverage vendors from Senate Bill 478 — a law that goes into effect in July and targets ticket sellers, hotel and travel websites and other businesses that charge “hidden” or “junk” fees.

    Before Newsom signed SB 1524, which was introduced in early June, restaurants and bars were included in the affected businesses, and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta had advised that the food and beverage vendors roll such fees into listed menu prices to avoid the possibility of legal action.

    “These deceptive fees prevent us from knowing how much we will be charged at the outset,” the attorney general, who co-sponsored SB 478, said in a statement the day it was signed. Bonta could not be reached for comment regarding the exemptions allowed by SB 1524.

    Numerous business operators in the service industry have been vocal against SB 478, which passed in October. They said they feared that raising list prices during a tumultuous year marked by closures and inflation would cost them more customers and support. Multiple restaurateurs told the Los Angeles Times that the process of revising or entirely overhauling their tipping and surcharge system could result in the loss of staff benefits or all-out closures. SB 1524’s rules allowing such surcharges could affect tens of thousands of restaurants throughout the state.

    “We’re the most regulated of any business out there, and we are struggling to survive in the broken system that has been handed to us throughout many, many decades,” said Eddie Navarrette, a co-founder of the Independent Hospitality Coalition, a restaurant advocacy group. “When you add more regulations, whatever it may be, it makes things more difficult. Things are already difficult … there is a mass exodus of our small-restaurant community. I think it’s a huge relief, just to have one less thing being thrown at them right now.”

    Navarrette spent weeks campaigning for SB 1524’s passage, writing letters, meeting with upwards of 35 policy advisors, legislators or their representatives, knocking on doors at the state Capitol, and explaining the usage of service fees within the restaurant industry, whose tip-based employee earnings make it different from most fields that will be affected by SB 478.

    Surcharges, health fees and service charges are regularly used within the industry to stabilize wages across dining rooms and kitchens — where servers often receive tips but cooks and dishwashers do not — and to help offset the cost of benefits such as healthcare. Businesses with larger service fees, such as 18% or 20%, often note that tips are not expected.

    “It’s confusing why the restaurants are claiming that they need to do things differently, because it just feels like they’re saying that they need to hide the cost of their food for us, and that doesn’t feel right,” said Jenn Engstrom, state director of the California affiliate of the Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG) a nonprofit organization that advocates for consumer interests and protections.

    “It feels like you’re being duped,” she said. “That’s what it feels like: that they’re trying to trick you.”

    Some local restaurants have come under fire on accusations of misusing service fees or other surcharges, though multiple chefs and restaurateurs told The Times that these “bad actors” are few and far between.

    “Every restaurateur that I know who cares in this industry is using it in a way that is so immensely appropriate and responsible and forward-thinking that if it was to go away, it would be really crippling to everybody,” Kato restaurateur Ryan Bailey told The Times earlier this year.

    The new bill, which passed unanimously in the state Assembly and Senate in late June, was co-written by Sen. Bill Dodd (D-Napa) — who also co-wrote SB 478 — as well as Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Assemblymembers Matt Haney (D-San Francisco), Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino) and Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D-Winters).

    It is supported by the California Restaurant Assn. and the labor union Unite Here, both of which represent thousands of hospitality workers in California.

    SB 1524 “will enable restaurants to continue to support increased pay equity and to make contributions to worker health care and other employee benefits,” Matthew Sutton of the California Restaurant Assn. said in a statement. “And, importantly, consumers will remain empowered to make informed choices about where they choose to dine out.”

    While some restaurateurs and bar operators are breathing a sigh of relief over the continuation of service fees, others are frustrated with the government’s quick change in tack.

    In April, ahead of SB 478’s July 1 start date — but before the new carve-out for restaurants and bars — L&E Oyster Bar and sibling restaurant El Condor rolled their 4% service fees into listed menu prices.

    (Ricardo DeAratanha / Los Angeles Times)

    Following the attorney general’s guidance for SB 478, in April restaurateur Dustin Lancaster rolled a 4% surcharge into the menu list prices of two of his L.A. restaurants, L&E Oyster Bar and El Condor. He said that SB 1524 would not prompt him to revert to a service-fee model, at least for the foreseeable future, and that it wasn’t “so simple to just unbake the cake.”

    “This is, sadly, all too familiar territory for restaurants in California,” Lancaster told the L.A. Times this week. “Just like in COVID, they jerk us around and expect us to pivot and change our model repeatedly as if it’s no big deal to small businesses. Restaurants continue to shutter [at] an alarming rate in L.A., and this sort of unnecessary about-face is why California continues to be the least small-business-friendly state in America.”

    At Bell’s, a Michelin-starred restaurant in Santa Barbara County’s Los Alamos, owners diligently tracked the progress of both state Senate bills and awaited final word before determining whether to remove their 20% service charge, which benefits all nonmanagerial staff.

    And even before SB 1524’s passage, Bell’s listed the charge on its the lunch and dinner menus, on its web page for frequently asked questions, and on its homepage section on takeout orders. The new law will allow the restaurant to continue its practice without reconfiguring its business model.

    Greg Ryan, an owner of Bell’s, told The Times that he had been listening to and was understanding of customers, legislators and his team, and that he wanted to do what was best for his staff.

    For months, the practice has felt like a balancing act.

    As SB 1524 made its way through California’s Assembly and Senate, outcry on social media and in public forums such as Reddit was swift and vocal, with multiple anonymous posters commenting that to retaliate for the exemption, they would stop leaving tips. Another Reddit user created a spreadsheet that tracks surcharges and service fees in restaurants across the state.

    An L.A. restaurateur, speaking anonymously for fear of customer retribution, told The Times that they’d seen an increase in tips of $1, 0% or other low amounts over the course of the month, possibly in response to the 3-4% service fees their restaurant was charging.

    “I’m not thrilled with the bill,” CALPIRG’s Engstrom said of SB 1524. “I think it was better when restaurants and bars also had to have really clear upfront pricing, so that consumers could do easy comparison shopping. When I decide to go out to a restaurant with my family, I check the prices first, on the menu, online.”

    That SB 1524 requires clear posting of fees is a benefit, she said, but it’s not as strong as SB 478 with the attorney general’s initial guidance that called for rolling service fees into listed prices. Engstrom called SB 478 “a great model bill,” saying she would love to see similar consumer-protection legislation in other states, or federally — without many carve-outs for industries, regardless of how service fees factor into their business plans.

    “I think [SB 1524] is unfortunately kind of a step backwards, but it’s still transparent,” she said. “You can still see it; you just have to do the math.”

    [ad_2]

    Stephanie Breijo

    Source link

  • Coroner cites heart defect, extreme heat in boy’s death during P.E.

    Coroner cites heart defect, extreme heat in boy’s death during P.E.

    [ad_1]

    There was an excessive heat warning in Lake Elsinore on the August day when 12-year-old Yahushua Robinson — who had been instructed to run — died during P.E. class.

    Now, a coroner’s report has reportedly found that the boy died of a heart defect, with heat and physical exertion as contributing factors.

    The findings by the Riverside County Coroner’s Bureau were announced soon after the introduction of a Senate bill that would create rules for California schools on what physical activities can be allowed during extreme weather.

    The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department said deputies went to Canyon Lake Middle School around 11 a.m. on Aug. 29 after receiving a report of a minor needing medical aid. The child was hospitalized and later pronounced dead.

    The high temperature in Lake Elsinore that day was 107 degrees.

    The coroner’s report said “significant conditions” contributing to but not related to the cause of death included “presumptive environmental heat exposure and recent physical exertion,” the San Bernardino Sun reported.

    Yahushua had been sprinting with other students and was seen “bending over and grabbing at his chest,” according to a description of video footage written by Deputy Coroner Myranda Montez, the Press-Enterprise reported.

    Yahushua fell and got back up multiple times and was helped by other students and then by an adult, according to the report. At one point, “it appeared Yahushua became unresponsive,” and the teacher carried him into shade off-camera, the outlet reported.

    The official cause of death was “coronary artery anomaly.”

    The Times reached out to the family’s advocate, Christina Laster, for comment but did not receive an immediate response.

    The California Department of Education has no rules on when severe weather should prompt the cancellation or modification of physical education classes. It leaves the decision to local schools and districts, “with the assistance of other local agencies that monitor air quality and weather.”

    “Unhealthy air quality, extreme temperatures, high winds, etc. may present conditions where it is appropriate to modify activity levels or move PE instruction indoors,” the Department of Education says on its website.

    The California Department of Public Health provides guidance on sports and strenuous activities during extreme heat; however, it’s up to schools to implement the guidance.

    Sen. Melissa Hurtado (D-Sanger) has introduced Senate Bill 1248, or Yahushua’s Law, with the aim of bringing uniformity to how California schools respond to extreme weather when it comes to physical activities.

    In a news release, Hurtado said the bill would require the California Department of Education to develop guidelines for school districts to implement during weather patterns that are potentially harmful to students’ health.

    “No student should ever lose their life on campus to extreme weather when we can take steps to protect them by preparing statewide plans to minimize exposure to the most harmful elements of exposure,” Hurtado said. “I commend the family of Yahushua Robinson … for lending their emotional strength and compassion for others in order to help ensure that no other student loses their life this way.”

    [ad_2]

    Karen Garcia, Summer Lin

    Source link

  • Senator Chris Murphy Makes Bizarre Admission: Illegal Immigrants Are Who Democrats ‘Care About Most’

    Senator Chris Murphy Makes Bizarre Admission: Illegal Immigrants Are Who Democrats ‘Care About Most’

    [ad_1]

    Opinion

    Screenshot: RNC Research

    Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) pulled the curtain back on his own party during a new interview in which he said “undocumented Americans” are the people Democrats “care about most.”

    Murphy apparently stumbled upon a new term for illegal immigrants when discussing the matter with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes. They are not undocumented, they are illegal, and they most certainly are not Americans by any definition.

    Hayes began the discussion by asking Murphy for his thoughts on the $118 billion Senate foreign aid bill that was rejected by Republicans.

    “This time around, the negotiation didn’t have a path to citizenship. It was entirely on their [Republicans’] terms in order to get Ukraine funding, right?” Hayes asked.

    Murphy called so-called negotiations on immigration and border security “a failed play.”

    “You are right that that has been the Democratic strategy for 30 years, maybe, and it has failed to deliver for the people we care about most, the undocumented Americans that are in this country,” he responded.

    RELATED: Biden Ripped: American President Wears ‘My Ukraine Tie And My Ukraine Pin’ While Begging For More Money For Ukraine

    Democrat Admits That llegal Aliens Are Who We Care About Most

    By “undocumented Americans,” Senator Murphy is referring to the millions of illegal immigrants that President Joe Biden has resettled in communities across the country.

    Democrats are telling you exactly where their priorities lie, and it’s not with the American people.

    Need more proof besides seeing videos of the invasion at the border on a nearly daily basis? The White House announced that ICE will reduce deportations and the capacity to detain illegals if the $118 billion foreign aid bill is not passed.

    They are literally threatening the lives and jobs of the American people, holding them hostage, if they don’t get their Ukraine funding. Their priorities lie with Ukraine and every illegal alien that pours across the southern border. America last.

    President Biden dismantled border security as soon as he took office. He and the Democrats have adamantly opposed virtually every enforcement mechanism already available, like detention and deportation.

    And Biden has all the authority he needs to reverse his executive actions, enforce existing U.S. law, and end the border crisis right now. He certainly doesn’t require a bill that provides a fraction of the funding for the border to fix the problem he started.

    RELATED: Failure Theater Continues: Republicans Vote Down Impeachment Of DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas

    What The Hell Is An ‘Undocumented American’, Chris Murphy?

    So pleased was Senator Murphy with his newly made-up term that he repeated the clarion call to “rescue” the “undocumented Americans” later in his interview.

    “I am of the belief that this was a moment where you had to show some big bipartisan momentum and progress on the border, or you would never ever have the ability to try to rescue the undocumented Americans that desperately need help,” he told Hayes.

    Notice that there is no concern for the American people who desperately need help. No cries from Democrats that the American people are the ones they “care about most.”

    And there is certainly no bill being debated in the Senate or the House that would rescue documented Americans or legal immigrants.

    Follow Rusty on X

    He Sees Dead People: For Third Time This Week, Biden Claims He Spoke With Long-Deceased World Leader

    Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
    The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

    Rusty Weiss has been covering politics for over 15 years. His writings have appeared in the Daily Caller, Fox… More about Rusty Weiss



    [ad_2]

    Rusty Weiss

    Source link

  • California banned the sales of flavored tobacco products, but researchers say online sales have boomed

    California banned the sales of flavored tobacco products, but researchers say online sales have boomed

    [ad_1]

    Despite California’s efforts to stop the sale of flavored tobacco products, University of San Diego researchers say consumers have discovered a loophole: online shopping.

    In 2022, Senate Bill 793 went into effect, prohibiting the sale of flavored tobacco products — making California the second state in the U.S. after Massachusetts to pass the broad law.

    The bill was prompted by the growing sales of an assortment of “kid-friendly flavors” such as cotton candy and bubble gum as well as the high rates of teen use of e-cigarettes.

    E-cigarettes are still considered a relatively new product — sold in the U.S. for about a decade — so their impact on health is still being researched, according to the American Lung Assn. However, in 2018 the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine reported e-cigarettes can cause health problems, including a risk for coughing, wheezing and an increase in asthma in youth. It was also found that e-cigarettes contain a number of dangerous chemicals including acetaldehyde, acrolein and formaldehyde. These aldehydes can cause lung disease and heart disease.

    In 2022, the Food and Drug Administration reported e-cigarette use among youth as its top concern. In its 2022 National Youth Tobacco Survey, the agency found that more than 2.5 million U.S. middle and high school students used e-cigarettes. The same data found that e-cigarette users preferred flavored products, with fruit flavors being the most popular, followed by candy, desserts or other flavors.

    The most recent version of that national survey reported that 2.1 million youths use e-cigarettes, with a decline in high school students using the product.

    Several California counties, including Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sacramento, adopted local bans on flavored tobacco long before the statewide law took effect.

    But state and local efforts haven’t stopped consumers from getting their hands on tobacco-related products like e-cigarettes.

    Researchers at the Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science at UC San Diego found that online shopping for cigarettes and vaping products increased significantly in the weeks after the implementation of Senate Bill 793.

    The law says tobacco retailers cannot sell flavored products, but it doesn’t specifically define e-commerce businesses as retailers.

    Researchers collected weekly Google search rates related to online shopping for cigarettes and vaping products in California from January 2018 to May 2023, and identified websites marketing flavored vaping and menthol products, according to the report.

    They found that shopping queries were 194% higher than expected for cigarettes and 162% higher than expected for vaping products after the Senate bill was adopted.

    Eric Leas, assistant professor of the School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science and director of the tobacco e-commerce lab, said retailer licensing programs have proved to be effective in enforcing tobacco control laws.

    “However, the exclusion of e-commerce retailers from these programs can undermine their impact,” Leas said.

    “The absence of explicit regulations on e-commerce sales can create loopholes in enforcing tobacco control laws, allowing consumers to easily access restricted products online,” he said.

    Researchers are recommending that e-commerce businesses be included in the definition of tobacco retailer within existing and future tobacco control policies as well as monitoring online compliance.

    [ad_2]

    Karen Garcia

    Source link