Assembly Standing Committee on Higher Education

Good afternoon. I'd like to welcome everyone to the Assembly Higher Education Committee. The Assembly Higher Education Committee is called to order and we will begin as a Subcommitee at this time, and I'm really grateful to all my colleagues for being here. And welcome to the first policy chairing of the Assembly Higher Education Committee in 2024. Whether you're here in person or watching virtually, I extend a warm welcome to each and every one of you.

Also like to extend a warm welcome to all of the new Members of this Committee, Assembly Member Boerner, Assembly Member Chen, Assembly Member Essayli, Assembly Member Jackson, and Assemblymember Muratsuchi. Additionally, I'd like to welcome back to the Committee Assembly Member Quirk Silva, who previously served on this Committee a few years ago. I will now go over some key elements of the structure of today's hearing.

Please note, while this hearing will not have phone testimony, we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the Committee's website at www.ahed.Assembly.CA.Gov bills will be taken up in sign in order authors, you can sign in at the sergeant's desk in room 447. Additionally, please note that the guideline for bills heard in this Committee is to allow for two lead witnesses in support and two lead witnesses in opposition to speak for no more than two minutes each.

Stakeholder groups and entities that are neither in support nor in opposition will be allowed to give testimony for no more than two minutes when a call for tweeners if a measure has more than two entities in the tweener category, only two will be allowed to speak for two minutes each. For Members of the Committee.

Members, if you would like to respond to a roll call, ask a question, or provide a comment, please be sure you activate your microphone and speak into your microphone for authors of bills up today. Authors each Member presenting today will have an opportunity to provide an opening statement and a closing statement. As previously stated, your two lead witnesses will each have two minutes to provide testimony and in today's actual hearing of bills, the following have been excused from today's Committee hearing.

Assembly Member Irwin, who has been replaced for today's hearing by Assemblymember Dawn Addis and Assemblymember Essayli who has been excused. Also want to note that for file item number five, Assembly Bill 1575 by Summer Irwin will be presented today by Summer Evan Low and I like to welcome all the Committee Members. Send a warm welcome to all the new Members of this Committee. Again, Assemblymember Boerner, Assemblymember Chan, Assemblymember Essayli and Assemblymember Jackson, and Assemblymember Muratsuchi. Thank you so much. At this time Madam Secretary, please call the role here.

[Roll Call]

Thank you so much, colleagues. We have quorum. At this time. We'll start with item number four, Assembly Bill 1160 by Senator Pacheco Senator Pacheco welcome.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Today I present Assembly Bill 1160. I want to start by thanking the Committee staff for all their hard work on this Bill today, and I will be accepting the Committee amendments. The amendments reflect months of conversations with opposition and good faith, attempts to mitigate their concerns, and provides important clarity on the bill's intent to protect students from the educational and economic harms associated with institutional debt.

This Bill provides clarity on the definition of the institutional debt and clarifies that this Bill does not cancel institutional debt or require institutions of higher education to cancel institutional debt.

Clarifies that the Bill does not require schools to re enroll students that have violated code of conduct, honor codes, or other policies that keep schools and students safe establishes important safeguards on the use of third party debt collection, requiring schools to wait 180 days before subjecting students to collections and ensures that schools are working directly with students to help them get back on track.

The Bill also protects students from having negative marks reported on their credit report during this time, while also providing schools more time in building out data reporting systems to ensure that they have the time, resources and capacity to adequately collect and report data on institutional debt. As you may be aware, much has been done about federal student loans, but currently, across California, more than 3.9 million borrowers owe nearly 148,000,000 in student loan debt, and institutional debts have ballooned, affecting more than 750,000 Low income students.

Institutional debt, as defined by debt owed by students directly to their schools. We are here to shed light on this unexpected barrier to students and the solutions I am working on to address this problem in this Assembly Bill 1160. With me today in support of 1160 is Dominique Kwan Tresler, current student at San Jose State University and serves as the President of the California State Student Association. We also have here with US Professor Charlie, Associate Professor of sociology at UC Merced.

We have a motion and we have a second. Thank you so much. Please. Hello chair and Members. My name is Dominic Kwan Tressler. I am a student at San Jose State University and also serve as the President of the California State Student Association, which represents nearly half a million CSU students. We are a proud co sponsor of AB 1160. Institutional debt is little known debt, but it affects thousands of students throughout California.

Often these debts come up unexpectedly for students without ample time for them to correct the issue. We heard from one student at CSU maritime Academy who told us that the night before registration, their financial aid changed unexpectedly and they were alerted that there was suddenly a hold on their registration until the new balance was paid. In this instance, the student was able to pay the balance, but many are less lucky.

We have heard from numerous students, most recently at CSU East Bay, who are facing enrollment holds while trying to finish their last semester of college. After years of hard work, their dreams seemed out of reach. During my first semester, I got dropped from all of my classes due to nonpayment, but I was able to re enroll once I paid the outstanding balance. All the classes I had selected were full and I had to select new ones.

I bring this up because there were concerns raised by the opposition regarding this regarding students under this Bill essentially becoming free riders and being able to bypass tuition. This was never the intent of our Bill, and the amendments make it clear that campuses will continue to implement drop for nonpayment policies to ensure students pay tuition for a current semester or quarter.

Our Bill simply gives students with institutional debt the chance to re enroll so they can keep making progress towards their degree while they work to repay an institutional debt from a previous term and ensure schools recoup necessary revenues. This way, students are not being blocked from graduating and pursuing their dreams. It's also important to note that institutional debt disproportionately affects Low income students at the CSU.

Nearly one third of undergraduates are the first in their families to attend college, and nearly half of CSU undergraduates also receive a Pell grant. The CSU prides itself as a leader on social mobility, but this critical mobility is hampered when institutional debt forces a student to drop out and not complete their degree. AB 1160 brings much needed transparency on institutional debt while also extending critical consumer protections for a large constituency and the future of California. Our students thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm an economic sociologist and Professor at UC Merced, where I cofounded the Higher Education Race and the economy Lab. Our lab coauthored the creditor colleges study with the Student Loan Law Initiative of UC Irvine law Professor Dahlia Jimenez and Berkeley law Professor Jonathan Glater. Our study shows that AB 1160 will help thousands of students with institutional debts to complete their education and help California's higher education segments to increase the revenue that they need to serve students.

Institutional debts work differently than student loan debts, and they tend to be more harmful. We estimate that over 300,000 students incur these debts at community colleges, CSU and UC in an average year. Most students incur institutional debts when they withdraw from school in the middle of an academic term because of a health or economic hardship. Schools are then required to return Pell Grant and student loan aid to the Department of Education.

If the student withdraws before 60% of an academic term has elapsed, schools then commonly charge a debt to students to try to recover those funds. Among other things, AB 1160 would prohibit schools from using registration holds that bar students with institutional debts from enrolling in subsequent terms. These registration holds harm both students and school revenue because only around 25% of these debts are ever paid. Schools would attain revenue increases under this policy by collecting more tuition and fee revenue for enrolling students in subsequent academic terms.

By allowing students to complete their degrees, this will also increase students'ability to repay debts. Several community colleges, CSUs and UCs have demonstrated success with this approach, and the CSU system actually reported on its website that several campuses took these steps and, quote, these steps included removing registration holds on students with outstanding debt. Contrary to some misunderstandings, AB 1160 will have no adverse effects on students payment of tuition or create a loophole for students to avoid paying tuition.

That's why, even though CSU has already done this, in some cases, they haven't seen a decline in tuition payment. And that's because, as Dominic noted, AB 1160 lets schools maintain drop for non payment policies by which they can drop students at the beginning of an academic term when they do not pay tuition or fees for that same term. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room?

I'm sorry? Are there witnesses in support in the hearing room?

Good afternoon, chair Members. My name is Sada Buabibsa, here on behalf of co sponsors, young invincibles, student debt crisis center, consumer reports, and we are proud to be in support of AB 1160. Hi, Kimberly Sanchez of next in California, a proud co sponsor and in support of this Bill. Hi, good afternoon. Hannah Devine. On behalf of the Cal State Student Association as well as the University of California Student Association, both proud co sponsors and strong support. Thank you.

Hello, Daniel Pearl. On behalf of. Ask me, California, in support of this Bill. Thank you. Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing? Roommate.

All right. Good afternoon. Sorry to have my back to some of you. Good afternoon. I'm Maggie White with the California State University. I'm here in respectful opposition to AB 1160 in its current form, we understand amendments are forthcoming. We look forward to continuing to work with the author's office.

We absolutely want to keep our students enrolled in making progress toward degree two of the main tenets of our graduation initiative 2025 are student financial support and removing administrative barriers in order to help students graduate in a more timely manner. In recent years, we've increased our services for students to help them access a variety of financial supports, including Calfresh application assistance, rapid rehousing and emergency grants, among other programs. We've also reduced administrative barriers, including removing certain fees that were determined to be an unnecessary roadblock.

As a public institution, tuition and mandatory fees make up about 40% of our operating budget. Because of this, it's very important that we do have mechanisms in place to collect those fees that support our essential operating functions. Across our campuses, there are an average of five outreach attempts that are made through a variety of channels, including email, phone call and text.

Before beginning the process of sending a debt to collections, our system wide policy states that campuses must include clear, timely and ongoing notifications of due dates and account balances to any student holding a debt. And all 23 of our campuses offer in house payment plans to work with students directly on repayment, which is always our preferred avenue. In closing, I'd like to be clear that third party debt collection or tax offset are never plan a for our campuses.

However, we do feel that retaining the ability to send a debt to collections is important in a subset of cases where students may not be willing to work with us on a payment plan and or are no longer our student, in which case we don't really have any internal levers to pull to bring them in for a conversation with the campus. I appreciate your time. Happy to answer questions.

Thank you so much. Good afternoon, chair and Members. Alex Graves with the ICCU representing 90 gosh, first day back for everyone, 90 private nonprofit colleges throughout the State of California. Also here, in respectful opposition, the amendment language that we've seen. I do want to note that we appreciate the amendments to allow a pathway for collections. Would concur with what my colleague said regarding that not being the preferred option of institutions.

And I also want to say that we do agree that trying to resolve the debt balances in house is more effective and certainly the preferred option for all of our Member institutions. Secondly, I would just like to clarify that for us, as private nonprofits, the types of debts that we are concerned about that drive our debt balances for students is not your $5 parking ticket. It's not your $10 late library book for us.

Most of our institutions offer tuition payment plans where if a student or family can't pay $8,000 up front before the start of a term, we'll spread those payments out over the course of the semester to make it more affordable for that family, more attainable. And we do find that our average debt balance tends to be in that $1,000 range, and that drives 80% to 99% of the debt that we see.

I would like to respectfully disagree that this Bill does not prohibit the collection of tuition and fees. As we read six subsection of the Bill, it does state that you can drop a student by the drop for non payment deadline, which is generally very early in the academic semester.

But both based on how we read the Bill and our meetings that we have had with the sponsors, it is our understanding that if a student misses a tuition payment plan after that point, we cannot use that drop for non payment deadline in the subsequent term to try and recoup that debt. And to be clear, we also will send multiple communications and emails and texts.

We are not just immediately defaulting to these other practices that are proposed to be prohibited in this Bill, but for a subset of students, we do find that they are non responsive until we try to compel them to come talk to us whether there's been a loss of income by a family Member and they need their aid repackaged if they just forgot.

We do try to work with students happy to talk more about the return of title four funds issue in more detail, but I don't think I can cover that in the seconds I have remaining. Thank you. Thank you so much. Are there any additional witnesses in opposition, Mr. Chair Members? Scott Gov, on behalf of the University of Phoenix here in opposition. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Matt Back, representing the California Association of Private Post Secondary Schools, also opposed.

Tim Lynch, on behalf of the Receivables Management Association International we're opposed to the Bill in print, but as we understand the amendments, they will be removing the prohibition on the sale of debt, and with that amendment, we'll be removing our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Melissa Cortez, on behalf of the California Association of Collectors, want to align my comments with the previous speaker. It's our understanding that the amendments do also remove the prohibition on debt collection. We will be removing our opposition, but would like to continue to work with the author on the 180 day timeline.

Good afternoon. Cliff Costa, on behalf of the California Creditors Bar Association, also like to align my comments with the previous two speakers we will be removing our opposition. Want to keep working on the 180 days, but very much appreciate the assemblywoman and her staff and sponsors for working with us. Thank you. Dean Graphila, with capital advocacy here on behalf of San Joaquin Valley College as well as Carrington colleges.

Respectfully of us, Mr. Chairman, Members Jason Murphy, on behalf of the University of California office, the President, we do not have a position on this Bill at this time. However, I want to echo the comments made by my colleagues at the table who are in opposition. We'll look forward to being in touch with the author as we move forward on the Bill. Thank you. Thank you so much. Are there a tweener? Is in the hearing room.

Good afternoon, chair Members. Nuna Ting. On behalf of the community College League of California, we're representing the state's 116 community colleges. We do not have a formal position on the Bill, but we wanted to echo the concerns raised by the CSU and the AICCU, and we're looking forward to reviewing the upcoming amendments and weighing in further. Thank you.

Thank you so much, colleagues. Any questions or comments? Senator Berner.

Thank you. And thank you to the author for trying to work on the issue with student debt. It's a problem that I think plagues us all. I don't think it's, especially when we look at any of our public institutions or community colleges, it's not their first option to ever go to debt collection. I know my first semester at Berkeley, I had a tragedy happen to me and I needed to drop a class and went to my counselor.

It was after the patrol deadline, and they accommodated me. No, that was 1991. So a little bit long ago, maybe. That's not our profit. Was that for me?

That was for me.

My understanding though, is a lot of this was pandemic related. During the pandemic, a lot of people dropped out. A lot of people couldn't finish classes. Modes shifted. Is this Bill only related to the pandemic or is it ongoing?

Yeah, it's ongoing. And this isn't a problem that was specific to the pandemic. These types of, and I think my colleagues from the opposition would echo this, institutional debts are incurred ongoingly by hundreds of thousands of California students every year.

My other questions, it seems that this Bill could impact smaller institutions, more than larger institutions if they are dependent on their operational costs, are based on student payments, and it's paying back these debts. One of the things I think is like, we want to make a path where debt collection isn't the first line, but if student leaves and as the opposition said there's no recourse to get them to negotiate to pay off the debt. What are we doing in a smaller institution?

Might have less leeway to deal with that. How would you say your Bill accounts for that?

Well, historically, private institutions have actually had lower rates of institutional debts, and I think that has to do with their fee structure. Additionally, they still, with the amendments that have been discussed, would be able to place debts with debt collectors and would still be able to sell debts to debt collectors. So there are still those options available for institutions to collect on debts. But as it is, students mostly don't repay these debts because they can't. They don't have the resources to repay these debts.

That's why on average, only about 25% of outstanding institutional debts are ever repaid. At my institution, Ucamer said, we write off about 75% of these debts every year from prior years.

But that has to affect an institution's bottom line when they're writing off debts.

No, and the other thing is you actually will bring in more revenue if you enroll the student in a subsequent term. So, the amount of debt typically is less than what the tuition and fees for a subsequent term would be. So, it's actually financially more advantageous for an institution to enroll students. That's why several CSU campuses and CSU has noted this online, has waived enrollment holds for these students.

Several community colleges, the San Francisco City College system, Lake Tahoe Community College system, have had a lot of success in re enrolling these students after they removed the registration holds. But you can still seek to collect on the debts through conventional terms, through conventional methods, including placement with debt collectors.

Okay. I think some of those arguments go against each other. I don't know if the opposition has anything where they want to weigh in. I'm inclined to support this because I think the intention is good, and I just think I like the Committee amendments.

It just seems like there needs to be more tweaking for the cases where you know you're not going to get the student back at the table like they have left the institution, they're no longer there, they shouldn't have to wait to collect that if the student's not coming back to the table, and if they can't pay in the one semester, I don't know what makes us think that they can pay in the following.

Semester for one reason, is that typically these students receive federal financial aid and often state financial aid. So if you enroll a student who is Low income and they use a Pell grant award and they use a federal student loan to pay, you're going to bring in more revenue enrolling them in a subsequent term than you would by seeking to collect on a debt because they withdrew in the middle of a term because of a health or economic hardship.

If I may just add a comment that you asked if we'd like to add anything to your question. Again, I want to reiterate that our institutions and our institutional staff that I've spoken with in financial services, financial aid on this question. Again, we 100% agree that working in house with the student is a better option, both for the student and for the institution.

Again, debt collection for us is a last gasp effort, especially in instances, as you have noted, where the student has left, either because they've graduated or they have withdrawn and they're not returning. I think there's a bit of a false dichotomy being presented in the arguments made in that it's either the institution is sending everything to collections because they're stopping that student's progress or whatnot, or they're just figuring it out in house and enrolling and there's no kind of in between.

I would say that our institutions bend over backwards in many cases to try and keep that student moving forward. I mean, there are numerous indicators that are reported in ipeds that are tied to our federal aid eligibilities, institutions that encourage us to try and ensure and incentivize us to ensure that that student progresses towards their degree in a timely manner, that they graduate. Because the worst thing we can do as an institution is have a student not graduate, but leave with debt.

I mean, that's where you find there's higher rates of default on those loans and other things. Right? I would also just add that I know that in the private nonprofit sector, I think people assume that. I think there are a few very well resourced institutions in our sector, and people assume that that is a similar resource Proposition for most of our institutions, when the reality is most of our colleges and universities are regionally serving of modest means and are really tuition dependent.

And so, as I noted with our respectful disagreement about that, this does not prohibit the collection of tuition and fees. That's really where we have serious pause, even in the drafted amendments, because in our view, it is going to push us more in the direction of debt collection, because we're not going to have those other mechanisms for that subset of students who are non responsive to our attempts to work with them as they're moving through programs.

So I'm inclined to support, but I hope the author I know she always works in good faith with everybody, so I hope you would consider those things of the smaller institution and maybe thinking about are there paths of this has to be exhausted first before that versus just putting out 180 days or anything. I don't know. This is my first time on the Committee, so I'm not sure if I should even be saying any of this, but I'll support today. But I do have some concerns.

Thank you, and I appreciate it. And we've had multiple conversations, and we will continue to have multiple conversations as well. I have an open door policy, so I'm looking forward to further conversations.

Thank you so much. Senator Boerner Assembly Musiuji thank you very much. First of all, I want to thank our wonderful author for very important Bill to provide consumer protections for our students. I will be supporting the Bill, but I wanted to support some of the concerns raised by our universities, especially our public universities. Well, all of our higher education institutions, recognizing that 40% of the CSU's operating budget comes from student tuition and fees. Your letter of opposition.

I just want to make sure that the amendments are changing this statement that your letter of opposition states that this Bill would remove all reasonable methods to collect outstanding student debts. That is no longer the case.

I do believe that's being changed by the amendments. We'll want to see those fully in print, but I believe it's removing some of our concerns around that.

Okay. I'm hearing both of you talk about how debt collection is not your preferred method, but that is going to be what you're going to have to resort to in order to collect the outstanding debts.

It is considered our last resort when all other methods of communication have failed with that particular student.

Okay. I guess in a way, given the realities of not only of the world that we live in, in terms of people not having to be held responsible for their debts, that we may be exchanging consumer protections for students with perhaps the increase in tarnished or ruined credit histories for students that may fall into debt. I wonder if the proponents might have any comments about that that would be.

Ruining their credit history.

Yeah, I mean, if they have a debt collection action reflected on their credit history, if the University is going to have to resort to debt collection practices because they're being denied these other practices to collect debt, that we may see an increase in terms of tarnished or blemished credit histories for these students. Well, typically using a registration hold, for example, does not actually lead to a successful collection.

It leads to a student leaving school or actually often going to another institution which won't have their debt on record and won't have a registration hold. There are protections in the Bill related to students credit histories. I'm not the lead expert on that part of the Bill, so I won't speak to the details on that. But generally speaking, extending consumer protections to the Bill while permitting collections and prohibiting registration holds.

We think we've got every reason to believe it's going to improve students ability to return to school, complete their degree, and in doing so, have more resources, a better chance on the job market to pay off their debts, which schools can continue to seek collections on through collections, through placements with collection. No, I get that part. But even if you prohibit the ability to put a registration hold, they still have the debt, right? This is not relieving any of their debt. Correct.

They still have the debt that they owe to the school while they continue to work on their degree, and the school can still use their range of policies to try to resolve the debt as it is, schools typically don't resolve most of these debts, and that is going to. I assume that's going to be reflected on their credit history.

My understanding, and again, I'm not the Dahlia Jimenez, who's the UC Irvine law Professor who is a co author of our report, is the kind of lead expert. She also leads the debt collection lab. She's the lead expert. But my understanding is that there are protections for credit history reporting, but those are some of the details that are getting worked out about what are the permissible practices for the debt collectors while they seek the collection.

But placing a debt in collections does not necessarily mean that the debt will be reported to a credit bureau. Those are two separate things. So it is not necessarily the case that a student's debt, when placed with a debt collector, would be also reported to the credit bureau. Okay. Again, while I support the students being able to continue with their education, if they're able to somehow be able to regroup and to stick with their educational aspirations.

And that's something that I want to support, but I want to make sure that we're not talking about debt relief here. No.

Okay. No, it definitely would not be debt relief.

Yeah. Last question for CSU. I would imagine that if there's a significant impact in terms of lost revenues, the 40% of your revenues that you count on for your budget, that that may be a cost pressure, for example, future tuition increases.

Absolutely. And I think we are hopeful with the amendments, when we see them in print, that some of this will be addressed. I think we still have questions on exactly how tuition will interact with being institutional debt or not, and when we can move forward with collections on that or other mechanisms. But certainly it's a big concern for us as this is nearly half of our budget of paying our faculty and staff and keeping the lights on.

All right, thank you very much. Thank you so much. Sommy Member any other further comments or questions? Thank you so much. Does author wish to close please?

Yes. I want to thank all of you for this opportunity to present my Bill. We've been having ongoing conversations during the fall, all the way up to December, and we're going to continue with the conversations to possibly perfect this Bill, even more so for today. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much the author, for bringing this Bill forward and for taking time to work on it during the interim and to the Committee staff as well, for all their hard work and efforts on this. I believe that concerns being raised by the schools do for merit further conversations and work, and I know that's in process right now. So glad to hear those conversations happening and the bills I think is on the right path and in the spare of the Bill.

I look forward to supporting the Bill today as we work through some of the challenges. And Members with that roll call, please.

The motion file item number five, AB 1160. The motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee.

Fong aye. Fong, aye. Ta, no. Arambula? Boerner? Boerner, aye. Chen? No. Chen, no. Essayli? Addis? Addis, aye. Jackson? Low, aye. Muratsuchi, aye. Muratsuchi, aye. Quirk-Silva.

That item currently has five eyes, two no's. We'll keep the item open for additional Members to sign on.

Next up, we will do item number one, authored by Assembler Chris Holden. Assembly Bill 359, welcome. We have a motion and a second on Assembly Bill 359. Welcome, Mr. Holden.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members for the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 359, CCAP 2.0, or phase one of dual enrollment reform. I want to begin by thanking the Chair and the Committee and staff for holding the oversight Committee on Dual Enrollment in November of last year.

AB 359 is part of part one of the policy recommendations that were presented at that hearing on ways to ensure the success of CCAP and dual enrollment programs throughout the state. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, CCAP students are doing better than their peers who did not participate in dual enrollment. CCAP students obtain associate degrees or certificates at higher rates. This bill builds on great work CCAP has accomplished by eliminating barriers faced by underrepresented students, local education agencies, and community college districts.

What this bill does, AB 359 provides clarifying changes, establishes a framework to integrate pathways into every CCAP partnership. Specifically, AB 359 does the following streamlines student enrollment and participation in CCAP by removing the principles recommendation and requiring students to complete one application, allow schools to partner with community colleges outside their service area if certain conditions are met, provides schools with the opportunity to teach courses online with appropriate student support in place, and ensures students receive high school and college credit for the courses they complete on their unique pathway.

Thank you, Peter Birdsall representing the California High School Coalition. Our coalition consists of 55 school districts across the state that wanted to focus on issues that impact high schools and high school students.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

With me to testify in support are Peter Birdsall, President of Education Advocates and Legislative Advocate for the California High School District Coalition, and Melissa Bardo, Associate Director of Policy and Government Relations for Education Trust West. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

One of our top priorities is to expand the opportunities for students to participate in dual enrollment programs and particularly the CCAP program because it's been so effective. This bill does a lot to remove the administrative and governance barriers that have sometimes made those partnerships difficult. So we are in support of the bill and urge your support also. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Good afternoon Chair Fong and Members of the Assembly Higher Education Committee, Melissa Bardo, Associate Director of Policy and Government Relations for the Education Trust West and we're a research and advocacy organization committed to advancing policies and practices that dismantle racial and economic barriers in California's education system. Education leaders and policymakers have an opportunity to reimagine how dual enrollment can transform our systems and students' lives, and be a powerful lover for equity and student attainment of post secondary education.

In our landmark report jumpstart, which analyzes dual enrollment data at California's community colleges, we found that LEAs and community colleges are not yet equitably serving black, native, and Latinx students through dual enrollment. Therefore, strategies to increase dual enrollment access and participation must center the needs of these students and families. College and career access pathways, or CCAP partnerships, in particular, aim to provide early exposure to college courses for students who may not be college bound or who are underrepresented in higher education.

AB 359 will eliminate outdated barriers that prevent students from accessing college coursework through CCAP, while also making it easier for LEAs and community college districts to develop partnership agreements and expand course offerings. We are particularly excited about the student friendly amendments that eliminate the requirement for principal recommendations, clarify that students should only submit one application for the duration of their participation in CCAP, and work towards ensuring that students receive credit from both their high school and college for completing college level courses.

These changes will go a long way towards ensuring students do not encounter unnecessary barriers to CCAP and maximize the benefits of their participation. We also appreciate that AB 359 prohibits colleges from offering pretransfer coursework through CCAP. As the Committee analysis indicates, dual enrollment is intended to enhance students access to college level coursework, whereas remedial education can delay that, particularly for students of color.

These changes will ensure that CCAP partnerships are aligned and engage with statewide efforts to phase out remedial education and instead focus on evidence based strategies that promote equitable placement and student success in college gateway courses. I'd like to thank Assembly Member Holden for being a steadfast champion of dual enrollment and, since its inception in 2015, committed to getting it right. We greatly appreciate your diligence in working with stakeholders, advocates, and Committee staff to address the unique needs and challenges that dual enrollment students face. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in support in the hearing room?

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room?

Chair and Members, Austin Webster with W Strategies on behalf of the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, Faculty Association for California Community Colleges, and the California Community College Association for Occupational Education. We have not had a chance to take a formal position on the most recent amendments, but we appreciate the author's commitment to dual enrollment and look forward to weighing in soon.

Thank you so much. Colleagues, any questions or comments? Assembly Member Muratsuchi.

Well, first of all, I want to thank the Chair and the Committee again for convening the hearing this fall, last fall, which gave us an opportunity to delve deeper into the limitations that exist and how we can grow this program in a way that expands for those who are certainly in a position to need to know that they can do college-level coursework while in high school, removing barriers that would stigmatize their ability to continue on.

Thank you, Mr. Holden, for continuing to be a champion of dual enrollment. I know that the priority of dual enrollment is to increase the numbers of students of colors, students that don't come from traditional college-bound backgrounds. I really appreciate your efforts, but I also have a little self-interest. My daughter is looking at taking advantage of dual enrollment.

It's my understanding that your Bill is opening it to or ensuring that all students, but prioritizing underrepresented students to participate in the CCAP programs is that correct? And so, yeah, I think expanding opportunities for high school students to not just be limited to what is offered at their high schools, but to be able to go beyond that.

I know that some students that I've met, they not only want to take dual enrollment courses at their community college for which they have an agreement or a partnership with, but even other community colleges. Nothing in this Bill will restrict the ability of students to explore opportunities outside of, basically, to be able to take courses at community colleges other than those for which they have their partnership agreement.

No, I think I'm reading you. And it's not to limit, it's to create greater opportunities. And certainly, for when the original Bill was passed, it was really narrow to the community colleges and the district, and recognizing that in some of the rural areas of the state, it's a little harder to move around. So creating a little bit more flexibility so that more students could participate in the fullness of the program is the ultimate goal.

Okay. And I know that I participated in a recent education conference where these two particular issues, the one application for the CCAP program and the dual credit, automatic dual credit for both high school and community colleges, those were specific fixes that were identified. And your Bill is a solution to that?

Yes.

All right. Thank you very much. I'll be happy to support this Bill.

Thank you so much. Assembly Member, any further comments or questions? Seeing none. Mr. Holden, would you like to close?

But also for those who are certainly positioned to see themselves finish high school with an AA degree and a high school diploma, is an exciting prospect for any young person and certainly for a parent who has to contemplate the cost of college and what that will be. So I want to thank the Committee. I think that, as we've described in our presentation, this is part one of a variety of changes that will need to happen.

And I've shared with the Chair, this is a Bill that will continue to keep giving and meeting the needs of our young people and their opportunity for growth and educational opportunities. And the Bill last year was creating opportunity for college for court students, DACA students in the past.

So it is a Bill that is recognizing wherever there's a barrier to having full access to this program, we're obviously looking to take down that barrier and create the proper pathways for young people to have all the opportunities for excelling into the future and going on to college, and even for those who do not, but can participate in the program and find opportunities for their vocational advancement, that's exciting as well. So with all of that, I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you so much to summer Holden for your leadership and efforts around CCAP and dual enrollment programs for the past many years and for the leadership around the oversight hearing that we had this past fall. Really appreciate your participation there and your leadership. And really, as we look to expand dual enrollment programs here in California, as mentioned in the analysis, AB 359 builds upon the many years of efforts to expand and increase dual enrollment participation for all students in California.

So I look forward to working with you, Mr. Holden, and Education Chair, Assembly Member Muratsuchi, and to colleagues to continue the efforts here to expand opportunities. Today, we continue to craft policy that will provide further opportunities for dual enrollment for every student in the state, regardless of where they attend high school. And I look forward to supporting the Bill here today. With that, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item one, AB 359. The motion is do pass to the Education Committee. [Roll call].

Thank you so much. That Bill has seven eyes no no's. We'll keep the roll open for additional Members to sign on, and it's out as of now. So thank you so much.

Thank you, sir.

Next up, we'll be doing Assembly Member Friedman's Bill. Assembly Bill 810, item number two. Welcome, Assembly Member Friedman. We have a motion and a second.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and Members. I want to thank your staff, first of all, and you for all of your hard work over the past few years on this issue. As some of you may know, in 2018, it was my honor to chair the Joint Rules Subcommitee on Sexual Harassment prevention and Response.

During those hearings, and we had about six hearings, we heard from experts across the spectrum about best practices in preventing harassment, and we took steps to increase transparency and accountability right here of our own capital community. But it's past due time for similar protections for staff and students at our colleges and universities. AB 810, as amended, builds upon existing best practices established by UC Davis by codifying their employee certification process for public and private universities.

This Bill provides an additional layer of protection for the campus community by providing another tool for human resource officers to engage with previous employers to ascertain whether the applicant has sustained allegations of misconduct while employed by a previous employer. Now, under current law, colleges do do background checks, but unfortunately, background checks do not catch incidences or actions of misconduct or sexual harassment. And this has opened the door to the common practice across higher education institutions of passing the harasser in both academic and athletic spaces.

According to a white paper done by the National Academy's Action Cooperation on preventing sexual harassment in higher education, the term refers to instances where faculty Members found responsible for sexual harassment can quietly resign and seek employment at another institution without notifying their new employer of past misconduct.

For example, in 2022, an EdSource article chronicled the story of a CSU baseball coach who was found to have sexually and racially harassed players and staff, had resigned from the University, but was still able to serve as a volunteer for a community college team. By reinforcing more accountability in the hiring process, AB 810 aims to reduce the passing of the harasser from campus to campus to promote a more safe and equitable environment for campus staff and the students who we have a responsibility to protect.

Testifying in support this afternoon is Kate Rogers from GENup and Ron Rapp from the California Faculty Association. There is, at this time, no registered opposition to this Bill.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chairman Fong and Members of the Committee. My name is Kate Rogers and I serve as the Director of policy for generation up, and I'm also happy to be a constituent of Assemblymember Friedman. GENup is an entirely student led educational advocacy organization focusing on advancing equity in the legislative process. I am honored to be here today to represent GENup in support of Assembly Bill 810.

As a proud joint sponsor of AB 810, genup seeks your support in the fight against sexual harassment on college campuses by codifying safeguards into higher education hiring practices. AB 810 protects students and faculty against discrimination in academic, extracurricular and athletic environments. Specifically, as the Member stated, the Bill requires the California State University and the California community colleges and requests that the University of California and private institutions of higher education include a mandatory information release form in their application paperwork.

The form grants prospective hiring campuses permission to request records from an applicant's previous employers regarding any substantiated allegations of misconduct. ABA 10 adds an additional layer of protection that assists in preventing educators, administrators and coaches that have been terminated from previous employment for violation of University policy from simply just moving to another institution of higher education. As the Member stated, this situation has become so common that is referred to as passing the harasser.

According to the American Medical Association, individuals that experience sexual harassment can suffer from a wide range of long term physical and psychological effects, including increased symptoms of depression, anxiety, and poor sleep. In the short term, harassment directed at a student can have academic, social and emotional consequences. ABA 10 takes a crucial step towards preventing harassment before it occurs by empowering colleges and universities to protect their student body.

On behalf of the 4000 associated Members of Genup, I strongly urge you to stand with California students and respectfully request your I vote on ABA 10 today. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, Committee Members. Ron Rapp, Legislative Director for the Legislative Director for the California Faculty Association as many of you know, the California Faculty Association represents over 29,000 faculty, including tenure track professors, lecturers, librarians, counselors, and coaches, for all 23 campuses of the California State University system. The CFA is in support of AB 810 and believes that this Bill, once enacted, will help to ensure that our young adults are safe within our higher education system.

By providing greater accountability and transparency in hiring practices, AB 810 will not only keep our young adults safer, but it will also help to eliminate the practice of passing the harasser from one University to the next, a practice that happens far too often. The CFA believes this legislation is an important step in the right direction and is committed to working with the Legislature to pass additional legislation to ensure the safety of our young adults on our college campuses.

We applaud the author for taking a leadership role on this issue and respectfully request your ivote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in support in the hearing room? Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Committee Members, colleagues? Any questions or comments? Seeing none. Assuming Friedman, would you like to close please?

I just would appreciate your support today. It's way past time that we deal with this issue that's plaguing our campuses. Thank you.

Thank you so much, assuming Friedman, for working closely with our Committee staff to craft language on this very, very important issue. As mentioned in the analysis, the Assembly Higher Education Committee and Assembly Education Committee are putting together a report with recommendations on how the state can best address sexual harassment and sexual violence in college and University campuses.

I appreciate the author's willingness to continue conversations to ensure the language of Assembly Bill 810 aligns with the recommendations of the report and as mentioned earlier, that establishing stronger employment verification procedures to ensuring the passing of a harasser is not a common higher education practice is a necessary step towards ensuring our campuses are free from discrimination and harassment and are happy to support the measure here today. Thank you so much. With that, Madam Secretary, please call the roll file.

Item two, AB 810. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee.

Fong? Aye. Fong, aye. Ta, aye. Arambula? Boerner?. Boerner, aye? Chen? Aye. Chen, aye. Essayli? Addis? Addis, aye. Jackson? Low? Aye. Muratsuchi? Muratsuchi, aye. Quirk-Silva.

Thank you so much. That item has six votes. It is out. We'll keep the item open for additional Members to add on. Thank you so much. Next up, we will have item number five, authored by summer Irwin. Today will be presented by Senator Evan Lowe. Welcome. We have a motion and a second. Thank you so much.

How are you? Thank you. Good. Welcome.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and colleagues, for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 1575 today on behalf of Assemblywoman Irwin. This Bill, which of course seeks to provide a better system of support for students who are involved in an administrative proceeding at their college or University. The motivation for this Bill originated from one of the authors, Assemblywin Irwin's constituents. Kitty Mayor was a Stanford student athlete whose suicide was precipitated by a threatening notice of a student code of conduct proceeding.

Assembly when Irwin also believes that allowing a student to select an advisor who may also be a confidential advocate to assist them through this proceeding will provide continued support through what may be the most challenging moment in their time. With me to testify in support of this Bill are Gina and Steve Mayer, the parents of Katie, and the organizers of Katie. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote and appreciate your attention to listening to two dedicated, loving parents.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, we're Stephen and Gina Meyer and we're Katie's parents. And thank you for having us today. We really appreciate it. Katie was a student and an RA at Stanford University, and from her earliest days, Katie was an all-in human being. She was self-driven, high achieving, passionate, and had a radiant personality. Katie died by suicide in her dorm room at Stanford. The following isn't to put her on a pedestal, but to rather break a stigma that suicide can occur with anyone.

She was a senior, three months shy of graduation and awaiting acceptance to Stanford Law School. She was a captain on the Stanford women's soccer team, an NCAA champion with that squad in 2019, and she had many wonderful opportunities ahead of her that she was so excited about most of them predicated on being a graduate of Stanford University. She was a dream of a daughter and sister, loving, brilliant and kind.

And we believe her story lives on because Katie could have been anybody's daughter, but she was ours. Unbeknownst to us, Gina and I, Katie got caught up in a disciplinary action for spilling coffee on a football player who had allegedly sexually assaulted one of Katie's teammates. Technically a minor at the time, and as far as we understand it, the football player received no consequences from the school for his actions, whereas Katie was pulled into a six month long disciplinary process and investigation.

On the night of her death, Katie received a five page, single spaced, emailed charge letter filled with Legalese that not only threatened to withhold her degree, but outright removal from the University. Everything she had ever worked for could now be taken away from her just three months shy of graduation. This email came after over three months of no contact from that office. And we have since learned Katie thought the whole thing was over. And why wouldn't she?

Nothing happened with the football player for a sexual assault on a minor, so why would anything happen to her for spilling coffee? And the email came at night. At the last possible moment of a six-month statute of limitations, Katie suffered what experts call an acute stress reaction. That's when an otherwise flourishing member of society has something go unexpectedly sideways in their life and they can't see their way out of it. In that moment.

It's been explained like looking through a straw, feeling hopeless and scared in a specific situation. The news of Katie's passing shattered us to the core, and the pain was literally excruciating. Katie was the last person, if you knew her, ask anybody who knows Katie Meyer. She would be the last person on Earth. Anyone would ever think this would happen to her.

So Gina and I decided to turn our pain into purpose and work to achieve the goal of no other college student, their family, friends, and campus community, ever going through something like this tragedy again. So we've created our foundation of Katie Save and been working on this Bill. AB 1575, Dr. Brian Hainline of the NCAA, the Chief Medical Officer, believes this idea, this concept is a front-end safety net for our young people. It gets out ahead of it.

And Gina is going to speak now about how this concept would have helped Katie and will certainly help our young people on campuses going forward. Thank you.

Hi. Thanks for having us today. Shortly after Katie's death, Steve and I said, how did we not know that she was involved in this disciplinary action? How did her sisters not know, friends not know? Well, Katie kept this very close to her chest. She was probably a bit embarrassed and ashamed and was hoping it would be settled or blow over quickly because of Hipaa and Ferpa laws. Unless she confides in us, there is zero notification to parents or guardians of such matters.

We believe she felt very alone and unsupported throughout this disciplinary process. Here's a student who's never been in trouble before, let alone even a detention, from way back in middle school or high school. And you also have a very young adult, as with all of our college students, 18 to 25 years old, with very little life experience and whose brain, specifically the prefrontal cortex, is not fully developed yet, and that is just science.

So no matter how smart and independent you are in very challenging or stressful situations, they tend to think more with their middle brain, which can be more emotional, impulsive and irrational in decision making. We believe had this Bill been in place at her University, she would have had a trained, confidential advocate from day one, and that person would have been a bridge or liaison with that disciplinary office. Questions that were confusing or left unanswered, the length of time that she was too scared to ask.

She would have been able to talk with her advocate, someone who had been able to walk through this process with her, and there would have been more guidance, counseling and reassurance, and most likely this would have been resolved much quicker and in person instead of after hours in the late evening of the six month statue of limitations, through a very cold heartless email that arrived the night she took her life, we surmise impulsively, in a panicked moment.

And if she chooses, she would also have an outside advisor of her choice, a family member or trusted adult, to get that extra support during the process. So, the outside advisor and the confidential advocate would be on her team, guiding her through this process, standing by her side at actual meetings or interviews, checking in with her and offering their guidance and support through the entire process. Complete game changer for these college students. Most of them are very alone and scared going through these processes.

This Bill will help to ensure all future students and universities get the support they may desperately need when dealing with a stressful or challenging Title IX, sexual assault, disciplinary action, including academic probation and substance abuse. We truly believe this Bill could have saved Katie's life as it acts as that front end safety net, and it will save future lives going forward. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in support in the hearing room? Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues, are there any questions or comments? Some are Addis yeah.

I just want to thank you for your testimony and your bravery. Thank you, Assemblymember Low, for presenting this on behalf of Assemblymember Erwin. I think my colleague and I were sitting here teary listening to your story, and Katie really could be anyone's child. So thank you for turning this into something positive, effective, and that can help others.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you so much. I just want to echo that as a father of a daughter. Thank you very much for all that you're doing.

Appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further comments or questions? Arthur, would you like to close?

I'd like to reaffirm the acknowledgement of the strength and the bravery of Katie's parents and the purposeful nature that we are all in this together and our job and duties to protect as many Californians as possible and respectfully ask for. I vote in honor of Katie and her parents'commitment.

Thank you so much, Senator Low, for presenting on behalf of Soma Irwin today. And thank you, Katie's parents, for your bravery and for your testimony for being here today. We know the memory every daughter lives on and the work that you're doing.

As mentioned in the analysis, the Assembly Higher Education Committee and the Senate Education Committee are putting together a report of recommendations on how the state can best continue to address sexual harassment and sexual violence on college and University campuses and appreciate the author's willingness to continue conversations to share the language of Assembly Bill 1575, lines with the recommendations of the report. As mentioned earlier, having a safe place to turn to receive advice, support, and guidance is imperative for our students who are experiencing a crisis.

And assuming Bill 157 five ensures that students, faculty, and staff have a safe place in the form of advisors and confidential advocates. And with that, Members, thank you so much, Madam Secretary. Please call the roll.

File. Item five, AB 1575. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. Fong? Aye. Fong, aye. Ta? Aye. Ta, aye. Arambula? Aye. Arambula, aye. Boerner? Boerner, aye. Chen? Aye. Chen, aye. Essayli? Addis? Addis, aye. Jackson? Low? Aye. Low, aye. Murasuchi? Murasuchi, aye. Quirk-Silva.

Thank you so much. That item has eight votes. No no's. That item is added. We'll continue the item for additional Members to add on. And thank you so much again for joining us here today.

Thank you all. Every one of you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Now we'll move to item number three. Assembly Bill 1142. I'd like to pass the gavel to Vice Chair Ta as I present this Bill.

All right. Thank you so much. And now, AB 1142.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair Members. Assembly Bill 1142 establishes the Coordinating Commission for postsecondary education in California. Prior to 2011, California had an independent body called the California Postsecondary Education Commission to coordinate both public and private postsecondary education in California. CPEC provided independent analyses and recommendations to the Legislature. Unfortunately, the budget was reduced over time and as a result, the work became less and less effective. CPEC shut down in the fall of 2011.

California is only one of two states in our nation without a statewide oversight and coordinating body. In the meantime, higher education stakeholders and legislators have acknowledged the absence of a body to help guide policy through an independent and holistic lens. Assembly Bill 1142 is a vehicle to help us continue the conversation of what an independent coordinating body should look like. This Committee, jointly, along with the Senate Education Committee, plans on holding an informational hearing in February on this very topic.

The January 3 amendments remove the structure of the double CPEC so that we can continue to gain insight from the hearing and work with stakeholders in the Governor. I want to thank Assembly Evan Lowe for also being a joint author on this Bill and respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you so much. So, are there any witnesses in support in the hearing room?

Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Ron Rapp, speaking on behalf of the California Faculty Association, we're in strong support of this Bill. We understand and value the importance of effective oversight and coordinated planning in the educational sector. This Bill represents a significant step towards strengthening the efficacy and integrity of post-secondary education in California. And because of that, we respectfully request your Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there any witnesses in opposition in hearing room? Are there any tweener in a hearing room?

Good afternoon. Mary Moyle with the CSU. We do not have an official position on the Bill yet, but as the Bill evolves, we would like to ensure that the systems of higher education have a meaningful voice. And we also look forward to working with the author on this. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Alex Graves with AICCU. I would just echo the comments of my colleague from the CSU. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Committee Members, are there any question, comment or concerns? All right, and to authro, would you wish to close?

Thank you so much. I appreciate all the comments and respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

All right, so before I ask Madam Secretary to do roll call that I want to thank the author for introducing the Bill. I think that the language of the Bill is really supportable. However, I do have concerns because as we all aware that this current year our state have deficit. So that's the only concerns I have. So I hope that author understand that even the language of the Bill is really supportable. But I cannot vote for this time. However, I reserve my support in the future.

Secretary, can you do a roll call?

File item number three, AB 1142. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]. Eight Yeses. We'll hold it open for add-ons.

Thank you so much. Thank you so much, colleagues. Thank you, Mr. Ta, and hank you so much, colleagues for a robust hearing. We'll keep the items open. We'll have Members add-on at this time, roll call, please. We'll go through each. At this time, Madam Secretary call the item on item number one. I'll pass it to you. Thank you.

File item number one, AB 359. The motion is do passed to the Education Committee.

That has eight Ayes. No no's. We'll keep the item open for any additional Members. I'd like to add on item number two.

File item number two, AB 810. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee.

Thank you so much, colleagues. That item has eight eyes no no's. We'll keep the item for any additional Members that like to add on. Next up is item number four, file.

Item number four, AB 1160. The motion is due, passed as amended to the Appropriations Committee.

Thank you so much, colleagues. That has six eyes, two no's. We'll keep the item open for any additional Members that would like to add on. We'll keep the roll open for a few more minutes. Any Members that would like to add on, we'll keep the roll open for a few more minutes. Five more minutes, please. Thank you. Thank you so much, colleagues. Thank you so much. At this time, I like to open the roll for additional Members to add on item number one. Madam Secretary.

File item number one, AB 359. The motion is due, passed to the education Committee.

That item has nine ayes no no's. We'll keep the roll pipe for any additional Members that like to add on item number two.

Madam Secretary, file item number two, AB 810. The motion is due, passed to the Appropriations Committee.

Thank you so much. That item has nine eyes no no's. We'll keep the item, additional item up for any additional Members I like to add on. Thank you so much.

Item number three, please file item number three, AB 1142. The motion is due, passed to the Appropriations Committee.

Thank you so much. That item has eight eyes, one not voting. We'll keep the roll open for any additional Members I'd like to add on.

Item number four, please file item number four, AB 1160. The motion is do pass as amended, to the Appropriations Committee.

Thank you so much. That item has eight eyes, two no's. That item is out. Thank you so much. Next item, item number five.

Please file item number five, AB 1575. The motion is due, passed to the Appropriations Committee.

Thank you so much. That item is out with 10 ayes no no's. Thank you so much. We'll open a roll for item number one.

Please file item number one, AB 359. The motion is due, passed to the education Committee.

That item has 10 ayes no no's. Thank you so much. That item is out.

File item number two, AB 810. The motion is due, passed to the Appropriations Committee.

Thank you so much. That item has 10 ayes no no's. That item is out. Thank you so much.

Item number three, please file item number three. AB 1142. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee.

Thank you so much, colleagues. That item has nine eyes and is out as well. Thank you so much, colleagues, for a robust meeting. And thank you so much, Committee staff and team, for working efforts on our Higher Education Committee hearing. With that, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you so much.