Senate Standing Committee on Education

No, but we are glad to have you here. The Senate Education Committee will come to order. Good morning. The Senate continues to welcome the public in person and via the teleconference service for individuals wishing to provide public comment. Today's participant number is 877-226-8216. That's 877-226-8216, and the access code is 5700096. Again, that's 5700096. We are holding our committee hearings here in the O Street Building. I ask all members of the committee to please be present in Room 2100 so we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing.

I ask that testimony of main witnesses in support or opposition, today, be limited to two people per side, with two minutes for each person. All others may add on and simply state your name, your organization and your position on a measure. We have 22 bills on today's agenda. Eleven bills are on consent. Those bills are as follows: item number 2, AB 322; item number 3, AB 384; item number 4, AB 461; item number 5, AB 569; item number 6, AB 1479; item number 10, AB 715; item number 15, AB 1327; item number 17, AB 1517; item number 18, AB 1524; item number 19, AB 1642; item number 21, AB 1653.

We do not yet have a quorum, so we will begin this hearing as a Subcommittee. And I welcome our first author, Assembly Member Alvarez, I appreciate your patience. Welcome.

You may proceed whenever you're ready. You'll be presenting AB 91.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate the opportunity to come before your committee today. And good morning to all of you. I'm here to present AB 91, a bill that will strengthen our skilled workforce in our binational region, by improving equity to higher education and degree attainment. AB 91 is based off a similar proposal enacted in 2015, that allows students, who reside near the California border with Nevada, to pay a discounted tuition rate at Lake Tahoe Community College, here, in California. My staff and I have also identified similar programs in every other US state that borders Mexico, some that are also funded by their state legislatures.

AB 91 will create a five-year pilot program to provide low-income students, who live near the California-Mexico border, an exemption from the nonresident tuition rate, also known as the out-of-state tuition, when enrolling at community colleges located near the border in San Diego and Imperial County. We are a unique binational region where over 140,000 people, 140,000 people, cross the international border every single day to go to school, to go to work, or just to spend time with their loved ones, or go shopping. Even though it is a unique and robust $250 billion annual economic region, we still suffer from many of the common problems impacting our region, including the demand for skilled workforce.

That demand gap is expected to grow to 20,000 by 2030, according to a report from the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation. In order to meet this demand of workforce, we need to educate more students, and the most effective way to do that is by reducing the most significant barrier: the cost of tuition. AB 91 also addresses recommendations identified in the governor's roadmap for postsecondary education, such as allowing additional first-generation college students, like myself, to foster inclusion in our institutions, reduce degree attainment gaps, and prepare a more diverse population among our workforce.

This bill is supported by a coalition of business, like the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, and educators, like the California Community College Chancellor's Office. With us today, we have two witnesses, which I'll ask to come forward. First, we'll have President of Southwestern College, which is located very, very close to the border -- and I hope he'll share a celebration that he just had on the other side of the border in Mexico, with some graduates from Southwestern College. And then we'll hear from student Mr. Jose Perez.

Welcome, please proceed.

Good morning, committee, and thank you for having me this morning. My name is Mark Sanchez and I'm the Superintendent President of Southwestern College. Southwestern College is located 10 miles from the US-Mexico border -- and our students live, learn, and work on both sides of the border, making our binational region unique to any other area in the state. AB 91 strengthens the relationship between our state and Baja, California, by increasing access to higher education, and increase the skilled workforce that contributes to the mega binational economy. We know the investment will yield dividends. We had two student stories that I'd like to share just really quickly.

One of our students, David, just transferred from Southwestern College and is pursuing his master's in orthopedic design. His immediate and extended family are actually covering the cost of his education by -- they're actually contributing to the cost of his education, moving forward. We also have another student, Abril, who just transferred from Southwestern College and is an engineering student and is on her way to the University of California, San Diego.

But without this pilot, we risk everything in terms of loss of talent. Recently -- actually in March of this year, CBS 8 News in San Diego, actually interviewed a student at the border, who was a mechanical engineering student, and actually dis-enrolled from college and is now a dishwasher at a San Diego downtown restaurant. Significant loss of talent. Our Baja University partners define low-income students, Mexico, as those who make 10,000 pesos a month or $585 a month. These are the students that this bill will target. We know that the in-state tuition rate will still be a stretch, but it still will increase access -- the probability of access -- to higher education in California.

Your support of AB 91 ensures that we are serving our local students, regardless of what side of the border they live on, that we stop turning engineering students into dishwashers, and that we are securing the skilled workforce needed for a thriving regional binational economy. Thank you. And I just want to address Assembly Member Alvarez's recent celebration. We actually held our first commencement ceremony in Tijuana. It's the first hosted in Tijuana by any California community college. So thank you for having me today.

And thank you, thank you for your testimony. Next. Mr. Perez. Welcome, sir.

Hello everyone. Good morning.

Good morning. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Hello. My name is Jose Perez. I am the Student Trustee of the Southwestern Community College District. I'm here to express the utmost importance of AB 91, for the future of low-income and binational students. I come here from a district, where it is very close to the border, with one of our campuses being a mere 2 miles away from the San Ysidro Port of Entry. Our proximity to Mexico means that many students in our region face unique challenges in pursuing their educational goals. AB 91 represents an incredible opportunity for students to overcome the struggles they face.

Over the past month, I've spoken, extensively, of the benefits and -- that the bill would bring, for those who live directly across from the border. Many of our students are burdened by the need to pay for those out-of-state tuition fees, despite just living few miles away from the border. I have personally heard from students in Mexico, including my close friends, who have emphasized the importance of this bill in making their education more accessible.

One such student is Itzel Landeros. She is the former student government president for the Imperial Valley Community College District. Itzel's daily commute between Mexicali and Imperial Valley may be short, but the financial strain of attending college is overwhelming. Through conversations with her and many of her and my friends, we've come to understand the profound impact AB 91 would have on their lives. These stories have shown me how fortunate I am to have the circumstances of where I can attend college over here in the US. And I still see how AB 91 can change the trajectory of many of their lives.

In collaboration with other student leaders, we authorized a resolution for the Student Center for California Community Colleges, SSCCC, earlier this year, advocating for AB 91. The resolution received overwhelming support from many community college districts across the state, including some of your own. The widespread backing demonstrates a recognition of the need of support for AB 91, and how it shows that it can support and uplift low-income and binational students in their pursuit of higher education.

One student -- our students and your students will continue to advocate for AB 91, alongside countless community college districts within California. In conclusion, I implore you to support AB 91 and stand with our region's local, low-income and binational students who dream of a better future.

Thank you very much. Is anybody in the hearing room would like to testify in support of the measure? If so, please do come forward with your name, your organization, your position.

Thank you, Chair and members. Mark McDonald, MGI Advocacy, on behalf of the San Diego and the Los Angeles Community College districts in support of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning. Nune Garipian, on behalf of the Community College League of California in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next.

Good morning. Sierra Cook, with the San Diego Unified School District in support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Moira Topp, on behalf of San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria and the full city council in strong support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning, Chair and members of the Senate Education Committee. Imran Majid, on behalf of the Community Colleges Chancellor's Office in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning. Alejandro Solis, on behalf of Comite Civico Del Valle and as a proxy for Los Amigos de la Comunidad out of Imperial County, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Anna Mathews with the Faculty Association of the California Community Colleges in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Fernanda Cruz and I'm an intern at YEHI, who works with Comite Civico Del Valle, and I support this bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning. My name is Terry Partida. I am also an intern at YEHI that works with Comite Civico Del Valle, and a resident of Imperial County, and I am in support of this bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning. I'm Ariana Rosales and I'm also with the Youth Environmental Health Internship with Comite Civico Del Valle. And I'm in support of the bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

Hi, my name is Jaari Suarez and I'm in the YEHI program, too. I'm a resident from the Imperial County and I'm in support of AB 91.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning, my name is Ivy Uriarte and I'm a YEHI intern, and I am from the Imperial County and I support this bill.

Thank you.

Hello, good morning. My name is Agustin Martinez. I'm an Imperial Valley resident and I am on behalf of Comite Civico Del Valle, and I support this bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

Hello, my name is Gissell Sanchez, I'm part of the YEHI program, an intern, and I'm also a resident in the Imperial County and I support the bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning. My name is Oscar ... with the YEHI Internship and I am in great support of this bill.

Thank you, sir. Next, please.

My name is Jennifer, I am also part of the Youth Environmental Health Internship Program and I am in support of this bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

Hi, my name is Ashley Havens with Comite Civico Del Valle, and I'd like to say that I support AB 91.

Thank you. Anybody here in the hearing who'd like to testify in opposition to AB 91. Seeing none. Let us now go to the teleconference line. Mr. Moderator, I think it's John this morning -- if you could please query the teleconference line for anybody who'd like testify in support of, or in opposition to AB 91.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. To register support of opposition for AB 91, please press one, then zero at this time. Mr. Chair, we do have a couple queuing up. It'll be one moment while I get those line numbers for them.

Very good. Thank you.

Thank you for your patience. We'll now go to line number 51. One moment -- they're still getting with the operator -- there we go. Okay, line number 51, you may begin, go ahead. Line 51, go ahead, please.

If you've queued up to make a comment, your line is open. Go ahead, please. And line 51 has removed themselves from queue. Mr. Chair, there are no additional callers in queue.

All right, thank you. Let's come back to the hearing room and to the dais. Mr. Alvarez, I want to be clear that you're accepting the committee amendments?

All right. Very good. Any other comments from members? Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

That's correct.

I just want to thank the author for this bill. I spent some years working with UC System, and we are helping to support building labor centers in Mexico and other parts of the world. And it's exciting to see that we are also, in our community colleges, extending opportunity to students at the border. And really moved by the testimony of the students, who came out today, to show why it's important to invest in all of our young folk who want an opportunity for education. So I'm in support of the bill and happy to move it when the time is right.

Appreciate that. Assembly Member Alvarez, I too, am happy to support this pilot. I'll note that under the terms of the pilot, it requires, by 2028, a report, to include information on demographics, attendant rate and completion rates. Look forward to receiving that information. I'm happy, again, to support it -- I'm sorry about that. And so with that, we do not yet have a quorum. When we do, we'll take a motion, put it to a vote if you'd like to close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, thank you committee members. Appreciate the opportunity. I also want to thank the youth who are here, also inspired by that, always. And this is centered around our binational youth and our future binational workforce. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote when the time is right.

I appreciate that. And to everybody who made the effort to come today, thank you. It's important to hear from the folks who are most directly affected. With that, we will put it on call. I will take a motion when ready. Thank you for your presentation. Next up -- whom do I have here? I do not see an author. All right, so we are working -- stay tuned -- we're working on our next author.

So I'm going to declare a short recess while we look for some other members. Committee is temporarily recessed.

In session. Senator Hurtado, welcome. I understand you'll be presenting on behalf of Assembly Member Arambula. That is awesome. There is that little thing -- if you want to present on something else, in the interim, glad to hear any and all of your legislative ideas. All right.

Senate Committee on Education is back to order. We are pleased to have Senator Hurtado, here, who is going to be presenting on behalf of Assembly Member Arambula. You'll be presenting AB 915. You may proceed when ready.

Good morning, Chair and members. Thank you for that. I think I still need a little bit of coffee this morning. A little -- need some better orientation here. But, thank you for giving the opportunity to present on AB 915 this morning, on behalf of Assembly Member Arambula. As we know, laced fentanyl and opioid use is a persistent public health crisis in the state, among our youth.

AB 915 is an opportunity to prevent overdoses, to bring hope and to empower others to save a life during a crisis. This bill directs CDPH to establish the Opioid Overdose Prevention Certification and Training Program for public high school students, in grades nine through twelve, on how to identify and respond to an opioid overdose and how to administer Naloxone nasal spray during an emergency. Additionally, this brings comprehensive and stigma reduction materials that are key elements to this life-saving training for California youth.

We have seen the War on Drugs fail to reduce drug use. AB 915 is a better approach to the War on Drugs, that was inherently racist in nature and that stigmatized individuals, especially communities of color. In support of AB 915, today, is our witness, Jim Horton, President of the Zachary Horton Foundation.

Okay. Mr. Horton, welcome. You have two minutes. Please proceed.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. I'm Jim Horton. I'm president of the Zachary Horton Foundation. The mission of our foundation is to end the stigma of addiction. My son and only child, Zach, died of an accidental drug overdose, January 7, 2020. He was only 19 and just graduated high school seven months earlier. He had spent the last nine months of his young life in rehabs and sober living homes, and he was making great progress in his recovery. However, he made a fateful choice to spend the night with an old partying friend of his, on January 6.

Several of Zach's relapses in his recovery journey had been with this young man. That night, Zach tried a mixture of heroin and meth, with his friend, for the first time. During this time, his friend FaceTimed some mutual friends of theirs on the phone, who commented on how distressed Zach seemed and that he may need some help. They told him places he could get Naloxone, but for reasons unknown, because it was late, or he was loaded or unconcerned, my friend opted to leave Zach alone and go to bed. His friend's mother heard Zach's labored breathing, which is often referred to as death rattles and is common in opioid overdoses. My son died that night.

My son didn't have to die. In fact, he had Naloxone in his car, in case of an emergency -- but neither his friend, nor his friend's mother, knew how to recognize the signs, or knew how to administer Naloxone, or how to respond to it. I spoke this last semester to four different fraternities at Fresno State. And during one of those speaking engagements -- after it was over -- a young man came to me and told me how he lost three of his friends, just the previous year, to a fentanyl overdose. And he exclaimed how had they had the training that they had that night, that his friends may still have been alive.

We are directly impacted by these stories. We know of either someone, a loved one, or a friend or a relative who we have lost due to an opioid overdose. The opportunity to have Naloxone in high schools and train young people in this life-saving method is absolutely critical. My son and his story will live on. We must continue to work to address the opioid epidemic and provide the opportunity and empowerment to take action during critical moments like these. Action that will save the lives of young people. We have an opportunity to alter the negative trend of overdoses. We can battle the incredible fentanyl epidemic happening today. We can save lives. Thank you. I'm Zach's dad.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Sorry for your loss. I appreciate your testimony today. Is anybody else here who'd like to testify in support of the measure AB 915. Morning.

Morning. Lucy Salcido Carter with the Alameda County Office of Ed in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Joe Saenz on behalf of the County Health Executives Association of California in support.

Thank you. Anybody else? Is anybody here who'd like testify in opposition to AB 915? Seeing none. Let's go to the teleconference line. Mr. Moderator, if you could please query the line for anybody who'd like testify in support of or in opposition to AB 915?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For support or opposition of AB 915, please press one, then zero at this time. Mr. Chair, we have no callers queuing up this time.

Thank you. Senator Hurtado, thank you for your testimony on behalf of the Assembly Member. Mr. Horton, thank you again. I know this is hard for you to do and I'm grateful for you being here. We do not yet have a quorum. When we do, we'll take a motion and put this to a vote. So thank you very much. Oh, I'm sorry. If you'd like to close no, please do.

Thank you. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote on this measure.

I appreciate that. Thank you. I understand. Okay, next. Assembly Member Dahle. Nice to see you.

I'm sure you'd like to see more than just me up here. Nice of you to say. Welcome.

You'll be presenting AB 1722. Please proceed.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. First, I would like to start by accepting the committee amendments as outlined in the analysis. I would also like to take a moment to thank you, Mr. Chair. For your thoughtful suggestions and your consultants' diligence while working with me, my staff and the stakeholders. The Bill before you today is a result of hard work, many conversations, and reflects extensive amendments taken from the Education Committee Chair, CSEA, CTA, the credentialed school nurses, and the licensed vocational nurses.

AB 1722 would provide the option for local education agencies to hire a licensed vocational nurse under the required supervision of a credentialed school nurse. It is well known there is a statewide shortage of credentialed school nurses in California. The recent pandemic has only highlighted this crisis, bringing the problem to the forefront of my conversations nearly every day.

A school nurse in California is required to be an RN and earn a credential in addition to their nursing degree. The credentialing process, which is similar to what teachers go through, can take up to two years. There are only a few schools available for who provide the credentialing program and cost more than $10,000. These factors, along with many others, contribute to the existing and continued shortages of RNs and credentialed school nurses throughout California. Just one example, a school district I represent has gone without a school nurse for three plus years.

Some schools are forced to hire a two hour health Clerk in place of a more qualified healthcare professional. As a result, the reality for many students means going without a school nurse. This leaves school staff without medical training to apply bandages, dispense medications, manage allergies and asthma, monitor blood glucose levels, and handle medical emergencies.

With students facing unprecedented increases in mental health issues and type one diabetes, we need more healthcare professionals on our campuses for our children, and this Bill helps us get there. Today, with me to offer supporting testimony is Scott Lay, superintendent for Nevada County.

Mr. Lay, welcome. Please proceed when ready.

Good morning Chair and Members. As assemblywoman Dahle said, my name is Scott Lay. I'm the Nevada County Superintendent of Schools, and she did a great job laying out the big picture. So I wanted to give you a more detailed look at what happens in a rural county right now with our shortage of RNs.

This is an absolutely critical Bill to make sure we can hire properly medically trained nurses for our students. With the COVID-19 pandemic, we lost a great number of nurses in a field that was already very thin. After we came out, there was nobody out there who wanted to work in schools. They were burnt out. They'd been beat up because we were the last big institution to require masking, and that was tough. And they got the brunt of a lot of nasty phone calls.

When Nevada County schools started this 22-23 school year, four of nine school districts and three of our five independent charters were without a nurse. This was not due to lack of effort. My office helped these local education agencies search for nurses. We could not find any RNs. We even worked with non public agencies to try to bring in nurses, and there weren't any out there. By the year's end, we had three school entities still without RNs.

Medical issues were being handled by health aides and other staff, such as secretaries, custodians, whoever was there, the teachers. Not an ideal situation for our students. In my neighboring county to the north, as you heard, Sierra County, they've been out without a nurse for three years. They're entering year four. I just reached out to their county superintendent last night. There is nobody on the horizon.

Rural counties have it very difficult. We have a very small pool to pull from. What we learned over the last two years, however, is there are a lot of LVNs that are in our small communities and they want to work. However, under current statute, they can't. AB 1722 will allow us to bring qualified nurses into our schools under the supervision of an RN, and gives us a five year window or five year break, if you have that, while we get more nurses into the fields.

It would allow my office, which actually took my office eight months, to find a registered nurse, to take our position up. It would allow us to oversee the smaller school districts and charter schools, their RNS. It would even allow us to do an inner county memorandum of understanding with my neighbor Sierra County, so they could hire an LVN, and minors could oversee that position. We know that students are in greater need after the pandemic, and LVNs can provide that assistance as we wait for more RNS to enter the field, t

There's increased mental health issues, and so this is absolutely critical. I respectfully urge you for a yes on this Bill when you get a forum and help make rural county schools safer for our students. It costs nothing for our schools, which is rare for a Bill, but it can reap huge benefits for the students. Thank you very much.

And thank you, Superintendent. Is there anybody else who'd like to testify in support of the measure?

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Chris Reef on behalf of California School Boards Association, in support.

Thank you, sir. Next, please.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Member. Leangela Reed on behalf of the Small School Districts Association, who's in strong support of the measure, and also on behalf of the California School Nurse Organization. The school nurses had some concerns about school safety, worked very hard with the Member staff and with committee staff, and they've addressed all of our concerns, and we feel that appropriate measures have been put in place. Thank you.

Appreciate that. Is there anybody else that'd like testify in support of the measure? Seeing none. Is anybody here like testify in opposition to the measure? AB 1722. Welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Toni Trigueiro on behalf of the California Teachers Association. First, I'd like to say that the employment of Credentialed healthcare providers in schools is a priority of CTA because of the specialized training they receive to work with students at all levels of healthcare.

Additionally, as my opposed letter mentions, our Members have expressed concerns that the current version of 1722 will have a chilling effect or circumvent the progress that's being made by local bargaining units who have successfully bargained for increased salaries and positions, not just for credentialed school nurses, but other individuals holding pupil personnel services credentials. We are very appreciative of the efforts of Assembly Member Dahle and her staff who have engaged in working with us through our different perspectives. And I want to express publicly our thanks to the committee consultant who helped us identify some significant improvements to the Bill.

To that end, I will be recommending that CTA to my Members, CTA Members, that we will remove our opposition to AB 1722, which we hope to have accomplished by the time it reaches Senate Appropriations Committee presuming it passes today and the Bill as amended is in print. Thank you.

Thank you. And that is encouraging. Is anybody else like testify in opposition to the measure? Seeing none.

Let's go to the teleconference line. Mr. Moderator, if you could please prompt the teleconference line for anybody like testify in support of or in opposition to AB 1722?

Certainly, Mr. Chair. Please press one, then zero at this time. To comment on AB 1722. We do have a couple in queue. We're going to go to first to line number 50. Line 50, 5-0. Go ahead, please.

Good morning. This is Serette Kaminski with the Association of California School Administrators in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next please.

Next is line 59. Go ahead.

Leilani Aguinaldo on behalf of Fresno Unified School District in support.

Thank you. Next please.

And Mr. Chair, we have no additional callings with you.

Very good. Let's come back to the committee. Senator Cho bog. Welcome.

Welcome Senator or Senator, well hope to be future Senator. Future Senator Dahle, thank you so much for bringing this measure forward. I'm grateful to see that the collaboration in order to address the concerns and you're absolutely right. I'm a sister of a nurse practitioner and I know the challenges that the field has had these past couple of years, especially because of the pandemic. And so to have something that would mitigate the shortages that we see in healthcare throughout the state of California, more specifically in the rural areas, is actually commendable. Thank you for being proactive on this measure. And I'm happy to move the measure when the time is appropriate.

I appreciate that. For my part, Assembly Member Dahle, thank you for being so amenable and to your staff as well. I know you work very hard through successive policy committees do this. And thank you to Mr. Johnson on our committee for your good work and getting to where we are. I'm pleased to hear that CTA, they have to go through their internal processes, but we've reached a point where the Bill looks like it satisfies their concerns. I don't see any issues with support. I'm happy to support it when we have a quorum, if you'd like to close.

Thank you so much for all the hard work and the stakeholders. It's been a long process, and yes, we will continue to work with any opposition, and we've taken amendments along the way, and we're happy to continue to do this. It's really about the health of our students, making sure that I have a godson that has type one. It's important. So thank you. I respectfully ask for an eye.

Thank you. And we'll have a motion from Senator Ochoa Bogh when we have a quorum and we'll put it to a vote. So thanks very much.

Assemblymember Addis, nice to see you. You will be presenting AB 1123 and you may proceed.

Great. Good morning. Thank you Chair and committee Members, today I'm here to ask for your aye vote on Assembly Bill 1123 that requires the California State University system to grant an employee a leave of absence with pay for one semester of an academic year following the birth of a child, or the adoption or foster care of the child by the employee.

As we all know, it takes the human body about 40 weeks to birth a full term baby. And research shows that paid parental leave policies significantly improve maternal, physical and mental health by allowing parents time to recover from childbirth and adjust to new caregiving responsibilities. About half of childbearing parents report experiencing pain within the first two months following childbirth, and many experience more serious and potentially life threatening postpartum complications.

So paid parental leave, which enables workers to take time away from work to recover from childbirth and care for a new baby, is associated with decreased low birth weight births and infant mortality, and increased breastfeeding and improved maternal mental health. According to the National Partnership for Women and Families, providing twelve weeks of paid parental leave on a national scale would lead to 600 fewer infant deaths per year. And paid parental leave benefits employers by improving retention, productivity, and labor force participation.

We all know that trying to find the right moment to start a family is an unnecessary but very common struggle, especially for Californians, one of the most expensive places to live and work in our nation. It's especially challenging for faculty and staff at our institutions of higher education. The CSU's parental leave policy of 30 working days needs to be updated to reflect the nation's realities facing the system's. 29,000 coach, counseling, librarian and instructional faculty who are starting or expanding their families.

And so AB 23 would create fair working conditions for employees who are parents, rather than penalizing them for their decisions to start a family. And we do have witnesses here to testify and support Priscilla Quiroz and Dr. Stephen Filling, professor of Stanislaus State University. And then we have other witnesses who can answer technical questions.

Thank you, Ms. Quiroz. Welcome.

Hi. Good morning, chair Members. Priscilla Quiroz here on behalf of the California Faculty Association, proud sponsors of this important legislation. My testimony today I'll be reading from was written by Dr. Marguerite Britta Aviar. We've heard from many of our faculty Members the frustration they've experienced and would like to take a moment to share some of the narratives on their behalf as to why we're in strong support of this measure. From Dr. Anne Luna from Sacramento State.

When I decided to have my baby, I had been stressing out about it since I found out about our lead policy. I was basically trying to take my delivery to maximize my time off to spend time with my baby. I had undergone acupuncture fertility treatment for half of a year and experienced a miscarriage in the middle of the semester. I didn't take any time off afterward. At the point my doctor suggested I might need to take medical leave or even look for a new job if I wanted to have a baby. I continued with the treatment, and five months later, after the COVID lockdown, I was able to sustain a pregnancy. I'm sure this is partly because I didn't have to deal with a long commute anymore. I was still very stressed because there was no way I could take the semester off without going without pay.

Also from Dr. Franci Mercer from Cal Poly Pomona. I'm committed to our students and this mission. However, in my late thirties I want children. And I've learned in the past few years how inadequate CSU's parental leave policy is. Particularly for women in my age, 30 days is simply not enough to recover from delivery, or alternatively, not enough time to establish attachment parenting with an adopted child. To take longer leave, our current policy requires us to be unpaid. I'm at a loss for how to plan for my family while staying competitive in my career and affording the outrageous mortgage fees that my partner and I pay on a small house that we bought in California. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote today in this important piece of legislation. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Filling. Dr. Filling, welcome.

Thank you. Good morning. Stephen Filling, a professor of accounting at Stanislaw State. I'm also a Member of California Faculty Association's bargaining team. Currently, faculty in the CSU system can be granted 30 days of paid leave to welcome a new child into their home. Based on widespread demands from faculty, during the last round of contract negotiations in 21 and 22, CFA proposed a full semester of paid leave for new parents. This is beneficial for the faculty Member and their new child. It would provide an uninterrupted teaching schedule for students, and managers would not have to seek out and hire substitutes mid semester.

In negotiations, very CFA proposal on this issue was met with a firm and categorical rejection from CSU management. They would not accept the initial 16 week proposal, 80 days. Nor would they accept 60 days, 50 days, 40 days, or even 35 days. All of these proposals were summarily rejected by management. We were left with the status quo of 30 days. To close out negotiations, CFA proposed a working group on the topic of parental support to provide a non-binding set of recommendations to the chancellor.

The working group met periodically from June '22 through May '23, for a total of 23 hours of negotiations. CFA again proposed a full semester of leave. It was again rejected. CSU managers could not offer a rationale for this rejection, indeed could not even provide a full accounting of how, when, and which faculty Members take parental leave. The parties then discussed other aspects of parental support, including childcare availability of lactation rooms, changing tables and restrooms, and support for LGBTQ plus families. After the final meeting in February of 23, the parties exchanged emails regarding edits to the draft recommendation document.

Throughout this process, CSU management was unwilling to agree to any recommendations other than essentially, websites should be updated, and better pathways to information flow should be explored. When forced with a back and forth editing process that excluded virtually all of CFA's recommendations, arguments, and analyses, CFA Members finally gave up hope on a consensus document. The need for this legislation is clear. It is of benefit to faculty, to our students, and to managers. And yet, CSU negotiators are unwilling to bargain in good faith. Further, the cost can easily be absorbed by the CSU's $12 billion budget.

We ask your support of this Bill and respectfully seek your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Is anybody else in the hearing like to testify on behalf of the measure AB 1123?

Good morning. Alissa Yum. On behalf of the California State University Employees Union in strong support.

Thank you.

Tiffany Mok on behalf of CFT in support thank you.

Seeing no more witnesses in support, is anybody here in the hearing, like, testify in opposition to the measure? Seeing none. Let's go to the teleconference line. Mr. Moderator, if you could please query the line for anybody like testify in support over an opposition to AB 1123?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. To testify in support of opposition, please press one, then zero. At this time. Mr. Chair. We have no callers queuing up.

All right, let's come back to the dais. Senator Glazer. Welcome.

We're on AB 1123 agenda. Item number 13, for my part, giving Senator Glazer a moment, please. Go ahead. Just giving you time to get set.

Thank you. And I've had a chance. I missed the testimony, which I apologize for. I'm double booked in another committee meeting exactly at this time. But this Bill is familiar to me. I know it's a Bill that we've heard in the past.

And as those who have followed my comments on the Senate floor in areas like this, I've always been challenged because, of course, the goals of this Bill are worthy, absolutely worthy, arguably needed. But the challenge is always that we elect a board of trustees of the state university to engage in collective bargaining with the represented employees, not just of the CSU, but in so many other places in our state. And certainly I support the collective bargaining process and feel that issues like this are important for the have the conversations across the table respectfully to try to work out issues of benefits, including salary, that the union has raised this issue.

I know, as I understand it from the analysis in those conversations, that there's agreements on what the pay is going to be, what the benefits are going. To And at this point in time, they haven't gone as far as this Bill would require. And so, from my point of view at least, it's the showing respect for the collective bargaining process that makes me not willing to just have a fiat from the Legislature in this place and in other places, not just particular to this Bill, but I respect the author and the goals that she has for the workforce and why this would be a positive thing. And that's why for me, it's not something that I can support.

Mr. Ha, I guess I'll ask you to respond. We heard from Dr. Filling, but if you wouldn't mind.

Yeah, I appreciate the comments, Senator. This is not a collective bargaining issue. We tried over the past decades, possibly more. The CSU just refuses to bargain this issue with us. And this is a very important issue to our unions. Members really want this policy. This is why we continue to introduce this Bill.

I appreciate that. So for my part, I generally agree with Senator Glazer about the broader issue, about ensuring that where collective bargaining is an appropriate and reasonable path, that we should use that path. To his points, I think to your point, especially given sort of the lack of progress here, I think this, to my mind, exceeds a threshold. And this is a fairly fundamental issue as far as I'm concerned, and I'd say as far as this Legislature is generally concerned, this is a matter of sort of equity and sort of essential rights and sort of our obligations to public workers. And so with that mind, I'm glad to support the Bill today. We don't have a quorum, as noted.

As Senator Glazer noted. Unfortunately, I think there's three committees being heard simultaneously, and at least two were on labor from this committee. I think Senator McGuire so unfortunate, right? Especially as it relates to process. But when we do have a quorum, we will take a motion. I will be supportive. Assembly Member Addis, if you'd like to close.

Well, I want to thank you for your comments and for your time on this issue. I might just add that if an MoU comes to pass, then that MoU could move forward within the collective bargaining process. What I've heard is that it's been incredibly unsuccessful up to this time. I appreciate the chair's comments. The quicker we act, the more quickly we're going to support birthing people, primarily BIPOC LGBT birthing people, primarily women, but also California's family, California's future children. And so as a society as a whole, we'll be in a better place and not continue to cause people the pain of waiting for this to be resolved. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

And thank you. And thank you for your presentation. Again, when we have a quorum, we'll take a motion and put this to a vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

And let's see, I see we have at least one more author here. We have two.

And we have looking at the file order and number 14, Assembly Member Rivas. You win. You are ready to present AB 1178. Welcome again. As you know, we do not yet have a quorum. Please proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and good morning, Members. I would like to start by thanking your committee for the thoughtful analysis on this Bill. AB 1178 seeks to combat household hunger by providing parents or caregivers access to the summer meal program. In my community, I have personally seen the need for summer meals for caregivers. Oftentimes at libraries in the summer, they're giving away meals for children. We see the caregivers parents just standing there, watching their child eat, not being able to sit down and have a meal with their child.

And as many of you know, the summer is a huge time of need for Low income families. And that's why I decided to introduce this Bill and work with our sponsors. According to studies from the Institute for Policy and Research, one in four households with children in California are food insecure.

During the summer months, these students become increasingly vulnerable to hunger because free breakfast and lunch meals are not provided to students. Parents, and caregivers from food insecure households who depend on free school meals for their children become hard pressed to financially compensate for the lack of meals when their children are home. However, the USDA supplements meals for children through their summer food Service program. This is a voluntary program for schools, libraries, community based organizations, faith based institutions, and government agencies to host and provide free meals to children ages 18 and under. The program currently does not allow for parents or caregivers to receive a meal. And this is what this Bill would do.

It would allow a parent or a caregiver to also receive a free summer meal. Today, I have with me to provide testimony. Itzúl Gutierrez, senior policy advocate with the California Association of Food Banks.

Ms. Gutierrez. Welcome. You have two minutes. Please proceed.

Thank you. Good morning, chair and committee Members. My name is Itzúl Gutierrez, senior policy advocate at the California Association of Food Banks. At the association, we have a network of 41 food banks leading the. Collective effort to end hunger in California. Current data shows that nearly 25.8% of households with children in California are food insecure, with deep disparities for Latinx and Black households.

California became the first state to implement a statewide universal meals program for children. Now we look to addressing hunger during the summer months, which not only affect children, but the whole family.

The summer meal program fills that gap so children can have meals while school is out. Prior to joining the California Association of Food Banks, I worked at the Redwood Empire Food Bank, overseeing this meal program at 40 sites across Sonoma County. One of the hardest parts of the program was serving meals to children, knowing that parents were hungry themselves too. One summer, we were fortunate to receive a grant funding to pilot providing caregiver meals. As you can imagine, we had great success. I wanted to share a story from a teen at the community garden park site where the lead volunteer had asked all the children to come and eat since it was lunchtime.

Daniel, who was the young teen was working in the community garden, said I will come and eat when my dad can eat as well. Daniel did not think it was fair that he could eat, but his father could not. Later that week, when the pilot kicked off, daniel and his father were able to eat together thanks to the pilot. Another story is about Marina Gonzalez Abuelita del Jardin, who is the grandmother of the community garden.

All the kids call her Abuelita or Grandmother. The kids who walk alone from their house because their parents are at work during lunchtime, like to talk to Abuelita if they need help with anything. That summer, for the first time, Marina was able to eat lunch with all her grandchildren thanks to the pilot. Unfortunately, the successful pilot came to an end and demonstrated there is a need to serve meals to caregivers.

AB 1178 ensures that caregivers can sit down and have a meal with their children during the summer meal program at one of the most hungriest times of the year. The benefits of caregivers and children eating meals together is well documented. It encourages healthy food consumption, supports bonding among families over a meal, and studies show that children who eat with their parents and caregivers consume more fruits and vegetables. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you. Is anybody else here who'd like to testify in support of the measure? If so, please come forward.

Tiffany Mok on behalf of CFT in support, thank you so much.

Thank you. Anybody else? Is anybody here who'd like to testify in opposition to the measure? AB 1178 seeing none. Let's go to the teleconference line. Mr. Moderator, if you could query the line for anybody like testify in support over in opposition to AB 1178.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Currently we have one in queue. Ladies and gentlemen, two in queue. To testify, please press one, then zero. We'll go first to line 63. 63, go ahead, please.

Thank you. Good morning. Deb Roth with Disability Rights California in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Next we go to line 59. 59, go ahead.

Leilani Aguinaldo on behalf of Fresno Unified School District in support.

Thank you. Anybody else?

Next is line 42. Line 42, go ahead, please.

Good morning, Chair and Members. This is Rita de La Fuente with the Jacobs and Cushman San Diego Food Bank calling in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Currently two left. We'll go to line 66. Line 66, go ahead.

Good morning, this is Claudia with the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank calling in strong support of AB 1178. Thank you.

Thank you.

And line 65. Go ahead.

Hello, my name is Mauricio Medina. I'm calling on behalf of the San Diego Hunger Coalition and I'm calling in strong support of AB 1178. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, no additional callers in queue.

Thank you. Coming back to the dais, I get a thumbs up from my colleague, Assembly Member Rivas. Would you like to close?

Thank you. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And thank you. We will do that when appropriate. When we have a quorum, we'll take a motion and put it to a vote. Thank you for your presentation.

And next we have Assembly Member Bryan. Good morning, sir. You'll be presenting AB 1400. You may proceed when ready. As you are aware, we do not have a quorum. Okay.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and colleagues. Today I rise to present AB 1400. First, I want to thank the committee and the chair for their diligent work in refining and clarifying the language of this Bill. To better serve our community college students. I will be accepting the first two amendments listed on page six and seven of the committee analysis. AB 1400 supports the California Community College to HBCU California Pipeline by better utilizing funds generated by the college access tax credit.

Essentially, we had a pot of money that used to be five or so million dollars. And due to federal tax cuts, it's been reduced to $500,000. Spread over the amount of students who are eligible for it, it results in $1.50 per year. In fact, it costs more money to administer this than the students actually get. And for those who receive their dollar 50, it is almost meaningless towards the cost of their education. So, working with the Student Aid Commission and others, we sought to find a better way to utilize these existing funds to maximize their efficacy and their benefit to students.

And we started by looking at students who needed the most help. In supporting our transfer capacity from the community colleges to the HBCUs, we will be lifting up some of our most marginalized students in a way that benefits California as a whole. The idea of supporting transfer students to the HBCUs comes in a similar fashion as the Chafee Grants, which we currently support for our former foster youth wherever they may choose to participate in their higher education learning.

Although it is a significantly smaller investment from the state than the Chafee Grants, the state puts in about 12 million a year into that pot of money. We only put 500,000 into this pot that we're proposing. Some of our most notable alumni in California have participated in the California to HBCU back to California pipeline, most notably our Vice President of the United States, Kamala Harris, but also even our colleagues, such as Dr. Aquila. Weber over in the State Assembly. This Bill has received bipartisan support up until this point, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do you have any witnesses in support?

I do. With me today. In support. I have Alex Zucco, state and federal policy manager for the California Student Aid Commission, and Dr. Dr. Arynn Auzout Settle, a project Director for the California Community College's HBCU Transfer program.

Good morning and welcome.

Good morning. My name is Alex Zucco from the Student Aid Commission. When the College Access Tax Credit was established through SB 174 in 2014, the Commission administered close to $5 million, as Mr. Bryan mentioned. The implementation of the Trump tax cuts in 2019 took that to 400,000, which was an award of a dollar 50. Last year.

When Assembly Member Bonta authored 28 80 to extend the tax credit for another five years, we began to look for greater impact this award could have since it was such a very finite fund of money. Dr. Settle will give more details on the community college pathways, but under 1400, students would apply for this one time grant of up to $5,000 to be dispersed through the Financial Aid Office upon enrollment, that includes an Attestation that they will return to California.

This would be similar to Chafee students, as well as AB 540 students that sign an Attestation that they do plan to seek a path of citizenship. California is home to zero HBCUs. There is no equivalent to an HBCU in California. With AB 1400, California has the opportunity to make a real impact on supporting students to attend an HBCU by refocusing this finite amount of money. On behalf of the Student Aid Commission, we thank Senator Bryan and I'm here to answer any technical questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning. I'm Dr. Dr. Arynn Auzout Settle, project Director for the California Community Colleges Transfer guarantee agreement to HBCUs. The HBCU Transfer Guarantee Agreement offers any California community college student guaranteed admission to any of our 37 partner HBCUs.

Our dedicated team provides support for students from interest, to application, to, and through, graduation from their HBCU, as well as informing counselors and colleagues throughout the state about the HBCU Transfer Guarantee Agreement as they work with students. The first HBCUs were established in the 18 hundreds prior to the Civil War. After which over 85 HBCUs were established along the East Coast and in the south.

Many of these institutions were created by abolitionists, church organizations, or as a result of the Morale Act of 1890. To date, there are 107 HBCUs which include community colleges, four year universities, and professional schools, but most of which are four year institutions. California Community College transfer students often transfer to an HBCU to experience unique and culturally rich academic environments.

A campus where they see themselves reflected both inside and outside of the classroom. Institutions where they are seen valued and success is the expectation, not the exception. Students report that these campuses feel like family regardless of their ethnic background. The College Access Tax Fund grant is important to our California Community college transfer students because funding is often the most challenging obstacle that can prevent a student from attending an HBCU and also completing their bachelor's degree. Over 80% of HBCU students served are Pell eligible. It directly impacts the current and future students we serve.

These funds have the potential to close the gap for students to complete their degree. Thank you.

Thank you. Is anybody else in the hearing like testify in support of the measure AB 1400? Mr. Rapp.

Good morning Mr. Chair, Members, staff. Ron Rapp on Behalf Of The California Faculty Association. In support.

Thank you.

Good morning, all. Valerie Johnson with the Campaign for College opportunity in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and Members, Melissa Bardo with the Education Trust West in support.

Good morning. Nune Garipian with the Community College of League of California in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and Members. Imran Majid, on behalf of the California Community College Chancellor's Office, in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning, Genesis Gonzalez on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is anybody here like testify in opposition to the measure? Seeing none. Let's go to the teleconference line. Mr. Moderator, if you could query the line for anybody like testify in support over an opposition AB 1400.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For those on the phone to testify, support or opposition, press one, then zero. We currently have one in queue. We are going to line number 70. Line 70, go ahead, please.

Thank you, chair and Members. Ashley Walker with Nossaman on behalf of North Orange County Community College District in support.

Thank you. Anybody else, Mr. Moderator?

We have one more queuing up. It should be just one moment.

You in line 52. Go ahead, please.

Good morning, this is Anna College Access and Success calling in support of.

Currently no additional callers in queue.

Very good. Let's come back to the hearing room. You're good. So I will say so. Assembly Member Brian, thank you for your diligent work on this. Thank you for all the conversation you've had with committee understanding you're taking the first two amendments.

And I want to give you credit. Last night, you and I had a conversation and I expressed my concerns about as a policy matter as distinct from the goals, about the question of not only precedent, but our obligation as a committee to steward California tax. Dollars against this question about what do we do in the event that a student receives a grant and in the end, despite their attestation, doesn't come back to California? So the idea was that they should be subject to repayment.

I will give you credit for masterfully countering my objection. And I think your suggestion, which I have to give voice to now, makes sense to me, right, that there is benefit to the kind of inspirational or motivational component of showing to other students in community colleges that there's a path. I give you credit for. Change my mind with that. Im happy to support the Bill. I understand you're accepting the other amendments. Would you like to close?

I just want to thank you, chair, for making time for the conversation to the committee staff and again, respectfully ask for your Aye vote .

Thank you again, we don't have a quorum. When we do, we'll take a motion, we'll put it to a vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And I see assemblymember Gibson. Right on time. Welcome. Good to see you. And as you're aware, we do not currently have a quorum. You will be presenting AB 1695.

I'm happy to just ran over here from the insurance committee to run back. But thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to the privilege of presenting Assembly Bill 1695, which seeks to create a nursing pathway pilot. Program that allows high school students, high school students to have a hand on the educational experience and give them the direct pipeline getting their associate degree in nursing.

Before I continue, I would like to thank the committee staff for working diligently with my team on making and strengthening this Bill and making it better. I will be accepting the amendments that's before us today in part what this Bill does. I think everyone in this room will agree that we have a nursing shortage in the state of California.

Not only do we have a nursing shortage in the state of California, what we found during this pandemic that nurses became burnt out. They left, they quit, they were traumatized as a result of this pandemic, which left a gaping hole in the nursing field. Not to mention community colleges and others have waiting lists, at least in my district.

Sometimes two to three years. This Bill seeks to create an incubator a new generation of nursing in this industry to start from 9th grade to twelveTH grade, the opportunity of laying a foundation to create a new generation of nurses. And I'm happy to say that this will help one make sure that California focus on those who live here in California, instead of bringing out of state nurses and nurses from other countries to doing this kind of work, we should take care of our own.

And again, not only is this nursing shortage taking place in California, but all across the United States of America. And so this is a thoughtful way to create again a generation of nurses. With me to support this Bill 1695, I have Elizabeth Hawkins with the registered nurses UNAC, who will be here to testify, as well as the secretary.

I think Janice is here as well representing ask me who will also be testifying. I think I have two Members who will be testifying in support of 1695.

Very good. I just saw Ms.. O'Malley, so Ms.. Hawkins, welcome.

I rushed, I didn't get a chance to greet them. Good morning.

They know your heart's in the right place.

Good morning. Good morning. On behalf of the United Nurses Association of California Union of Healthcare Professionals, I want to thank Chairman Newman and the committee for your consideration of AB 1695.

I also want to thank Assemblyman Gibson for his strong support of the nursing profession and his commitment to students. My name is Elizabeth Hawkins and I've been a registered nurse for over 35 years. I knew in high school that I wanted to be a registered nurse. While in my junior senior year, I took a certified nurse class, did my clinicals in an acute care hospital. I also took CPR, first aid and some college preparatory classes. Many were transferable for my college degree.

If AB 1695 existed back then, I could have benefited from this Bill and its potential outcome. Having a more direct pipeline into the nursing program, graduating and entering the workforce sooner, this Bill would have saved time, money and frustration of waiting lists and taking unnecessary classes in order not to lose my priority registration, which was important so that classes were not full when I went to register for them. After completing my prerequisites for the AGM program, it took me almost a year and a half to be accepted into the program.

A two year degree taking four to five years, and now that wait time is even longer, and the nursing shortage is much worse than it was back then. Today, nursing applicants are on a waitlist from two to five years to get into a program, and that's after taking their prerequisites. Even then, some schools have gone to a lotto program, and those students are passed up year after year, forcing them to leave the communities that they grew up in and or our state, pursuing their nursing career or sometimes changing their career path entirely.

Once this happens, they often take jobs in the hospitals where they did their clinical rotations, leaving the communities, some of their underserved and possibly a state that needs them. I know this because after years in nursing, I have precepted and mentored many of these students and I hear about their frustrations. AB 1695 works to address the barrier into the nursing school by creating a nursing 101 in high school that will count as credit towards their nursing program at the community college level and provide automatic placement into the program, thus avoiding a two to five year waiting period and hundreds of thousands of dollars spent taking unnecessary classes.

With our current nursing shortage only projected to get worse, we need to elevate and recognize the early commitment of high school students into the nursing profession and AB 1695 will provide that opportunity. Thank you for your consideration and I respectfully ask you for your support.

Thank you for your testimony. Good morning, Ms.. O'Malley.

Good morning. Good morning chair Members Janice O'Malley with the American Federation of State and County Municipal Employees. I just also want to thank the author for his support of the nursing profession and addressing this really major crisis in the industry. Pipeline programs into nursing are critical. Like I said, we are facing a crisis in hospitals and other healthcare areas. Oftentimes the path to becoming a nurse can be lengthy and AB 1695 seeks to create an easier connection into nursing from high school to community college, provided all necessary requirements are met.

The Bill will also create more opportunities in Low income and rural areas where nursing shortages exist. Thank you for your consideration of AB 1695 and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Is anybody else in the hearing would like testify on behalf of AB 1695? Welcome.

Thank you. Good morning Mr. Chair and senators. Pamela Gibbs representing the Los Angeles County office of education, proudly supporting this Bill and thanking the Assembly Member for introducing it.

Thank you Ms.. Gibbs. Next please.

Good morning Mr. Chair and Members Leangela Reid on behalf of the California School Nurses organization and in support. Thank you.

Thank you Ms.. Reed. Anybody else has anybody here like testify in opposition to AB 60 95 seeing none. Let us go to the teleconference line. Ms. moderator, if you could please query the line for anybody to like testify in support of or in opposition to AB 1695.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. Please press one then zero at this time to testify in support of opposition. One then zero. We do have one queuing up Mr. Chair. It'll be just a moment.

Thank you.

We only have the one in queue. It's going to be just one moment here. Line 72.

Your line is now open. Go ahead please.

Good morning. Thank you chair and Members Peggy Bruceard Wheeler with the California Hospital Association in support of AB 1695. Thank you

and thank you,

Mr. Chair. We have no additional callers in queue.

Very good. Come back to the committee hearing room. Senator Glaser.

Thank you. Chair Newman, Assembly Member. I want to just thank you for your thoughtfulness in bringing this Bill to us. You're absolutely right in identifying the problem as your witnesses have in their testimony today.

And I think the only thing I would add on to it is that we have impaction throughout the whole supply chain, if you will. The amount of seats available at our community colleges, the amount of seats that are available at our four year institutions are limited. The number of clinical placement opportunities are very limited. Some of the testimony was about nurse students that need to have that clinical experience and have to go out of state for it. That's very unfortunate. And so I think your Bill is a very positive step forward.

But we know we have a lot more to do in this space or else really, we're not going to see the results that we like to see. But with that, I'd be happy to move the Bill at the appropriate time.

I appreciate that. I'll say to my part, I totally agree with all of Senator Glazer comments. This is but one of probably many necessary steps that need to be taken to solve this critical shortage, but is a worthy one. Would you like to close?

Yes, thank you very much. I want to thank the Senator for his kind remarks and to my sponsors for taking time out of their busy schedule and being with us today. And speaking in support of 1695. I want to also underscore that this Bill has received bipartisan support. So we're grateful for that. Doing the right thing. My sister is a 37 year nurse. She worked only two jobs. First job was McDonald's.

Her second job was going to the nursing field. And she's been in that nursing field for over 37 years. This was certainly her calling in this space. And she coming home with her white outfit and her little that's when they used to wear those little hats back then, they don't wear them anymore. But that was the example of our community, was creating those nurses and those opportunities. Those opportunities are dwindling.

And so we have to look at a thoughtful way to introduce a new generation of enthusiasm as well as those who really have a heart and a passion to go into that. And what better way that we start from the 9th to the 12th grade creating that kind of enthusiasm? Ms.. Hawkins talked about her time at community college and matriculation to the nursing field. I've spoken to her. She loves this particular profession. This is a game changer.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote and thank you for your time.

And thank you. And I want to thank you for single handedly lifting the energy in this room through your so when we have a quorum. We'll have a motion from Senator Glazer.

We'll put it to a vote. Thanks very much.

All right. We have two authors remaining, but we unfortunately have neither of those authors here at the moment. We are going to take a short recess while we wait for one or both of them.

Thank you very much.

You. Welcome. And it's so good to see you. We were starting to worry. You are here to present two measures, the first of which is number agenda item number 8, AB 603, you may proceed when ready.

Mr. Chair, am I able we have a student here who needs to leave and needs to testify on AB 888. Is it possible?

Wonderful.

Let's do them both at once.

I'm just kidding. That's fine. That's like a mashup.

Yeah, let's go with

888 That's fine.

I really appreciate it. Thank you.

Again. this is Assembly Bill 888. Currently, individuals seeking asylum must undergo an extensive process before attaining asylum in the United States. This process is neither easy nor quick.

In fact, in California, the average estimated wait time from the start of a court filing until an asylum hearing is scheduled in federal immigration court is approximately 41/2 years. Among these asylum applicants are prospective and current college students wishing to attend a higher institution here in California, but who are unable to do so because of the significant costs.

Under current law, Cal Grant aid is available to all students, including non citizens who have attended California's educational institutions for at least three years through the California Dream Act. Because of their unique immigration status, students who are pending asylees are not eligible for Cal Grant or any other form of state financial aid if they have been in California for less than 3 years. This Bill will extend the eligibility for the Cal Grant program to non citizens who have filed the specific applications for asylum.

With me to testify in support of the Bill is Alec Tong, the Vice President of University affairs for the Associated Students Inc. At California State University, Sacramento and Aditi Hariharan, a third year student and Organizing Director at Associated Students at UC Davis.

Okay, the witnesses, please. I think first we have Mr. Tong. Welcome.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Alec Tong. I'm a student as well as the Vice President of University Affairs from Associate Students Incorporated from Sacramento State University.

I'm here today as a student to speak on behalf of CSU students in support of AB 888, which would pave the pathway for asylum seekers to access the Cal Grant. My colleague Aditi will share in her testimony the importance of this Bill from an equity perspective. While I'd like to draw your attention to this Bill from an economic perspective and its critical importance, California is estimated to be in a shortage of 1.1 million college educated degree holders in its workforce by 2030.

This is while the Governor's Higher Education Compact of 2022 specifically outlines one of the goals of our system's higher education to be improving graduation rates and eliminating gaps in graduation rates between different student populations. AB 888 paves the path for asylum seekers and often forgotten student population to be able to access state financial aid graduate at a much faster rate and move on to be invaluable assets to California's workforce. With many especially joining high need career degrees in healthcare and the STEM field, passing AB 888 is not only the right thing to do, but also a strategic choice for us, one that will guarantee a more successful and prosperous future for our state and our communities.

With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote on AB. 888.

Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. Ms. Hariharan. Welcome.

Good morning. Well, mid morning.

It's morning. You're good.

I'm Aditi and I'm a student at UC Davis and the organizing Director at ASUCD. And I'm here to speak on behalf of UC students in support of AB 888, which expands access to the Cal Grant for asylum seekers. We support this Bill because every student deserves the opportunity to get an education.

And this Bill provides a pathway to affording college for dozens of asylum seeking students across California, including Caroline, who shared her powerful story in the first hearing of this Bill during the Assembly. Asylum seekers currently have to wait around 4.5 years for their case to even just be heard. And they don't have access to any sort of financial aid in this interim period, whether it's state or financial aid from the federal level.

And they also don't have access to grants or loans. As a result, many are forced to navigate they're forced to navigate issues with access to basic needs and delay their education. And many even have to give up on their dreams of attaining a degree.

Today, we have an opportunity to change this reality in a positive way for asylum seekers across the state. So I ask you, Members of the Legislature, to be bold and vote yes on AB 888. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Let's go to the hearing room. Is anybody here, like, testify in support of the measure AB 888, please come forward. Welcome.

Hi. Alia Sky with the UC Student Association, University of California Student Association, which represents over 230,000 UC undergraduates. We're in strong support of AB 888.

Thank you. Anybody else seeing no one else? Is anybody here, like, testifying opposition to the measure? Seeing no one? Let's go to the teleconference line. Mr. Moderator, if there's anybody on the line who testify either in support of an opposition to AB 88080 at 888 agenda agenda item number 9.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We currently have two in queue, ladies and gentlemen, on the phones. If you'd like to testify, please press 1, then 0 at this time. We'll go first to line number 73. Please go ahead.

Hello. Katrina London on behalf of the California Undocumented Higher Education Coalition in strong support of AB. 888. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we'll go to line 69. 6-9, go ahead, please.

Hi, good morning. Carol Gonzalez on behalf of the Hispanas Organized for Political Equality in strong support of AB 888. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, at this time, there are no additional callers in queue.

I appreciate it. Coming back to the dais.

I'll just say that I think it's a good bill and happy to move it when appropriate.

I appreciate it. I, too, think it's a good bill. And I think to the points made by the witnesses, these are exactly the students who find themselves -- seeking asylum -- who are most in need of the assistance when they need it, right? Not when they actually finalize their asylum application. I think it's a good bill. We're getting closer to a quorum. And when we have a quorum, we have a motion from Senator Wilk, but we'll put that to vote when we do. Well presented. And to your next measure, Assembly Member. Oh, I'm so sorry. I guess I will. Would you like to close?

Thank you. Yes. Well, as you just heard from the testimony, we want to continue providing support to our asylum students and providing them with more opportunities to be successful, in having that path to higher education. And respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We'll put that to a vote when we have quorum. You have another measure? AB 603?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. This bill would require the California Community College Board of Governors and the California State University Board of Trustees, and request the University of California Board of Regents, to provide the legislature with an annual report on the diversity of its governing board and how it compares to the diversity of the student bodies that they serve. These governing boards are responsible for appointing college and university chancellors and presidents.

They set policies on academics, admissions, finances, faculty, campus planning, and Title IX implementation. California's public higher education system is the largest among -- and the most diverse -- in the nation. Given demographic change, the majority of California's future college age population will come from demographic groups that have been historically underrepresented in higher education, including Latinos, African Americans, individuals who are from working class families, immigrants, and students who are first in their families to attend college.

When the membership of the governing boards of our public institutions of higher learning are inclusive of women, people of color, and our LGBTQ community, we allow students to see themselves reflected in the leaders of their colleges and universities. More diverse governing boards can also be more likely to promote diversity and inclusive policies at our public institutions of higher learning. I do want to be clear that this bill will not take any concrete steps to change the makeup of the governing boards or impose appointment requirements on the governor.

This bill would simply provide the public and the legislature with more transparency on the diversity of each of its governing boards, at each segment of California's public higher education system, of its student bodies. Respectfully ask for an aye vote on AB 603.

And do you have any witnesses in support today? Okay, is anybody here in the hearing who'd like to testify in support of the measure?

Hi, all. Good morning. Valerie Johnson with the Campaign for College Opportunity in support of the bill.

Thank you. Anybody else? Is anybody here who'd like to testify in opposition to AB 603? Seeing none. Let's go to the teleconference line. Is there anybody on the line who'd like to testify in support or opposition to AB 603?

Thank you. Mr. Chair. To testify, please press one, then zero on your phone's keypad. And at this time, we have no callers queuing up.

Very good. Any comments from my colleagues here? None. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote on this measure.

Thank you. And we will-

-Wilk will move the bill.

-Wilk is a good, good man. He will move the bill when we have a quorum. So thank you. And thank you for your presentations. Ah, a sight for sore eyes. Assembly Member McCarty. Welcome. You will be presenting two bills. They happen to be our last two bills, so don't -- no pressure. I understand you'll be presenting for Assembly Member Ting, doing your own bill. It's your choice.

Yeah, I'll do. Mr. Ting's bill first.

Very good. AB 579. Yes.

So, again, on behalf of Assembly Member Ting presenting this Bill first, he wants to thank the committee for working with him and accepting the committee amendments and this measure, which would require new school bus purchases to be zero admission after 2035 and extend transportation services and leasing contracts for zero emission school buses. This Bill is not a fleet mandate, meaning that schools are not required to replace their entire fleet with zero emission buses by 2035. They retain the right to use their diesel buses throughout the life to address concerns with present day challenges acquiring buses, technology.

This Bill grants schools with additional 5 years to comply with this extension. These recent amendments also give our rural districts an additional extensions on top of that, meaning some school districts would not need to comply with this purchasing target until 2045. This is consistent with our goals here, to have clean buses, driving kids to school, improving our air quality, and battling climate change.

With us today are two individuals with Advanced Energy United and the California PTA.

Let's have the first of those individuals testify. Welcome.

All right. Good morning. Yeah, my name is Derby Pattengill, and I'm a volunteer and vice President for Health and community concerns with the California State PTA.

We have over 550,000 Members statewide for over 125 years. The Parent Teacher Association has been defending the health of children since our earliest years, when we fought for child labor laws and hot school lunches. 50 years ago, our membership formally recognized the danger and air pollution that it posed to our children and directed the PTA to work to limit children's exposure to and mitigate the adverse effects of breathing air that is polluted.

More recently, we have taken positions on climate change as a major threat to the health and well being of our children. Diesel school buses expose our children to toxic air pollutants. The EPA World Resources Institute and the American Academy of Pediatrics know that diesel exhaust from school buses is a carcinogen that is linked to reduced lung development in children respiratory diseases and negative impacts on cognition affecting a student's abilities to succeed in the classroom.

Studies have shown that asthma is the most common childhood health condition, and nearly 1.5 million children in California have asthma, and this condition makes it difficult to exercise, play and attend school. We believe that this is an equity issue, as students from underserved communities often rely more heavily on bus transportation and are more than two times as likely to develop asthma. Currently, only 2% of the entire school bus fleet in California are Zero Emission vehicles, and we believe we must do better than this.

According to the California Air Resources Board, school bus commutes are less than 10% of a child's day, but account for 33% of a child's daily exposure to toxic air pollutants. California state PTA believes that air pollution and climate change is a children's issue and that we need legislation such as AB 579 to improve the health and protect our state's most vulnerable, precious resource our children, our future. Thank

you very much. Next witness. Welcome.

Good morning, chair Members. Priscilla Kudos here on behalf of Advanced Energy United, a national business association of Advanced energy and Transportation Solutions. We are the proud sponsors of AB 579.

This Bill sets a reasonable achievable goal for new school bus purchases to be Zero emission vehicles and enables LEAs to maximize long term savings from these cleaner buses. Accelerating the transition to healthier, safer school transportation will ensure all schools can take advantage of the thousands of dollars in annual savings to reinvest back into the classroom. The California Legislature and state's regulatory agencies have long prioritized the need to transition school buses to zero emissions.

The current multiple year EV budget plan allows CARB and CEC to direct over 3 billion in investments towards Zero Emission School Buses procurement and the infrastructure needed to charge them. Additionally, the EPA's Clean School Bus Program will provide 5 billion over the next five years for Zero Emission school bus purchases nationwide. Federal and state funding are spurring the advancements in electric school bus design, technology and delivery.

Electric school buses have been ordered all over the state and have incremental conditions ranging from deserts from California to snowy winters in Alaska, while electric school buses have been ordered to go as far as two and before needing to recharge. That is well beyond the traditional duty cycle of traditional school buses. Over 90% of school buses routes in the country are around 100 miles a day or less a mileage that is covered by current electric school buses today.

This Bill gives schools more than a decade to undertake the necessary planning to prepare for the 2035 goal and provide small rural districts the additional flexibility in the event the technology is not available to meet their needs when the Bill takes effect. As reflected in the diverse set of support letters filed, this Bill represents a rare opportunity to notch the win for public health, school budgets, clean air, and for our state's climate goals. Finally, California risked failing to protect the health of our most vulnerable residents, our children.

We do not take this shift practical action for future generations. Thank you and I respectfully ask for your vote.

Thank you. Is anybody here in support who'd like to speak on behalf of the measure?

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Member Shane Levine with capital advocacy on behalf of First Student and National Express in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else here like testifying opposition to the measure? Seeing one? Mr. Reefe.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chris Reefe on behalf of California School Boards Association, very much appreciate the leadership of Mr. Ting on these issues. He has been a steadfast leader on trying to help school districts reduce their carbon footprint and to be able to transition to a much more environmentally serene future. However, the technology is not there.

We have many school districts that are still continuing to make the transition from diesel to natural gas right and forward. And so if this is going to happen in roughly ten years time, there are real challenges in terms of charging infrastructure, the battery capacity to be able to complete some of the longer routes, especially in our more rural and mountainous school districts. And so ten years, although seems like a reasonable amount of time, the technology has taken quite time to get to where it is today, and we are concerned it won't be there by 2035.

Even the Governor's Executive order of trying to move all diesel, but all buses to or our large trucks to electric by 2045 is going to be a challenge. And so we have worked and met with the Member and the sponsors, but unfortunately, we just don't believe that the time is right to be able to do this unless the state puts significant amount of funding outside of Prop 98 to be able to help districts achieve the goal. Thank you.

Thank you. Apologies.

And I'm also approved to speak and provide opposition from the association of California School Administrators. Thank you. Thank

you. Duly noted. Next, please.

morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Leangela Reed on behalf of the Small school districts association. In opposition? Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else in opposition? Seeing none. Let's go to the teleconference line, mr. Moderator. Anybody like to speak in support of or in opposition to AB 579?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Currently seven in queue. If you have not yet done and would like to comment, press 10. We'll go first to line number 61. 61, you're open? Go ahead, please.

My name is Eric Yuette, a high school senior at Leland High School, here on behalf of Generation Up and in full support of AB 79 579. Sorry.

Line 76, go ahead.

Hi, this is Shuan Chang, I'm a nurse practitioner representing Climate Health Now in our organization care workers across California. In full support of AB 479.

Thank you.

Next please. Line 29, go ahead.

This is John Bador with cleanerforkid.org in strong support. Next

please. Thank you. Line 78, go ahead.

Hi, my name is Lisa Chang with 350 Bay Area Action and I'm also speaking on behalf of 350 Conejo San Fernando Valley, 350 Sacramento. Active san Gabriel Valley, California. Interfaith Power and Light Citizens Climate Lobby, sacramento Roosevelt Chapter Climate Action California Elders Climate Action, NorCal Chapter Peninsula Interfaith Climate Action regional Asthma Management and Prevention, san Francisco Bay physicians for Social Responsibility the San Ramon Valley Climate Coalition, the Santa Cruz Climate Action Network, the Sunflower Alliance, Transform, Transformative Wealth Management LLC and 1000 Grandmothers for Future Generations. All in strong support. Thank you. Thank

you. Anybody else on the teleconference line? We still have six left. We had some fresh ones come in.

We're going to line 84. 84, go ahead please.

Hi there, Sandra Cushion on behalf of. CalPerk and Environment California in support.

Line 86, go ahead.

Good morning. My name is Diana Milky and I am calling in strong support of AB 579 and representing the following organizations 350 South Bay, Los Angeles, Long Beach Environmental Alliance, Ban SUP, Single Use Plastic, SoCal 350 Climate Action, Indivisible California Green Team and Indivisible South Bay, LA. Thank you for your consideration. For an, aye vote thank you.

Line 43, go ahead please.

Thank you, chair and Members, my name. Is Noah Whitley, speaking on behalf of. Series in strong support. Thank you.

Line 71, go ahead. 71, go ahead please.

Vanessa Forsyth, can you hear me? Yes. Healthcare providers from California nurses for environmental, health and justice support clean Earth for Kids support and also Climate, Health Now. Healthcare providers support.

Thank you, thank you. Anybody else?

Two more. Line 82, go ahead.

My name is Carol Weed, I'm speaking in representing two organizations, the Democrats of Rossmore and Sustainable Rossmore, both in strong support. Thank

you. And line 79. We have one more coming behind line 79. Line 79, go ahead please.

Hi, good morning. Elizabeth Escovel with the California Association of School Business Officials. We want to align our comments with those of the California School Board Association. When it comes to our concerns regarding infrastructure, funding and technology. So we are respectfully in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. And line 88. Line 88, please go ahead.

Hello, lucio Menos calling on behalf of California and environmental voters in support of AB 579.

Thank you,

Mr. Chair. At this time, we have no additional callers in queue.

Okay, come back to the hearing room. We actually have a quorum here. This is awesome. So why don't we actually establish a quorum before we move forward? Madam Consultant, if you could please call the role.

Newman, Newman Here. Ochoa Bogh, Ochoa Bogh Here. Cortese. Glazer, Glazer Here. McGuire. Smallwood Cuevas. Wilk, Will present.

A quorum is indeed present to my colleagues. Any questions or concerns regarding the Bill for Mr. McCarty is representing Assembly Member Ting. Senator Glaser?

Mr. McCarty, representing Assembly Member Ting.

Correct.

I thought it was this is not the McCarty Bill.

No, this is zero mission vehicle school buses. 579. I'm fine.

Okay. Anybody else? Senator Ochoa Bogh. Go ahead.

So I'm actually grateful that it's Assembly Member McCarty here to explain this Bill because of his experience on education and his history and finances. So I think it's a great person to answer the following questions. I'm a little concerned.

I love the ideals of having zero emissions buses for school districts, especially for the inland empire, because the inland empire, where I represent, riverside counties, we actually have sort of a valley surrounded by mountains that trap much of the greenhouse. The emissions are coming out from the ports, and so this would be very beneficial for our area. However, the concerns that I have is are, one, the ability for the state to actually finance these buses.

And the reason I'm a little concerned is we've had a surplus budget unprecedented in the past, and we have not fully funded the ability for school districts to be able to have full busing throughout the area in the states, in the state of California, including a lot of our rural areas. So the funding is a concern for me. Number two, the technology, which I know that is exponential in its development.

So that's not to say that this will not be available, readily available to meet both the distance and the terrain challenges that happen, because we have areas such as the mountains areas that cold weather it's in my experience that cold weather actually diminishes the ability for many batteries to fully have an extended life on that. And so the weather has an impact on it. The charging stations throughout the state is an issue.

And based on the notes that I have here, this Bill would also align the school buses with the same timeline as the normal passenger vehicles in 2035. And according to my notes here, it says it does not align with the existing Executive order signed by the Governor Newsom in 2020 that requires medium and heavy duty truck sales to be zero emissions by 2045, thereby holding school buses to a higher standard than the other vehicles within the same class. So there's a variety of concerns that I have right now in actually moving this Bill forward.

Not with the premise that I think has incredible merit to it, but the logistical pragmatic in the actual reality of making it actually happen on behalf of our schools. Because we can mandate and say, this is what you folks need to do, but unless we as a state promise and allocate the funding, which we didn't do when we had a surplus, now that we are projected to go in a deficit in the next seven years, we're going to be playing catch up after those. I'm not sure what's going to happen.

I don't have a magic ball to figure out what's going to happen after seven years. But when we think about going into a deficit in the next seven years, how are we going to catch up after that? In order to make this happen and if we were to fully Fund it, do we really need to have a state mandate at this time when the school districts could actually do this? When it comes closer to 2035? Our school districts could do this if they had the full funding and the technology was there or the buses were there. They could do this as needed when possible throughout the school district. I know this is a little bit more, but I figured I'd throw that at you because I know how knowledgeable you are in education.

Yeah, those are a lot of issues, but I think in my head, I just focus on the top ones that I remember how to relate to the budget, and that's what that I work on. The Assembly said along with Mr. Ting. So I will note that the budget that we just voted on last year, we have 1.5 billion in one time money for this purpose. There's a larger piece of federal money coming in as well. So this is one time. So I think we were conflating the issue of not being able to pay for school transport.

That's ongoing prop. 98 money for school busing. This is for whatever bus routes they have. Maybe they're not enough in some areas, and we hear it in this committee all the time. This is whatever they have. They should be in cleaner buses.

This is going forward after 2035. Set a marker that as we purchase new buses, they should be clean vehicles. And we do have resources that we set aside. I think this sets an appropriate marker. I think that we will have more federal money as well from the President Biden's infrastructure package. And so this sets a multi year on ramp over a decade. Of course, even more so from these rural areas. And so we could always adjust. If we get closer to 2030.

In your final years here in the Legislature, I know you're only in the beginning of your twelve years. So we'll have time to adjust. But I think setting a marker is important for districts to have plans as well as the industry says, hey, California is looking for this, let's step up our game as well.

So in your professional experience, do you believe that the state will commit itself to requiring this as a state mandate for across the state and ensure that our school districts will be fully funded to meet these requirements and if not give a little leeway to our school districts to be able to say we can't meet these requirements? But is the state committing itself to ensuring that we are able to fully Fund this mandate?

Well, I think what this is saying is car, and the state wants things that cars sold here in California need to be this standard. This is saying when school districts buy new the Riverside School District, they buy new vehicle school bus. By this year it must be one of these zero emission vehicles and they're going to be buying them anyway.

They are more expensive. And we have put aside money for this in this budget cycle through last year's funding. It's hard to predict where we're going to be next year,

which is why. I'm asking so early

That we can. Always recalibrate based upon where we're at. But I think this sets a good marker here today. I'm not sure if

let me add just to clarify, my understanding is there are a couple of provisions that allow for those scenarios where the state, for whatever reason, where districts are unable to meet those goals and that's accounted for in the language of the Bill under certain conditions. So I don't know if anybody else wants to comment on that, but I appreciate your comment, Senator Ochoa Bogh. Appreciate that.

Just to add, the state has continued making that investment. You're hoping to see an advocate for that type of funding and that's why we added the extensions and not doing a fleet mandate because it's for new purchases. So folks could use their diesel trucks or whatever type of truck they have until the end of life way past 2035. I just want to also make that very clear.

I appreciate it. I have a question and I'll say this is a good Bill, good goal. There is language that is explicit legislative in ten language that refers explicitly to electrical infrastructure. As you know, there's actually 2, 0 emission technologies right now, one of which is hydrogen fuel cell, which has a different set of infrastructure requirements, but where there is significant progress being made right now at the sort of the transit level with transit agencies actually adopting hydrogen fuel cell buses. Right. So that language, the legend ten language, is it fair to infer that it's not meant to exclude fuel cell technology?

That's correct. It's a zero emission. So it's not only when technology is supposed to be like technology neutral.

All right, so I'll bring that up with some Member Ting, because that's a little confusing with respect to that language, but otherwise, I think it's a good Bill. We have a motion from Senator Glazer. Would you like to close? Assembly Member McCarty.

On behalf of Assembly Member Ting, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Very good. We have a motion for Senator Glazer. Madam Consultant, please call roll.

Final item seven AB 579. Ting. Motion is due, passes amended, but first, amend and rerefer to the committee on appropriations.

Newman, Newman aye. Ochoa Bogh, Ochoa Bogh Aye. Cortese. Glazer, Glazer Aye. McGuire. Smallwood Cuevas. Wilk, Wilk No

Very good. Mr. McCarty, your second measure or your measure? Which is our last measure? Yes.

Proceed.

Thank you. Our final bill today is AB 1749, dealing with the community college transfer process. For decades, this legislature, and California, has been trying to kind of tinker around the edges, making it easier and smoother for individuals, to transfer from a community college to a four year school -- whether it's CSU or the UC. Sometimes you have to have an advanced degree to figure out the transfer process. We make it way too complicated. We have some systems for CSU recently, the ADT process, which is simple, streamlined, uniform. We have different ones for each UC.

And then to further complicate things, this past year, the governor briefly proposed having a new one for UCLA. And so that just made things actually worse -- more complication, more of a mess. And so really, this is the opportunity, for once and for all, to no longer tinker around the edges and have a uniform, streamlined community college transfer process for anybody.

If they're at American River College, Sacramento City College, they want to, maybe one day, attend UCLA, UC Berkeley, Sac State, Long Beach State, San Jose State. They can set a path for them and figure out how to transfer seamlessly. You know, we had a budget hearing this past year, and one of the issues was: not enough community college students are transferring to the UC and CSU. That's why enrollment was down. What if we made it easier for them to transfer in the first place, having a streamlined process? So with us today, is a proposal doing just that. Once and for all, having a unified community college transfer process, not reinventing the wheel -- using the system that's been working at the CSU called the ADT.

And I will note that one UC, UC Merced, is doing this already. 70 percent of students that enrolled the University of California have an ADT. Before we pulled it out of the budget process, over the weekend, and said we should go through the policy route, UCLA was on the verge of doing, for their campus: ADT. So let's just make this simple, once and for all, for Californians. I was a lucky one. I was at a community college and transferred to a CSU, and I figured it out. I actually wanted to go to a UC, but I would have had to take a few more classes, so I took the other direction because I wanted to get out of town sooner. So I went to a CSU instead and it all worked out. It shouldn't be that complicated.

We should make this easier for students across the system. With me, today, are two groups who have studied this tremendously, the Campaign for College Opportunity, and a representative with the UC Student Association, respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. First witness. Welcome.

Good morning, Chair Newman and members of the committee. My name is David Ramirez and I'm a transfer student at UCLA, studying environmental science and labor studies. As a first-generation student and a son of Mexican immigrants, I didn't have the privilege of knowing how to navigate academia. I didn't know what a major was, or how to fill out an education plan. I had to teach myself how to be a student, while working full-time at Starbucks. There's so much confusion around degree requirements, and it is discouraging when you add on the fact that requirements differ from campus to campus and system to system.

The system is failing students like us -- and our transfer rates are abysmal. With less than 3 percent of the 1.8 million California community college students in our state successfully transferring within two years, with Black and Latinx students falling behind the most, the status quo is simply unacceptable. The Associate Degree for Transfer provides a clear and guaranteed transfer pathway for students. ADT earners have shown higher graduation rates and GPAs, compared to those who earn traditional associate degrees, like mine -- or transferred without a degree. However, as we know, the implementation of ADTs across CSU and UC campuses has faced many challenges.

I was at Pasadena City College for four years and applied for transfer three times -- and on my first try, I was rejected everywhere. On my second, the pandemic hit, and because of the lack of services available to support me, I dropped out. And I found out later that year, that I had been accepted to UC Santa Cruz. It was only until I was approved for a transfer admission guarantee, with UC Davis, that I was able to make it out of this transfer maze -- and eventually was accepted into UCLA.

I could not have made it through without a guarantee of knowing that, when I would finish, there would be a spot waiting for me. I ultimately enrolled at UCLA, but if I hadn't known that I would have a guaranteed spot somewhere, I truly don't know if I would have had the motivation to finish. Students like myself are faced with an uphill battle of uncertainty, in a system that is already too confusing. AB 1749 presents an opportunity to close equity gaps, by simplifying our transfer pathways and removing luck from the transfer experience. Every California community college student that completes an ADT should be entitled to a spot in the CSU and UC system. Thank you and I strongly urge for your aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Ramirez. Next. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair Newman and members. My name is Josh Hagen, and I'm the Director of Policy and Advocacy with the Campaign for College Opportunity. We're a statewide policy, research and advocacy organization, dedicated to ensuring that all Californians have an equal opportunity to attend and succeed in college.

The California community colleges serve a critical function in meeting workforce demands and advancing racial equity for the large Black and Latinx student populations they support. Despite making significant progress to improve transfer through the associate degree for transfer, the transfer process to the UC remains overly complex. As a result of the UC's reliance on separate campus-by-campus transfer pathways, via the Transfer Agreement Guarantee program, or even program-by-program transfer agreements via the Pathways program, community college students continue to be forced to navigate a complex maze to transfer to the UC-

-as we just heard from David's experience. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, approximately 70 percent of California's community college students declare transfer as a goal, when they complete their initial education plan. Yet fewer than 10 percent of Black and Latinx community college students will reach their transfer goals within four years, as the transfer process continues to layer transfer pathway, on top of transfer pathway -- failing to meet the vision for a student-centered path that aligns common lower division curriculum with a system wide admissions guarantee to both the CSU and the UC. It is untenable to layer new pathways with new decision points on top of an already crowded transfer maze for students.

And it's a disservice to our students to advance solutions that provide fewer guaranteed admissions options, when students reach the point when they're finally ready to transfer. As we work to untangle the transfer maze to the UC for students, it's imperative that we build upon transfer pathways with a proven record of success. And the ADT pathway is working for students.

It's a commonly utilized pathway to transfer. This year, California is expected to reach over half a million ADTs awarded since the program's inception in 2010, and over 50 percent of Latinx students earning an associate degree at the community college, are doing so with the ADT. AB 1749 provides a simple solution that's in alignment with the original vision for the ADT, provides students with a streamlined path to transfer, by utilizing the ADT as a systemwide admissions guarantee to both the CSU and the UC, with a higher GPA threshold for guaranteed admission to the UC system.

Simply put, AB 1749 will create the ADT as one degree, with two guarantees, and finally ensure that students won't have to navigate complex, mismatched transfer processes when applying to the CSU and the UC. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else here who'd like to testify in support of the measure AB 1749? Please make your way to the podium.

Good morning, Imran Majid. On behalf of the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. In support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Cassie Mancini, on behalf of the California School Employees Association. In support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Michelle Estrada, on behalf of the Education Trust - West, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Assembly Members. Adam Keigwin with Actum, on behalf of the Television Academy Foundation. In support.

Thank you.

Alia Sky with the UC Student Association. As you know from our witness, we are in strong support of AB 1749 and serving as co-sponsors.

Thank you. Anybody else? Is there anybody who'd like to testify in opposition to AB 1749? Welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Tyler Aguilar on behalf of the University of California. We're respectfully in opposition to AB 1740, and I am also accompanied by our Academic Senate Vice Chair, James Steintrager, as well. The university is proud to enroll more community college students than any university, in its type, in the nation. Each year, we receive approximately 40,000 transfer applications, of which, 75 percent of those students gain admission to UC.

Nearly half of our transfer students are first generation or low-income, and over 30 percent are nonnative English speakers. In the last decade, enrollment amongst underrepresented groups and transfer, has grown much faster than overall enrollment. Although the university appreciates and understands the desire to streamline the transfer process, the current language in AB 1749 is not reflective of an approach that prioritizes student success, and successful outcomes, for those students.

If adopted, AB 1749 could harm students by forcing them to take additional courses they do not need, increasing their time to degree, and also their cost to attain their education. In addition, AB 1749 would not allow UC to utilize our comprehensive review process, undermining considerable efforts to foster inclusivity and welcome a student body that reflects the broad composition of the state. The UC is prepared to work with the author, the legislature, and key stakeholders to focus on student-centered approaches to transfer.

This includes further refining the system-wide proposal that was developed earlier this year, or developing a pilot program at a UC campus that could implement the ADT on a smaller scale, and we could evaluate that and see what that looks like. The university remains committed to having substantive conversations relating to how we can further improve the transfer process and outcomes that place student success at the forefront. And I'll pass it over to our Academic Senate Vice Chair, James Steintrager.

Thank you. Welcome.

Thank you. Excuse me. Thank you, Chair Newman, members of the Education Committee, and staff, for this opportunity to speak with you. My name is James Steintrager. I'm a faculty member at UC Irvine and Vice Chair of the Academic Senate, representing faculty from all ten UC campuses. By delegation of the UC Regents, the Academic Senate establishes admission standards for the University of California. The UC Academic Senate respectfully opposes Assembly Bill 1749. ADTs will increase time to degree.

ADTs are made up of two components: general education and CSU major preparation, capped at 60 units. For STEM disciplines, the ADT structure does not prepare students to transfer to UC with the coursework they need to perform at a junior level. There are no engineering ADTs for this reason. Many STEM students will need at least three years post-transfer, to complete their UC degrees, if they come with an ADT alone. When under-prepared, ADT transfer students take longer than two years to finish. This reduces UC capacity for admitting new students.

Other ADT earners are harmed for the opposite reason. UC-bound students must take courses they do not need for their major, leaving them with excess course credits. These factors will also increase student education costs. Finally, AB 1749 will harm UC's ability to admit students representative of the state of California. UC uses comprehensive review for admissions. However, the legislation mandates an admission guarantee depended on GPA alone.

Student GPA strongly correlates with family income and quality of high school education opportunities. The legislation also privileges students who live close to a given UC. For example, a student who lives close to UCLA will be prioritized over one who does not. UC shares your goals and is committed to making transfer work. We have proposed a system-wide transfer admission guarantee based on our UC transfer pathways model, and specifically tailored to ensure student success at UC. I'm happy to take your questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Steintrager. Is there anybody else here who would like testify in opposition to the measure? Seeing none, let's go to the teleconference line. Mr. Moderator, if you could please query the line for anybody who's in support of or in opposition to AB 1749?

Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen on the phone lines, if you wish to testify in support or opposition to AB 1749, please press 1-0 at this time, one followed by zero. About six or seven queuing up and we'll go to line 73. Please go ahead.

Hello, good morning. Katrina Linden, on behalf of the College for All Coalition in strong support of AB 1749. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 75. Please go ahead.

Good morning, this is Zachariah Wooden, with the Student Senate for California Community Colleges, proud co-sponsor in support of AB 1749. Thank you.

Thank you.

You are open, line 90.

Hi, my name is Raquel from the National Association of Social Workers California Chapter, and we support this bill.

Thank you.

Please go ahead, line 80. Line 80, please go ahead.

My name is Bill Jacob and I am a professor emeritus of mathematics at UC Santa Barbara. I am speaking in opposition, asking you to return AB 1749 to the Assembly, so the authors can work with the University of California and incorporate the UC transfer pathways as the most appropriate route to UC. Thank you.

Thank you.

Please go ahead, line 91.

My name is Lynn Huntsinger. I'm a former Associate Dean of Instruction and Student Affairs, and as such, have overseen the transfer process for a few years. And I think this bill would undermine student success at Berkeley. I urge you to return it to the Assembly, where it can be worked on with University of California. Thank you.

Thank you.

And one moment, Mr. Chair. We have a couple more queuing up. And if there's anybody else that would like to put themselves in queue at this time, please press 1-0. And we are on Bill AB 1749.

Is that it? No.

Anybody else, please press one. Line 85, you are open.

Name is Darcie Harvey for California Competes: Higher Education for a Strong Economy. And I'm in strong support.

Thank you.

And we're going to go to line 89. You are open.

Hi, sorry. Hello. My name is Kylie Francisco. I'm calling on behalf of the Southern California College Attainment Network and we are in support of AB 1749.

Thank you.

Let's give a final reminder, one followed by zero if you're in support or opposition to AB 1749. And we are going to go to line 93. Please go ahead.

Hi, good morning. Carol Gonzalez on behalf of Hispanas Organized for Political Equality, Los Angeles Community Coll-

Lost her. Mr. Moderator, did we lose you?

I'm sorry, the operator accidentally grabbed them.

Hi, I was just speaking for 93. Did it go through or was I cut off?

You were cut off. Please-

-We apologize. Sorry -- go ahead.

So sorry. Not sure if you caught it, but on behalf of Hispanas Organized for Political Equality, Los Angeles Community College District, and Cerritos College in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Got it.

And, Mr. Chair, sorry about that. That does -- got everybody out of queue.

Very good. All right, let's come back to the hearing room. Senator Glazer, I know you wanted to speak. Please.

Thank you, Chair Newman. I had a question for the UC representatives, but as they prepare for my question, let me mention: this is not a new issue for me. Struggled, as a state university trustee for four years, on the transfer pathway and the frustrations that we saw from our vantage point on the ability of students to understand that pathway and for it to be smooth and effective. And there was a lot of frustration in that space. But my question to the UC, in your opposition -- you say that it's going to require a student that uses this to accumulate excess course credit. And I don't really understand that excess course credit that would somehow be required under this bill with an ADT. Could you explain that?

So, there are one of two basic possibilities in terms of what it will do for a student. So, on the STEM side, the excess course credit is not our concern, but in other areas, excess course credit is a concern. So to take the example of anthropology, for example, in the UCs -- they don't require as much preparation at the lower division, in terms of major preparation, as an ADT would require. So they're not taking courses at the ADT level that will be, then, useful for them when they get to the transfer stage. They would have to take additional courses at that point. Does that make sense?

That's additional courses, now, you said that, as it related to engineering in your testimony. But I'm talking -- you're saying that the ADT is going to force them to take excess courses that they didn't need. They're going to come in as a junior status. Right? 60 units, junior status -- and are you saying that there are majors like anthropology that requires more than 60 units?

No, not to my knowledge.

Okay, so then what's the excess courses then? I'm a student. I'm transferring. I've done the 60 units -- my lower division -- I'm an anthropology major. Presumably, your anthropology major requires 60 units or less to get that degree. So now what's the excess courses that this is going to force upon them -- that they have taken that they didn't need?

Sure. I think what we can highlight is that the ADT is really focused on general ed - so the full 60 units, general ed. The first year, I think we saw a bill in this committee last year, that sort of harmonized, I guess, if you will, the two general ed pathways. The differences within UC and CSU when it comes to, say, Transfer Pathways versus the ADT, is that in the second year, the second 30 units, we're asking students to focus more on major preparation.

We say, "There are some general ed courses that you can take when you're a junior, and it will be fine." So we want students to focus on the major preparation for the courses within that pathway or that tag or that program. And I think in the instance of the ADT, you would be sort of required to take those 60 units of general ed, even if, at UC, for example, you were expected to take those general ed courses, or could take those general ed courses, at the junior level or even maybe at the senior level.

Got it. But where is the -- you're saying they took excess -- you really mean that they took courses that you don't think are eligible for those degree majors at a UC?

I don't think it's not eligible. I hear what you're saying, Senator.

Well, I'm trying to understand. Are you saying that that transfer pathway means they have to take more than 60 units to get a degree?

In the ADT, there could be certain situations where that could occur.

Okay, thank you. And that is exactly why I think this is a good bill -- is that this is trying to reconcile and smooth out the pathway for a student, so that when they take that general education, it's applicable. And that transfer to the UC isn't going to put on additional course requirements that get in the way of their success at a degree. And that's because -- the problem is that UC is not communicating to the community colleges to make sure that all is aligned correctly, so that when that student takes that course, they know that it's a transferable course, so they don't have to take excess units.

Nobody wants the excess units. Right? That's what we're trying to break down, here. And that was the exact frustration that the state universities had in this ADT area, is that the faculty were not certifying those community college courses, and therefore they were not being found to be acceptable at the CSU, and forcing more burdens and more obligations on those students.

And so my summary in this space is that -- this is the part that -- we love the admission, of the state universities and the UC -- you guys are incredible to what you do -- but this is where the bureaucracy is really hurting our students. And what this bill purports to try to smooth out, which is that knowing in advance, the courses you take are applicable for the transfer.

That's what this bill is going to create, because we don't want those students to transfer and have to take extra courses. But the idea is that alignment needs to happen, and it hasn't happened, and it's taken years for it to happen at the state university level, which has a lot of us very frustrated. I know Assembly Member McCarty, your co-author on this, Assembly Member Berman, has legislated in this area quite admirably, to try to break down this communication issue, this certification issue, that only goes out to screw the students and stops them from achieving that degree.

And that's why this isn't a perfect bill, but it's aligned with, I think, the values that we have, which is that -- student-centered -- making sure that they know what they need to do -- and all the burdens that they go through to go to a higher education, whether it's community college or beyond, and all the debt that they accumulate, is on a pathway that's going to get them successful. The basics of your opposition letter really seems to be about: you want to determine who's going to be successful at the university.

That's the two or three paragraphs in the analysis that seem to be applicable here. You want to make that choice, versus the students following all the rules, having that choice be clear to them. And I appreciate that and I understand -- and the values that you lay out as to why you want to make that choice.

That's also why you, in the wisdom of the UC, have determined that standardized tests were not the determination of student success at a college and why you've abandoned standardized tests as that standard. But look how many decades and decades of blockage that created for students, to the point where you decided it wasn't the pathway, that that really wasn't a determinant of success in college. So I know that's a focus and there's a good reason for it.

We want those students to be successful. But I think this bill is the right nudge, it's a little bit more than a nudge, but I think it's in the right direction. It's not perfect, and it does require the cooperation of the faculty at the University of California, and the faculty at the community colleges to be clear. But that's the bureaucracy that a bill like this tries to break through for the betterment of students and their success going forward. And with that, I'm happy to support and move the bill.

I appreciate it. Mr. Steintrager, go ahead.

If I could just briefly approach the alignment issue and make sure that I'm understanding you correctly and expressing the UC viewpoint on this adequately. The alignment issue, the way I understand it, is a lack of alignment in the ADT requirements between the CSU requirements and the UC requirements. So if I can take the case of biology, where in some CSUs, organic chemistry is not required at the lower division level, whereas at the UCs, it is. Right.

So would alignment then mean that the UCs no longer require organic chemistry at the lower division level? The UC position on that has been to let the faculty determine what is the best sequence for students to succeed at the UC in a biology major. And so you're right, there is a lack of alignment there. The question is, would aligning actually have a negative impact on student success, post-transfer into the UC? Or would it require students who are transferring in the CSU to do more than they would need to do? So the alignment issue is a real one, but we don't think this legislation solves that particular problem. Thank you.

I don't know if you want to respond. I appreciate it. Go ahead.

I'm happy to briefly respond. Look, these are good questions, and this is what we expect the faculty to work out, see. It shouldn't be where the students find themselves in a situation where they thought they were taking the class that had the organic chemistry and biology, and find that it didn't work for UC. That's been the problem, is that that communication has to happen between the faculty, so that when the students take that class, they know exactly what it means -- and not be confused and that they took the units and somehow it didn't work.

I think we're in agreement on that. But the further concern that we have is that we don't want a student transferring into, say bio, in the UC, thinking that the ADT has given them everything that they need, to be ready to be a junior -- and realizing at that point, that it's actually insufficient to be a junior, because they didn't get what they needed at the ADT level.

So I will say, from my part, I think that's a fair concern. Let me see if I can paraphrase. So what you're saying, Mr. Steintrager, is that what may be good or necessary for the ADT isn't necessarily good for a major at the UC -- which, especially given how you emphasize courses or prerequisites in the first two years, during that time when somebody would be -- prior to transfer. So that's a problem that still needs to be solved. You can respond briefly.

Briefly respond just to say that -- If we take engineering there, as an example, why are there no ADTs for engineering? It's precisely because of the sequencing and the lower division-

I get it.

-But there are transfer pathways into the UC.

Understood. But it's hard to standardize those pathways. It's hard to align them with the existing ADT structure-

-In some cases, mainly STEM.

I get that. So the point that I think is more relevant here, is there's a jurisdictional question. There's a tension as to the legislature's ability to compel the UC, which is autonomous, by constitutional prerogative, to do these things. Right. So actually, I'll say I appreciate you folks for being part of this conversation, but clearly there may be a limit as to how far we can assume or press the UC to do these things. And I guess that's a question for you, Assembly Member. How should we consider that as we consider this legislation?

Yes, thank you. And I do appreciate that. And maybe, too, if we could, Mr. Chair, I know the Campaign for College Opportunity wanted to engage in a little bit -- of the back.

I think we're pretty clear.

Okay. But it's on the money thing. Not the- it is a money thing. So here's the deal. Most bills that the legislature passes, that requests UC to do something, and granted, we request them because they are alone in the state constitution -- they usually go along and do it. And why so? Because they're a shared partner, with the state of California legislature, with funding -- we fund over a third of their base support, with just general fund line item to the University of California, plus the money we give via the Cal Grant program. So technically, yes, they could ignore this bill if it's passed by the legislature and signed by the governor. Usually they don't. And then we have the opportunity through the budget process to reconcile those things.

I guess. I appreciate that. I also appreciate the UC's willingness to come be part of this conversation. Any other comments from members? Senator Ochoa Bogh. Looking at my watch. Go ahead, please. I said it, but respectfully.

As the vice chair, I just had one question for clarification. And I'm not sure if this is something that the author can answer, someone from the faculty -- but I have a note here that says: the California Constitution provides autonomy to the Regents of the University of California to operate the university. The autonomy comes with the expense of the legislators being able to direct the UC to do anything that they want to do.

The legislature has the oversight of the UC, blah blah blah. So how does this fall within the constitutionality -- I'm trying to say that word, I have a problem with my braces here -- but how does this work within that scope of having the autonomy that they have? Reconciling this from the legislature and their autonomy to make decisions?

Yeah, let me give you an example. A few years ago, Senator Glazer -- not Glazer -- Grayson-

-Same geography area. Assembly Member Grayson and I, who's actually going to be going to his area, did a bill on UC admissions, compared favorably for non-resident students. And in there, we requested UC to make this change, because we can't direct them in the constitution. They could have ignored it, but they went along and implemented. Usually they do. They are a partner. And as I just told the chair, of course, we have a role in funding the University of California. Over a third of their revenue for their core operations comes from the state of California through the budget process. We just increased their funding yesterday by 5 percent.

-I get them mixed up also.

And so, I think they have an understanding that working with the legislature and our wishes -- bills are assigned by the governor, as well -- is in all of our collective best interest. So technically, that's true. It could be ignored, but in practice, usually it works out.

So in my understanding, based on what you're saying, just for clarification, you don't see that this intrudes in the constitutional autonomy that they have?

Yeah, I don't have it in front of me, but it would request that the University of California regents to do so. And then they, of course, have their constitutional autonomy and they have to proceed accordingly as they wish.

Anybody else? Senator Smallwood-Cuevas?

I support the Bill, and I'm happy to move the motion. And I just want to say how many conversations we've had on committee just about the need for us to have better and more positive outcomes in our transfer students into our CSU and UC system. We often are falling short where we need to see improvements.

And I think this helps us really ensure that we're giving that opportunity to as many students as possible. One, to understand that they can transfer and that they can transfer in a way that allows them to pursue the disciplines that they want to pursue without unnecessary barriers and streamlining, in some ways, the process. So I want to support this Bill, and Mr. Chair will move it forward when the time is right.

I think we already have a motion for Senator Glazer, but thank you. And so we do. Senator Glazer, you did move the Bill? So we have motion for Senator Glazer. Assemblymember McCarty, would you like to close?

Thank you. I appreciate this conversation. This is technical and complicated, but it really isn't. We really make it way too hard for students. This is a problem too often, frankly, with adults turf battles and the people that lose are community college students. It's no wonder that only two and a half percent of community college students transfer within two years.

It's way too complicated. And I don't for the life of me understand this pushback from the university. There are nine undergraduate UCs. One Merced. Granted, a smaller school already does this. This past weekend, UCLA was about to do it through the budget process.

We said, no, we want to do it through the policy process. We're here today, all of them, that would have been over 20% of UC students with UCLA and Merced doing this ADT, 70% of their students who enroll every year as a transfer have do the ADT. So it's not that complicated.

One more thing real quick, and this is what Mr. Glazer was mentioning. For students that apply for anthropology, two students, one's applying to UC Berkeley, one's applying to UC San Diego. The San Diego applicant requires no lower division units, while the Berkeley requires nine.

So we make these things way too complicated. Unnecessarily this, for once and for all, would simplify and streamline a system not only for the University of California to be also with the CSU system to make it easier for our community college students to transfer. And we need this.

Their success is our success. We're having a dip in enrollment at CSU and the UCS. Some of their campuses didn't have enough community college transfer students, so they asked us to change our rules to allow them to enroll more freshmen.

We need to make it easier for our community college students to go on to get a four year degree, and by doing so, allows them to graduate in a shorter period of time, less student debt. All these things are interconnected. This is a win for California, for our students, and respectfully ask for your vote.

This motion enjoys a due pass for appropriations recommendation. Madam consultant, please call the role.

File item 22, AB 1749 McCarty. Motion is due pass. But first, be we refer to the committee on appropriations. Newman aye. Newman aye, Ochoa Bogh, Ochoa Bogha aye, Cortese. Cortese aye. Glazer, Glazer aye, McGuire. McGuire aye, Smallwood-Cuevas Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Wilk. Wilk aye.

That measure has seven votes. It is out. Let's go now to the Consent Calendar. Madam consultant, please call the roll. I need a motion. I'm sorry. On the consent calendar, do I have Wilk moves? Wilk was not fast enough. Glazer moved. Try hard in that. On the Consent Calendar, please call the role.

Newman aye. Newman aye. Ochoa Bogh, Ochoa Bogh aye. Cortese, Cortese aye. Glazer, Glazer aye. McGuire McGuire aye. Smallwood-Cuevas Aye, Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Wilk Aye. Wilk aye.

Consent Calendar. Pass that with seven votes. Let's go back to the agenda.

Item number one, AB 91 from Assemblymember Alvarez. We have a motion from Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Please call the roll

Item 191. Alvarez motion is do pass as amended. But first, amend and we refer to the committee on appropriations. Newman aye. Newman aye. Ochoa Bogh aye . Cortese Cortese aye, Glazer, Glazer aye. McGuire aye. McGuire, aye. Smallwood- Cuevas, Smallwood cuevas aye. Wilk aye. Wilk aye.

Let us now go to agenda number seven. Call the role for the absent Members on AB 579. Okay,

That one was out six to zero.

Oh, that's already out. Oh, I'm sorry. That's out six to zero. AB 91. I apologize. AB 579 from Assemblymember Ting.

While item seven is due pass as amended. But first, we refer to the committee on appropriations. Current vote is three ayes and one no with the chair and vice chair voting. Aye. Cortese, Cortese aye. McGuire. McGuire. aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, Smallwood-Cuevas aye that measures out six to one.

Next is item number eight, AB 603 from Assembly Member Cervantes. We need a motion. Wilk moves. Wilk moves again. Thank you. Please call the roll.

Motion is do passed. But first, be we refer to the committee on appropriations. Newman aye. Newman aye. Ochoa Bogh aye. Ochoa Bogh aye. Cortese, Cortese aye. Glazer, Glazer aye. McGuire, McGuire aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Wilk, Wilk aye.

That measures out seven to zero. Next is AB 70 22 from Assemblymember Megan Dahle. I'm sorry. Eight. Eight. Eight. Also from Assembly Member Cervantes. Need a motion on that. Wilk again, I'm sorry. We have a motion from Senator Wilk. Please call the role.

Moton is do pass would first we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Newman, Newman aye. Ochoa Bogh Ochoa Bogh aye. Cortese, Cortese aye. Glazer, Glazer aye. McGuire, McGuire aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Wilk, Wilk aye.

That measures out seven to zero. Next is actually an item number 11 AB 1722 from assuming Member Dahle motion.

Do we have a motion? Yes. Ochoa Bogh, Please call the roll.

Motion is do pass as amended. But first amend and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations Newman Newman aye. Ochoa Bogh, OchoA Bogh aye. Cortese, Cortese, aye. Glazer, Glazer aye. McGuire, McGuire aye. Smallwood-Cuevas Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Wilk, Wilk aye.

That measures out seven to zero. Next is number 12 AB 915 from Assemblymember Arambula. We do not have a motion. Do we have a motion from a Member? Senator Glazer? Thank you.

Motion is dopassed but first we refer to the Committee on Health. Newman aye. Newman aye. Ochoa Bogh, Ochoa Bogh aye. Cortese, Cortese aye. Glazer, Glazer aye. McGuire, McGuire aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Wilk, Wilk aye

That measures out seven to zero. Next AB 1123, number 13. Senator Cortese, would you like to move that? We have a motion from Senator Cortese. Please call the roll.

Motion is do pass, but first we we refer to the Committee on Appropriations Newman aye. Newman aye. Ochoa-Bogh. Cortese, Cortese aye. Glazer no, Glazer no. McGuire, McGuire aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, Smallwoord-Cuevas ay. Wilk no,Wilk no.

That measure is out four to two. Next is item number 14, AB 1178 from Assembly Member Luz Rivas.

Motion is do pass, but first be re referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

We do need a motion. Motion from Senator Glazer. That's okay.

Once again motion is due pass, but first be rereferred to the Committee on Appropriations. Newman aye. Newman aye. Ochoa Bogh. Cortese, Cortesi aye. Glazer, Glazer aye. McGuire, McGuire aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, Smallwood Cuevas aye. Wilk, Wilk aye.

Measure is out six votes to zero. Next is item number 16, AB 1400 from Assemblymember Bryan. We need a motion, Senator Glazer.

Motion is do pass as amended. But first amend and we refer to the Committee on Governance and Finance. Newman aye. Newman aye. Ocho Bogh, Ochoa Bogh aye Cortese, Cortese aye. Glazer, Glazer aye. McGuire, McGuire aye. Smallwood-Cuevas Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Wilk aye, Wilk aye.

That measures out seven votes to zero. Next is item number 20, AB 60 95 from Assemblymember Gibson. And we had a motion from Senator Glazer.

Motion is do pass as amended. But first, amend and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Newman Aye Newman aye. Ochoa Bogh, Ochoa Bogh aye. Cortese, Cortese aye. Glazer, Glazer aye. McGuire, McGuire aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Wilk, Wilk aye.

That measure is out seven votes to zero. Last. That's it. We're done. That completes our role. Thank you to everybody who participated.