Assembly Standing Committee on Higher Education

Like to welcome everyone to the Assembly Higher Education Committee. The meeting is now called to order. Madam Secretary. Roll call please.

[Roll Call]

Thank you so much. Quorum is established. Thank you Members and welcome to the second policy hearing of the Assembly Higher Education Committee. Whether here in person or watching virtually, I extend a warm welcome to you all.

Also like to extend a warm welcome to Assembly Member David Tangipa, who has been appointed by the speaker to fill the Republican vacancy on this Committee for today's hearing only. Welcome to today's hearing Assemblymember Tangipa.

I will now go over some key elements of the structure of today's hearing as we proceed with the witnesses and public comment. I want to make sure that everyone understands that the Assembly has rules to maintain order and to run an efficient and fair hearing.

We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings, regardless of the viewpoint they express. In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as many of the comments from the public. Within the time limits that we have, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings.

Well, next up. Disruptive behavior. Behavior that incites or threatens violence. As you came into the meeting room today, the sergeants directed your attention to the rules for public attendance and participation which are posted outside the door. The rules for today's hearing include no talking or loud noises from the audience.

A public comment may be provided only at the designated time and place as permitted by the Chair. Public comment must relate to the subject or bills being discussed today. No engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes our orderly conduct of this hearing.

Please note that violations of these rules may subject you to removal or enforcement actions. Please note also that while this hearing will not have full 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.

However, Committee Members typically present their bills after Non Committee Members authors. You can sign in at the sergeant's desk in room 127.

Further, please note that the guideline for bills heard in this Committee is to allow for testimony from 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 each. When a call for tweeners if a measure has more than two entities in a tweener category, only two will be allowed to speak for two minutes each.

Members for Members of the Committee, since our hearings are public and some travel too far to be here in respect of them and the author, please allow the author to complete their opening remarks regarding the Bill before making a motion so that the public has an idea of what the Bill is about. If a motion is made during the author's opening remarks, I'll simply say that the motion will be recognized at the appropriate time.

Additionally, Members, if you would like to respond to a roll call, ask a question or or provide a comment, please be sure to activate your mic and speak into your mic for authors of bills up today. Authors each Member presenting today will have a opportunity to provide an opening statement and a closing statement as choose stated.

Your two lead witnesses will each have two minutes to provide testimony. And before we proceed with the first author, we're going to take up the consent calendar at this time and we have three bills on consent. Verified item number one, AB341 by Dr. Arambula file item 11 AB 1098 by myself. File item 16 by

Dr. Bains and file item number 15 has been pulled off the consent and we'll hear it at the appropriate time. Is there a motion and a second on the consent calendar. Moved by Vice Chair Do we have a second? Second Madam Secret any discussion? Seeing none. Madam roll please.

[Roll Call]

The consent calendar has five ayes and we'll keep the roll open for additional Members to add on. Next up, I'd like to welcome Assemblymember Ramos presenting item number seven, Assembly Bill 977. Welcome Assemblymember Ramos, welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members. Today I'm presenting AB 977, a continuation of my commitment to ensuring the repatriation of Native American remains from higher education institutions. A little history on the work that we've done. The history of repatriation is the reburial of Native American remains that still are in the archives of here Cal State Universities but also with the UC system.

Upon being elected to the legislature as the first and only California Indian elect in the state legislature, we successfully asked for audits of the UC system and the Cal State University system specifically for the repatriation process of where they are during that event process.

Those audits uncovered that there still is 1.4 million Native American remains still in the archives of the UC and Cal State University system. The audit within the Cal State Universities also showed that less than 7% has been repatriated since law in 2015.

So we continue to move forward trying to make sure that we're keeping the promises of those for the repatriation. Moving forward with several hearings that we've had as a Select Committee on Native American Affairs. During those hearings it was identified lack of land space in the state of California for traffic tries to repatriation with burials.

So working with the Cal State University system brings us to bill AB 977 and in response to what we heard. This would be the first step in providing a path forward.

This bill would simply require the Cal State University system to audit land available and work with California Indian tribes to identify land in three regions of the state for the purposes of reburial in the southern, central and northern locations. This will become part of the university's repatriation process working with tribes.

That process still would be worked out once we identify the surplus land that's there. We are committed to working with the Cal State University system to identify how we can best move forward and establish timelines to ensure that this process is done in a timely manner and respectful manner.

But the first step is having an audit of this surplus property by the Cal State Universities to identify surplus land for this process. With me today to testify on this bill is Chairman Leo Sisco of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut's Tribal Government. And with him is also Vice Chairman of Tachi Tribal Government, Vice Chairman Robert Jeff.

Thank you so much. We have a motion, second. And welcome, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Chair Members. My name is Leo Sisco. I have the honor as serving as Chairman for the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe. Tachi is proud of our economic self-determination which gives us the ability to take care of our people.

This includes providing higher education for our members who often return home with skills and education that benefit the entire tribe before. But we are torn about sending our tribal youth away to these state university campuses because we are asking them to learn from places that oppress and disrespect our people and our ancestors.

A 2024 hearing of the Assembly Select Committee on Native American Affairs revealed that CSU campuses still hold more than 200,000 ancestral remains and cultural items. This is unacceptable. CalNAGPRA mandates that those remains be returned to tribal descendants. To this end, Tachi participates in the Yokut's NAGPRA Coalition to make sure the ancestors come home where they belong.

Sadly, many individual tribal ancestors are still unclaimed or unidentified by any tribe or any NAGPRA coalition. But these tribal ancestors also deserve a respectful burial place that honors their humanity. Academics who wish to delay the burial of stolen human remains should not be rewarded when the cultural identity of those remains cannot be identified.

Pursuant to CalNAGPRA, AB 977 will require the CSU to consult with all California tribes and conduct a public hearing to develop a policy to identify three burial sites on CSU land. For the burial of these human remains, the sites must each be in the northern, central and southern regions of the state.

For the three CSU campuses that are chosen, the assignment is an honor. It is an opportunity to make things right. It is an opportunity to restore justice for all tribal people, especially our ancestors. Tachi is very proud to sponsor AB 977 and hopes that your committee will support this very important bill.

We look forward to working with all tribal leaders to ensure this bill conforms with CalNAGPRA. Returning tribal remains to tribal descendants is the first and best option, and it should be the only option. And we will ensure this bill allows plenty of time for tribes to identify their ancestors and bring them home where they rightfully belong.

If AB 977 becomes law, when Tachi sends our tribal youth to pursue higher education at these CSU campuses, we will know that we are asking them to learn from places that honor and respect all tribal people, all tribal ancestors. Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Hello. My name is Robert Jeff. I'm the Vice Chairman of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, but I'm also the Chairman of the Central Valley Yokuts NAGPRA Coalition. Like Chairman said, we have a opportunity to right some of the wrongs that are happening here in California.

You know, when it comes to our youth, we definitely want to be able to send them to these institutions to get their education, to live this American dream that was forced upon us. But as they're trying to live this American dream, the nightmare is still right there in front of them.

And we don't want that to happen for them. We want them to be successful Californians, successful Americans. And we want them to be able to provide not only for the bigger communities and the outside communities, but for our own communities as well, because we understand that we're all related.

And just like these ancestors that are unclaimed or not culturally identified, they're relatives, not only to us, but they're relatives to you guys as well. And they deserve to have their journey keep going in the direction that that was planned for them in the beginning.

So I just want to thank you guys for allowing me to be here. Thank you guys for hearing us. Ramos, thank you for everything that you do.

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

Afternoon, Mr. Chair. Members of the Committee, Alex Salanese, on behalf of the Habomatol Pomo of Upper Lake, in support, thank you.

Rocky Rushing, representing the Society for California Archaeology, in support, thank you. Thank you.

Pam Lopez, on behalf of the Tule River Tribe, in support, thank you so much.

Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues? zero, I'm sorry.

Hello, everyone. Adriana Gomez with, on behalf of the CSU Chancellor's Office, I want to start by recognizing that the work in terms of repatriation, NAGPRA, and with our Native partners is long overdue.

And we apologize for the pain that that has caused, and we are committed to continuing to do better in terms of repatriation at this moment, in the time of the audit, there were over 5,000 ancestral remains and over 700,000 cultural items.

In the recent December report from the CSU, the University now stands at holding 2,245 ancestral remains and nearly 2 million cultural items. And we will continue to work on effectively and quickly repatriating with our Native American partners.

We do not have a formal position on the Bill at this time, but we are engaging with the author's office to further work out the measure on how to best implement while respecting respecting Native American culture and traditions.

I have Samantha Seibrit, Executive Director of the CSU's Office of Tribal Relations, to support with any technical questions the Committee may have. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Colleagues, any questions or comments? Mr. Gonzalez.

Let me be very clear to CSU and to everyone else. Bring them home. Bring them home. If this was my family that was across in the tribal lands of Mexico and. And in the Taino areas, I would fight as well. Bring them home.

If it takes longer than a day, where it's too long, it's gone far too long. And to not understand is simply. It's rude. It doesn't take into account the humanitarian issues associated with this. I applaud the author for your fight, Chairman. Thank you for being here.

But the reality here is we have the remains of family Members, of family Members that are not home. So we must work fast, no hurdles, and bring them home.

Thank you so much, Gonzalez. Any further comments, colleagues? Seeing none. So, Ramos, would you like to close?

Well, thank you. And just to some of the comments that were made, certainly the audit did identify 700,000 Native American reigns in the Cal State University System, but the audit also identified that that could be just the tip of the iceberg on what truly was in the archives.

So what we're doing is trying to work together to make sure that we bring these remains home for a final resting place. They should not be locked up in cabinets coutural facilities. They should be back into the ground with a proper reburial. We ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much, Solomon Ramos, for your leadership and efforts on bringing this very important measure forward. I believe we need to do everything we can to ensure that America's first people can be appropriately reunited with their ancestors and experienced a dignified and human barrio.

I'm prepared to support the measure here today and continue to encourage you to work with the Committee and CSU to address the policy challenges. But greatly appreciate your hard work and leadership and convening all of us and really your work and efforts around this issue for many, many years.

With that, I look forward to supporting the measure today. Madam Secretary. Roll call please.

[Roll call]

That measure has five eyes. We'll keep the row open for additional Members to add on. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we'd like to welcome Assembly Member Solache presenting item number 10, Assembly Bill 1093. Welcome. Assembly Member Solache, please welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Chair and Members, I am proud to present AB 1093 which will establish a California Mexico higher education development and academic exchange program to formally institutionalize cross border education partnerships and build the infrastructure for consistent robust student academic exchange.

Upon appropriation, this would create a one on one student exchange program for 400 students from the University of California, the California State University and the California Community Colleges collectively with the goal of an equal exchange from students attending universities of Mexico. I commend the Chair and the Committee staff for their work and thoughtful analysis of this Bill.

We are taking Committee feedback with a strong commitment to address those concerns as the Bill moves forward. Despite the direct border proximity, the dynamic economic, public health, environmental and cultural ties with Mexico, other countries have more robust and subscribed study abroad programs.

While current Mexico student exchange program exists, this would be formalized and institutionalized higher education education partnerships as they align with California's overall economic and workforce objectives. California's fifth largest economy in the world and Mexico is a California top trade partner. Our economic ties are extremely important.

The formation of this academic partnerships will benefit our state and nation of Mexico to furnish enhanced Economic prosperity. California communities border Mexico and I am proud to carry this legislation which would serve as a model for other countries where we share strong ties. Importantly, this bill was directly inspired by discussions held by the Assembly Select Committee.

California, Mexico by National Affairs. A previous version of this Bill passed the Assembly of Higher Education Committee last year. Here in support would like to introduce Anna Matthews, Government Relations Director for the Faculty Association of the California Community Colleges. Thank you. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Anna Matthews, Government Relations Director of the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges, a proud supporter of AB 1093. The California Mexico region is composed of 170 million residents, representing the 5th and 12th largest economies of the world and sharing bilateral connections across many sectors.

Despite our extensive shared interests, it's notable that we lack a comprehensive student exchange program. While our higher education institutions send students across the globe on study abroad trips, we've overlooked the transformative potential of exchanges across our immediate border. Exchanges that could foster relationship building, economic growth, workforce development, enhanced trade and collaborative problem solving.

To close this gap, AB 1093 creates the higher Education Development and Academic Exchange Program, a one to one exchange program between students from public universities in California and Mexico, including the UC, CSU and California Community Colleges.

It also establishes the California Mexico Higher Education Development and Academic Exchange Program Fund as a regional matching Fund helping to ensure that participating students have fees waived and receive financial support. The California Community College system has demonstrated a growing commitment to international education, hosting its inaugural study abroad convening last December.

EB1093 builds on this momentum by reinforcing our dedication to equitable and accessible study abroad opportunities. In an era of rising political tensions, it is in California's best interest to invest in our academic relationship with Mexico, giving our brightest students a global perspective and the opportunity to develop solutions to shared challenges. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in support in the hearing room? Are there witnesses in opposition in a hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? See any colleagues, any questions or comments? Yes, Assembler, Sharp-Collins.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to speak to the Bill and thank you as well for bringing forth the bill. The thing that I wanted to ask is, and you and I had a brief conversation about it as well, is.

So with this particular program, what's going to make this program different than the programs that are already established on the institution campuses as far as their study abroad or their current exchange program? How would this be different?

Definitely the difference between what we exist today and what we're going to bring to this program is that we have a direct connection with the three systems and that every student that we have exchanged, it'll be one for one. So we have only 50 students. We will only have 50 students aligned.

From a budget perspective that you and I spoke about, that was one of your concerns. But it definitely. We have a reduction in numbers right now. So we want to make sure we enhance that partnership and specifically with different universities in Mexico currently.

Okay. And with this right here, because. Because the Bill talks about having a $20 million allocation from Mexico. So do we already have confirmation of $20 million?

Not exactly $20 million, because it's going to be directly from the University. So it wouldn't be a budget from the government. It would be directly from the University system alike with the systems of the CSU, UC and community colleges.

Okay. Then as we continue to talk about these types of programs, I just think that when we are building out the partnership and we are identifying one particular entity, so Mexico, that means it's going to open up the doors for other entities as well.

And so I'm not sure what, first of all, which campuses have you guys identified? And then is there any other dialogue as far as even trying to expand it?

Because now, like I said, you're going to open up the door for it to be now we need to go to the Philippines, we need to go to China, we need to go here, and et cetera, et cetera. Has there been any additional dialogue about that?

We definitely want to build a model system that we have here in California and Mexico, and that other countries are more than welcome to do that. And that's something that could be explored in the future.

But for now, we wanted to make sure that our boring country of Mexico, possibly future Canada, could be the next one because it's their neighboring and any other country that would want to do it with us as well.

Okay, thank you for that. The only other concern that I have, and this has nothing to do directly with the, with the institutions, from what you're saying, that, meaning the Mexico institutions, they would be the ones funding the money. The issue that I have is that down in San Diego we have an issue with our.

With our sewage lines coming from Mexico. And as I stated to the author as well, if Mexico can come up with $20 million, should it be $20 million to Fund this program? I need them to come up with $20 million to help fix the sewage line so our Imperial beach beaches can be open.

So right now we have a toxic issue, we have a health hazard issue that is established down in San Diego. That's cutting off the activity and quality of life for so many people.

So if we were to move forward on this particular type of program and Mexico can agree to a certain amount, I need Mexico to be held accountable, to hold, to issue a certain amount to fix the sewage line that's impacting my community. Even though it's not my district, but it's still my community down in San Diego.

So that's why I have a concern with this particular Bill at this time.

And I fully appreciate the concern. I think we should all be concerned about that and your district, but effects not only your district of California. Luckily for this program, it would be money directly from the universities of Mexico and obviously the systems here. So it wouldn't be directly money from the government of Mexico.

It would be directly from the University Dollars.

Thank you so much, Samir Gonzalez.

I appreciate my colleagues sentiments as my district also borders Mexico on the southeast side. I really would like to, especially in, in the Imperial county area where it borders Mexico. I'd like to see what that looks like, what that means because I know we already have a couple programs in that.

How does this, does this go over the program? Is it along with the program. So outside of this Committee, I'd like to have more conversation and see if this can be solved in a bipartisan way. But most importantly, I agree there's, we have the new river and there's some, some sewage issues there.

So if, if they can do this, we're looking for them to, to do more stuff as well. Because it's the right thing to do. Education, I think that's why a lot of us are here is paramount importance to us.

And we want to make sure that we, we provide quality education for all those, even those who come from other, other countries. But at the same token there's, there's other issues that play into this factor that not only impact San Diego, where, where my colleagues are, are from, but impact Imperial County.

So I, I'd love to be able to work with you to, to figure that out.

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you so much. We definitely welcome definitely additional feedback from the Committee and as we dive into more of the details of what happens next right from this Bill.

I'm happy that I actually visited your Imperial Valley last time last year as I sat on Skag and to learn that 5,000 people from Mexico come to your valley to work daily is impressive to hear and know that that helps with the economic engine of California and Mexico relations.

So that's just another Example, where Imperial Valley does benefit from 5,000 daily people that migrate to the Imperial Valley. And two weekends ago, as part of the Committee on California, Mexico by National Affairs, I was actually at La Paz in Baja California, and we were at the University of Baja California Sud.

And so we met with the Director of the University and all the different directors, and just the enthusiasm there is amongst a system like that. And obviously the great systems that we have in California, like the UC, CSU and community colleges, definitely an enhancement for this to continue that relationship. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Vice Chair DeMaio.

Thank you. And I just got to say amen to my colleague from San Diego on the sewage issue. I also have a border district, and if they've got money for this, they should have money to be a good neighbor. It really doesn't fit well.

It doesn't sit well with me that we are pretending like that issue doesn't exist and saying, zero, you know, by golly, we're going to have this exchange program. And I also am very mindful of the fact that your Bill is a separate issue. I understand that.

But this is a big problem in San Diego. County. It's so disrespectful to have government officials in Mexico plead that they don't have money to do basic wastewater management. And I will guarantee you that if their sewage water flowed south, they would find a fix real quick. But they know it flows north.

Correct.

That's the direction of the Pacific tides. But again, I understand you're kind of getting caught in the crossfire, but Mr.

Jamal, I appreciate your comment, Ms. Sheriff Collins, because I actually, I am part of the Select Committee that it's California, Mexico by National Affairs. So I think this would be a good conversation to bring, because it's not just education that we're talking about.

We're talking about the relations that we have amongst both the country and the State of California. Now, you would want to believe that it's a whole national conversation, but because California is so big and we're the fifth largest, we have that partnership with Mexico. So I think that would be a good conversation.

And I would like to follow up with you and the rest of the Members of San Diego and see how do we build that coalition and be that voice of Californians, because as you said, it's a separate issue but an important one. And I think there is credit to that.

And I would love to work with a bipartisan angle to have a Select Committee that has been established from the Assembly side can bring some light to that issue and obviously it's so neighboring to both the country and obviously the, the State of California.

I think that hearing that and you will make this a topic of conversation in your interactions with our counterparts of the Mexican government. My district, I know Ms. Sharp Collins's district would very much appreciate that. Mr. Alvarez's district, this is a big problem for us.

Anything that you can do to get them to understand that this is a topic of conversation on programs like this, on all sorts of calls, collaboration, we need to see leadership. On the other issue though, I have a problem with is the budget impact.

And I know that you have said that, that this would come from the, the college system, but not the state budget. But my understanding is that there are funds coming from the state budget. So how do we.

I was alluding to the Mexico budget because it's not dealing with the Mexico budget. Government, I was alluding to specifically the University Dollars.

But we are, we are.

This is a budget act that's fair. But again it was more on the conversation of a one to one student. So we're going to send 10 students and they would send us 10 students from the University system directly. And at least as of now, there's no dollars identified from the Mexican government. It's more against the University Dollars.

So because of our budget situation, I think that this is a topic for us to revisit in a healthier, financially more secure period. And that's why I will not be supporting the Bill today. But I am, I appreciate what you're trying to do.

I think exchange programs are wonderful, but we also have to be mindful of the budgetary environment. And for that reason I will be opposing the Bill.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Vice Chair DeMaio, any further comments or questions? Sinan, as someone would like to close, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to Committee Members, thank you for the dialogue. I think this is a first step. I'm happy that the higher Committee did pass this last session. I think your comments are fair just because there's more work to do within this Bill.

But I think the thought process, the idea of moving this forward is only going to enhance our relationships and obviously offer our students the opportunity to widen their perspectives and not only the California, Mexico, but the world that we live in today and such a high economic, you know, that we both have contributed.

So just happy that our students in higher ed space will have those opportunities and why not build those relationships? So looking forward to having additional dialogue as this Bill moves forward. Thank you for your consideration and we humbly Request a yes vote.

Thank you so much for bringing this measure forward. And last year I was a Member of the Select Committee on California Mexico Binational affairs as well and understand the positive, significant impacts that this measure brings for our state and for Mexico. I'll be pleased.

I'll be supporting the Bill today and a lot of scheduled conflicts today, but as it comes up, we'll definitely take that measure up when appropriate. This Bill helps align discussions held by the Select Committee last year on increasing partnerships with our state and Mexico. Also creates opportunities for our students to participate in an exchange program.

In addition, I know on pages 4 and 5, the Committee analysis, there are some unanswered policy questions. So I encourage you to continue work per stakeholder groups and our Committee as well. But with that, I look forward to supporting the measure today. And we'll take the measure up a little bit later. So thank you so much.

Appreciate your time. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is assembler Mark Gonzalez with Assembly Bill 1035, item number nine. Welcome.

Thank you.

All right. Welcome.

Thank you. Okay. First, I'd like to thank the chair and the Committee staff for their hard work on AB 1035 Members. When we talk about the California dream, we talk about access. We talk. We talk about opportunity, the unshakable belief that where you start should never determine how far you can go.

In 2017, California took its first bold step toward the dream with AB19, establishing the California College Promise, a bill that I proudly worked on as the district Director and championed as chair of the Democratic Party in Los Angeles. And of course, we championed that bill together with our chair, Mr. Fung as well.

I myself am a product of the Community College Board's community college system. I even had to go to three community colleges at the same time just to get the classes that I needed to eventually then transfer to Cal State University Northridge.

This bill, however, is making it possible for first time full time students to attend their first year of community college tuition free. But we didn't stop there. Since then, we expanded that promise. We waived enrollment fees for two full academic years.

We opened the doors wide wider to include returning students and those in disabled student programs and services, even if they're taking fewer than 12 units. And the results? They've been transfer transformational. More students are enrolling, more students are graduating. More dreams becoming realized in every corner of our Golden State.

But the promise should not end with an associate's degree. Today, I present AB 1035, a Bill that says we believe in the full potential of every.

Every Student A Bill that expands the California College Promise Program to waive enrollment freeze for PROMISE students who are ready to take the next step earning a bachelor's degree tuition free right at their home. Community College Right now, 29 community colleges across California are offering bachelor degrees in 33 workforce focused fields.

At LACCD alone, there are four such programs, respiratory therapy, biomanufacturing, dental hygiene and and aviation maintenance technology. These aren't just degrees on paper. These are careers in action. They're the future of our healthcare system, our tech innovation, our clean manufacturing and our infrastructure.

This Bill is a pathway, a pathway for PROMISE students to walk into a community college and walk out prepared for a career that sustains their family, strengthens their community and fuels our state's economy without being weighed down by debt. And let me be clear, this isn't just about an education policy.

This is about faith in the potential of our people. This is about hope of being made tangible. And this is about equity in action. Today with me, I'd like to introduce two champions, Araceli Aguilar from President of Los Angeles Pierce College and Dr. Christina Whelan, President of Foothill College in the Bay Area.

And like to my dad, this is when the Bay and LA are getting along.

Welcome and thank you so much.

Good afternoon Chair Fong and honorable Members of the Committee. My name is Aracely Aguiar and I'm the President of LA Pierce College. I'm giving testimony on behalf of Los Angeles Community College District. LACCD is the proud sponsor of AB 1035 and we thank Assembly Member Gonzalez for authoring this important bill.

As Assemblymember Gonzalez mentioned in his oath Opening Statement this bill addresses the critical issue of student financial assistance and their ability to complete their baccalaureate degrees at a community College.

The landmark AB19 legislation authored by Assemblymember Santiago in 2017 created the current California College Promise program that provides two years of tuition and fee waivers for first time full time students at California Community College. That law was later extended to returning students.

AB1035 will further expand the California College Promise Program by allowing students to decide to pursue their baccalaureate degree programs at a community college. To do so, tuition free community colleges play a pivotal role in promoting equity in the labor market by providing the opportunity for individuals to access post secondary education at a low cost.

The tuition cost of an LACCD baccalaureate degree is approximately $10,600, a fraction of the price of a California State University four year degree which is estimated at $32,000. At LACCD, 41% of our students are 25 years and older 53 are low, percent are low income, 56% are female and 47% are first generation.

This bill will provide a lifeline for this population of students, enabling them to complete their four year degree in a supportive educational environment that is close to home and that they are all familiar with.

AB 1035 will significantly contribute to the preparation of more degree holders for the workforce that California needs to maintain its place as the fifth largest economy in the world. Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Good afternoon Chair Fong and honorable Members of this Committee. My name is Dr. Christina Whalen and I'm the President at Foothill College in the Foothill De Anza Community College District located in the heart of Silicon Valley.

I'm here on behalf of the district to thank Assemblymember Gonzalez and to provide support for this important measurement that will make community college baccalaureate degree programs more affordable for our students throughout the state.

About a decade ago, AB850 from the Senator block established historic legislation that led to the initial piloting of 15 baccalaureate degrees within the California community colleges. Foothill College's dental hygiene program was one of the first 15 programs selected and graduated its first class in 22018.

In the last three years alone we have graduated 200 graduates from our start. 100% of the program's graduates passed their exams to enter a field and were greeted with family sustaining wages. Under AB927 we added an automotive technology degree at De Anza College in respiratory care at Foothill College.

With these baccalaureate degrees being less expensive to students than their educational counterparts, especially their for profit schools, students that attend our colleges still continue to make ends meet. Not insignificant number of these students have exhausted other financial outputs by working with institutions that are less reputable than our public institutions.

At the Foothill De Anza Community College district, affordability is especially acute. Our students are not wealthy, but they live in a high cost area. The majority of our students tend to be older. A third of our students are first generation and an astounding 44% of our housing insecure. Every dollar counts.

California once had a master plan with free higher education. 8 AB 1035 can return that promise to California's higher education students. I want to thank Mr. Gonzalez for this important bill and respectfully request a yes vote today.

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

Yes. Thank you Chair Members. Ashley Walker with noon on behalf of North Orange County Community College District in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon Committee Chair Peter Hidalgo, Trustee and Board President of Mount San Antonio Community College in Los Angeles County in support of the Bill.

Thank you.

Anna Matthews with the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges in strong support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Chair. Members Mark Mcdonald, on behalf of the Antelope Valley, Kern, San Bernardino, San Diego Community College Districts, as well as the California Community College Baccalaureate Association, all in support. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members, David Nevin, on behalf of the Santa Monica College, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Zong Or on behalf of the California Teachers Association, we just recently took a support position this weekend, so I apologize. For not getting our letter in on time. Thank you.

Thank you.

On behalf of ignite and also as a proud alum of the California Community. College Center System, we're in proud support of this Bill.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments? Mr. Gonzalez, the other Gonzalez.

Yes. The more hand you're the more handsome one. We get confused all the time.

First and foremost, I love, I love this idea of free tuition. You know, we look at communities and honestly, that bridge to go from high school to college, It's a challenge I experienced that, you know, I didn't go to college first. I went to the Marine Corps, but eventually did that in my community.

We have that challenge, especially and funding or personal funding to get to college is a challenge. So I applaud your efforts on this Bill. I would love to see college free across the board so everyone has the opportunity to say, yes, yes, whatever that education road might lead them.

My question is, is there's gotta be a cost associated with this, right? Yes. Free to the individual, but what does that look like for the institution? What is the cost associated with one free person going to school? Do we have that?

I got it. Okay, so a couple of answers to the question. And first and foremost, thank you for sharing your personal background and your story and recognizing the fact that community colleges are, to their point, a lifeline.

And of course, the second chance for folks who then get out of high school needs to do to then therefore go into this, the community college system. Look, we believe that there should be very little cost to this Bill because the California Promise Program has already been allocated through the Prop 98 funding.

We did that twice before we went a free community college, free once, and then the second time in 2017. What we are trying to accomplish is making it clear that community colleges can use the Promise Program funding for students wishing to pursue the bachelor's degree. And we're also working on the budget request as well.

Just a little bit of background though, on the Prop 98 piece. That particular piece of that Proposition established the funding formula that sets the annual minimum guarantee level from K to 14 students. So community colleges receive most of their financial support from that Prop 98 funding already in existence.

So over the past several years, the Legislature in practice has allocated already 11% of that Prop$98 Fund those community colleges. And for community colleges, the largest Non State Fund source is the local property tax revenue. Local property tax revenue alone just projected is to increase to 175 million in 2024 and 2025 alone.

So the program, it pays for itself from what I've learned going through when I prior to the program existing, is that it was part of the part of the BOG fee waiver process that was already in the FAFSA form that folks didn't necessarily even apply for in the first place. So those dollars are already there.

It's already built into the infrastructure of the state. So it's not new dollars, it's a new opportunity.

So let me just understand process real quick for for your witnesses. I'm a student. I go and I go to a community college for free. I'm there, I'm doing my ge, my General elect General courses. And I decide I want to because there's a community college that offers the bachelor's side.

The first question is I get my associates for free. Can I go to the community college now and also get the bachelor's for free? Number one. And number two is do I just have to go through the bachelor's program, program per se to do that?

The student that you described that's coming to the California Community College, if they're attending full time, they could get the California promise in the first two years free, but they only get the first two years.

So at present they would not be able to access free tuition for the remainder of a baccalaureate degree that they may want to pursue. That's where this bill comes into play. It would allow that.

So I'm using my military knowledge on this, by the way, and the way we operated with respect to education. So if I use my first year free and I don't want to use my second year on this, can I then use my. Is it counted right? Is it tabulated?

So on the tuition assistance side, it's the amount of credits and hours on, so forth, no matter when you use it per se, two years, it could be on the first year and on the fifth year, it's just the amount of years.

So is it similar to that or it just asks, hey, once you start, you got two years the end.

I believe they're on the clock, right? I think they're on the clock, yeah, they're on the.

They're on the clock, yeah.

No, the ends they enter signed, that's the, that's the way it's designed. So just a couple of pieces to go back on that.

I asked that because that's, you know, my kids let me take a gap year and this and that and that.

Listen, you're asking the right question. I think that the program is set in place for folks. Let me go backwards, I should say so. Lower division courses right now are $46 per unit. That's the fee for those upper division courses are $130 per unit fee.

So $46 a unit for all CC courses, plus the $84 to support the bachelor program in itself. So that's sort of the division between the dollars when you're looking at the dollars in terms of the budget. To be considered a full time student though, you need to take at least the 12 units.

That's the minimum that you have to take in order to do that in the budget cycle. Piece of it. The California Promise is an opt in program. To keep in mind, not everyone is required to do it. So the campuses that have those concerns about funding can choose to opt in years in advance.

Because the bachelor's degree programs are highly specialized, a limited number of students are currently enrolled and that's just under 1600. Just only 1600 students. So community colleges can choose to opt in, will be given the flexibility to take that existing money and repurpose them for this expansion at their specific college.

So it's already built in to the program itself.

Thank you. And you know, it's obvious that you have thought this through and I appreciate that. And it's because of that I will be in support.

I appreciate that. Thank you, sir.

Thank you so much. Vice Chair DeMaio.

Okay, again, I think there's some good intentions behind this bill. My concern is there's only so much money to go around. Sure. So we're taking Prop 98 money that currently goes TK through 14 and we're allowing people to use that Prop 98 money in years 15 and 16. Correct. That's. That's what the Bill does.

So if we're spreading the peanut butter even more thinly across the cracker, are we creating shortfalls in the TK through 14 years? Convince me that we're not. Because Prop 98 is Prop 98 and it is calculated very diligently every budget.

That's a fair question. So if we're asking for the piece of pie to be split into eight pieces and now all of a sudden we're going to offer more, it's going to be split into six pieces. 16. But under the same dollars, are we then now reducing the amount of students who can have access to that?

That's a very fair question. Did you want to answer? I can. Okay. Okay.

Look, I think just to reiterate the point here, so the, the pie in this case is going to get bigger because the, the 11% allocation from the Prop 98 funding that's already included in that also includes the non state funding source, which is that local property tax revenue that I mentioned to Mr.

Gonzalez, and that one is projected to be the 175 million in 2024 and 2025. What's key to your question though is after the accounting purposes on that local property tax, along with the changes in the other core funding sources, the proposed Prop 98 Reserve withdrawals, the community colleges funding increases to 3.9%.

So then it goes up to create more of that for students to.

So you're saying by putting this money on the table, we'll get other taxpayer funds?

It's already existing, but it's in terms of the property tax piece of it that that is assessed for this coming year.

Okay, but there's only Prop 98 funding is finite. Set them out each year. Now we're stretching it even farther. My other concern is we are potentially diverting resources from individuals seeking associate degree programs. And then Reallocating that to people who want bachelor's degrees. We have a crisis in our college and University system, frankly.

There are some degree programs that aren't worth the paper the degree is printed on. If this were happening in the private sector, there would be fraud investigators pouring all over these institutions. But because they're colleges and universities, we kind of say, well, they must be doing good.

We see kids going into debt for these degrees and not actually being able to get a job to sustain that debt service. I'm concerned that we are continuing to kind of look at, well, how do we throw more money at the problem rather than dealing with what is the value Proposition on these degrees?

What is going to be the value added for someone to get the associate degree versus the bachelor's degree? I made a promise to my mom on her deathbed that I'd finish college. It's the only reason why I got that piece of paper. I don't hire people for their pieces of paper.

I hire them for their attitude, and I train them for their skill. And I'd be more inclined to hire someone with an associate degree sometimes than someone with a PhD or a master's degree or even a bachelor's degree.

So my concern is that Prop 98 funding, because we're heading into a very tight budget cycle, I understand that additional funds might be opened because this money is available for those two years. Totally understand that. But I'm not yet prepared to go down this road until we deal with some of those underlying issues. And I.

I love the fact that you're focusing on this, because I think there's probably a number of people that would benefit from this sort of program. But my concern is that there may be a whole lot of people that won't. And who does this come from in terms of the financial flows?

I'll kick it off by saying, I appreciate the question. These are fair questions. These are the right questions. I'm gonna let the expert jump in, and then I'll piggyback if there's anything that I think is missing.

I don't know if I would change your mind, but I can tell you that these degrees I have been.

But I would invite you to familiarize yourself with these degrees and the payoff that they have for students and the rigorous process they have to go to to be approved, which means that they have to meet local workforce demand. And in an area where an associate's degree is no longer the standard, it's a baccalaureate degree.

At the end of receiving a baccalaureate degree in respiratory therapy, someone who was not making a living wage now makes wage one. They often enter the workforce making $125,000 a year. That is life changing, that is economic mobility and it lifts up communities that may not have that opportunity afforded them.

So for these degrees, if you were investing in these degrees, I don't think you would, you would find much evidence, respectfully, for your argument.

So that, that may, that may generate a possible amendment to your Bill. Maybe there are some pilot degrees that we can start with. Maybe we open the door to certain types of degrees. Then we study this program, we look at the effects, whether there are Prop 98 ripple effects.

Go ahead.

But again, we have a crisis in college and University finance and you know, we are throwing more and more money at a broken system and there's almost no accountability because, you know, hey, no one wants to criticize colleges or universities. But the reality is we're not, we're not doing these kids justice.

In some of these degree programs, there may be some degree programs where the investment is a no brainer. Absolutely. So if we can be more strategic with the Bill, maybe that's a good way to pilot it and then proof of concept, we can expand it again.

That's just some thoughts for the author because I know that again, we're going to have a tough budget cycle and who knows what happens in appropres. Who knows what happens with the governor's on the governor's desk.

Hello. I am being a hygienist myself that created the program, the gloriate program for the college that I attended and was one of the 15 in the pilot study. Study. One of the things that it has done, it has completely transformed the profession. I have students from 20 years ago returning and I'm teaching them online right now.

So they're coming back and getting their degrees. The primary reason they want to become educators, because to be an educator, you have to have a master's degree. There are 346 dental hygiene programs in this country. 85% of them are associate's degrees. But you require a baccalaureate degree to be able to teach in the profession.

So there's a big crisis going on because we do not have enough faculty. So that shows the demand that the rigor that we have to go through. The same thing is happening in respiratory therapy that to move on into that profession, that is expected.

If you want to work at UCLA or at Cedars Sinai, you have to have a baccalaureate degree in respiratory therapy or you're not going to be hired.

So the key with this successful baccalaureate degrees is that the standards that are expected in order to get these degrees approved by the state chancellor's office, you must have the kind of data that clearly demonstrates that it's required.

And number two, they require employer letters saying that they will pay more money for someone with a baccalaureate degree than they would someone with an AS degree, because it's the standard of that particular industry. That. And so it's been an absolute pleasure to be here. I can't tell you how much this Bill will help our students.

Being a teacher, having been there myself, it's just amazing work that you've done. And thank you.

May I add that Aba 50 was the pilot program. And at the end of that program, it was deemed that this process worked well. And that's why AB 927 was passed expanding it, because the pilot has already occurred.

And just to add that, and thank you, Mr. Chair, for a couple more minutes on this. And thank you, Mr. DeMaio, for sharing your personal story with your mother. I'm glad you got your degree. That's, that's good. We do it for our moms. So I appreciate that as well. But look, I think a couple of pieces.

The reason why this Bill started in the first place and why I've been involved with it since day one, again, being a product of the community college board system, going to three community colleges at the same time, having to worry about parking and textbooks and having to worry about a job and having to sustain my apartment under rent control and so many other factors that hindered me from getting there.

This provided that lifeline. When I was at home during the day or even in high school, many of us saw these commercials about earn your degree in this, now earn your degree in that. Those are called diploma mills.

And you end up spending thousands of dollars just to get the same degree that you would get at a community college.

And so Prop 98 funds, to your point, which is very clear, and that percentage does exist, and we've all been meeting with the same groups who want to sort of dig into those funds and borrow from it to go pay Peter to pay Paul, which I think is a key point.

But the also reality is that California Teachers Association, who thrives on Prop 98, just came out today in support of this Bill, which also showcases the fact that we have to continue to Fund A K through 14 education piece of it as well. And so this is already in there.

And specifically to your point, the pilot programs that have already been mentioned, but the four that I mentioned were respiratory therapy, biomanufacturing, dental hygiene and aviation maintenance technology. All four of those are not going away. They're specialized fields, and folks are majoring in those particular programs as well. And so it's specialized courses.

The community colleges have to opt in. They obviously have to manage their own budget if this makes sense for them.

But this is just creating that pathway for them to be able to make that decision for people who go to schools, who have kids, who have to be able to balance all of those efforts and have to take that into consideration.

If I have the opportunity to get my bachelor degree in these four specific fields and it's at a more affordable cost, and I'm not worried about bankrupting my life to get an education or to get a degree for my mom, I would want this as a pathway.

Thank you so much. It sounds like a closing argument somewhere. Okay, please. Somewhere close, please.

Members, this is about more than just tuition. This is about unlocking the potential in every student, regardless of their zip code, bank account, or their background. This is just the California where the doors of opportunity don't just open halfway, but they swing wide open.

So I ask you to envision a classroom where a working mom becomes the first in her family to earn a bachelor's degree without being buried under that debt. Picture a young man once written off, finding his calling in a career that uplifts his community because someone believed in his future.

And remember, when we invest in education, we don't just change one life. We ignite a ripple effect across generations. Let's continue building a legacy where access, equity and hope are. Are not just promises, but they are our practice. Let's make sure that California, if you've got the will to learn, we have got your back.

Because when we lift our students, we lift up our state. And when we make room at the table for all, California shines as a beacon of possibility for the rest of the nation. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much, Assembly Gonzalez, for bringing this measure forward. And thank you to our witnesses as well. And thank you. The college promise in California has continued to attract hundreds of thousands of students to our California Community College system and to really ease financial barriers.

As a former trustee for the Los Angeles Community College District, I was proud to partner on AB2 and AB19 for the first and second year of the Promise Grant program and then some. Member Miguel Santiago. And now Summer Gonzalez, thank you for your leadership and efforts on a College Promise program.

This bill will make additional important steps towards making college a reality for all, ensuring that Placebo. Students in California community college bachelor degree programs have the support that they need. With that, I look forward to supporting the measure today. Do we have a motion? We have a motion by Mr. Gonzalez. Do we have a second?

Second by Senator Patel. Madam Secretary, roll call.

[Roll call]

That measure has three ayes, two nos, and we'll keep the roll open for additional members. Thank you so much. Next up is Assemblymember Hoover presenting Assembly Bill 922, item number four. Welcome. I'm sorry, item number six. Welcome. And a warm welcome to Assemblermember Tangipa to the Assembly Higher Education Committee. Welcome.

Assemblymember Hoover, floor is yours.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Members. Appreciate the opportunity to present AB 922. This bill would grant necessary statutory authority for the University of California to maintain access to the federal information system for hiring purposes. This prevents the UC from spending excessive time and resources to access information through third party vendors.

Currently, University of California uses information from the FBI's Criminal Justice Information System to perform these background checks. However, recently multiple entities in California have been informed that state statutory authority is required to maintain access to this information system.

Should this access be lost, they'd be forced to rely on these third party vendors which would create additional costs and hiring delays. With me today is Mario Guerrero from the University of California and his colleague Steven Johnson. And I'll turn it over to them now.

Thank you so much. All right, we have a motion, but let's-- Thank you. Welcome.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Chair Fong, Members of the Committee. Mario Guerrero, Legislative Director for the University of California. I am here with my colleague Steve Johnson, who's the UCOP, UC Office of the President, Director of Systemwide Human Resources. We want to thank Assemblymember Hoover for authoring this bill.

Of course, as you mentioned, UC currently obtains fingerprint images and related information from prospective employees who have accepted a conditional offer of employment in a critical position. Candidates hired into critical positions have sensitive administrative, programmatic and or managerial duties and responsibilities that could potentially cause human financial or property loss or other significant risk.

The UC currently has access to the Department of Justice and FBI background check, federal criminal background history.

However, the California Department of Justice did alert the University of California as well as others that we would no longer have access as of December 2026, date is coming up, and they advise agencies losing access to pursue statutory authority to continue to have access. And that is the purpose for this bill.

Not having access to this background check through the Department of Justice impacts safety, asset security and hiring with the potential to increase the University's financial costs, operational liabilities and reputational risk in providing services to the community. For these reasons we urge your aye for AB 922. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

My colleague is here to answer technical questions that I may not be able to answer.

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, any questions or comments? We have a motion. Do we have a second? Seconded by Vice Chair DeMaio. Any further questions or comments?

Assemblymember would you like to close please?

Sure, I will just close by saying we do not have to be in that busy hearing across the hall to have public safety. We can do it right here in this Committee. Would appreciate an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much Assemblymember Hoover for bringing this legislation forward. And this Committee has also previously affirmed the importance of conducting background checks on individuals on campuses. Makes sense that we should also support legislation that will allow our UC system to maintain access to the system necessary to carry out those checks.

With that I look forward to supporting the measure today. Madam Secretary, roll call please.

File item number 6, AB 922. The motion is do pass to the Public Safety Committee. [Roll call]

That measure is five ayes and we'll keep the roll open for additional Members to add on. Thanks everyone. Appreciate it. Thank you. Next up we'll have Vice Chair DeMaio presenting item number 15, Assembly Bill 1346.

Thank you. Members. Mr. Chair, we are here to present Assembly Bill 1346 which really will ensure that children dependents of our service Members are not penalized by the need for their families to travel for their military service.

We want to make sure that they don't lose their standing as a in state resident to get the tuition discount. This has been a very bipartisan Bill. It provides flexibility and again holds these children, these dependents harmless from the military service of their family Members. With that I ask for an aye vote.

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, any questions or comments? Seeing none, Do we have a motion? Motion by Assmblymember Tangipa do have a second second by Assemblymember Gonzalez. Any question, further questions or comments? Seeing none and asemblymember DeMaio would like to close, please.

I just ask for an aye votes. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Vice Chair DeMaio for bringing this very important measure forward. I look forward to supporting the measure here today. Thank you, Madam Secretary.

[Roll Call]

That measures five ayes and we'll keep the roll open for additional Members to add on. Thank you.

Next up we'll have Assemblymember Patel presenting item number 13, Assembly Bill 1212. Welcome.

Thank you for having me today. I also have 684, but I'll do 1212 first.

Which one would you like to do first?

No, we'll do 1212 first. We have our friends here. Good afternoon Mr. Chair and Members. Today I'm here happy to present Assembly Bill 1212 to the committee.

This bill will enable the University of California campuses and their auxiliaries to utilize the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit for the purpose of developing affordable housing for UC faculty and staff on UC-owned land. In many areas of the state, affordable housing has become inaccessible to UC faculty and staff.

According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development, only 16% of residents in California can afford to buy a home. California renters also have the nation's second highest rent burdens.

Lack of access to affordable housing has led to greater difficulty in recruitment and retention of diverse quality staff who may be considering other career opportunities or even leaving California.

UC estimates from data submitted to human resources and US census level zip code data that there are at least 57,000 staff and 11,000 academic employees that are part of households that would qualify as Low-Income Housing Tax Credit recipients or tenants.

While the UC does have some workforce housing and it continues to build workforce housing, it only has approximately 3,200 units for over 200,000 employees. Within the University of California system, units are not distributed evenly among the campuses with half of said units located at UC Irvine, my alma mater.

Existing workforce housing of UC has not been focused on low income employees and this legislation will allow them to do that. Many UCs are located in some of the most expensive real estate markets in California where there has generally been a shortage of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit projects.

This bill only permits a preference for UC employees. Individual campuses may allow other state employees or members of the general public to rent these properties as well. There won't be any vacancies once they're built I guarantee.

AB 1212 is the natural extension of a policy that has been passed by this body in previous years for the California Community College System and the California State University system.

Here to testify on the measure is Mario Guerrero, Legislative Director of Business Operations for the University of California and Jacob Lavin, Associate Director of Real Estate for the University of California. I respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Thank you very much. Once again, good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. Mario Guerrero, Legislative Director for the University of California. I am here with my colleague who can answer to any technical questions that may come up. I do also want to again extend our thank you to Assemblymember Dr. Patel for authoring this bill. I will be brief.

The lack of affordable housing is a statewide issue, as you all know, and it also impacts our UC campuses.

Every UC campus has done some level of planning to provide affordable housing opportunities for our faculty and staff. In the current market conditions of high construction costs and high interest rates, several workforce housing projects have been put on hold indefinitely.

The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program is often cited as the most important resource for producing affordable housing in the United States. The proposed legislation would allow the University of California to participate in projects using this tax credit funding and other funding programs.

As mentioned previously, the CSU and community colleges already have access to these tax credits to described in this bill. For these reasons, we urge your aye vote for this bill. Thank you.

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

Hi, Tiffany Mok on behalf of CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals in support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments? Yes, Assemblymember Tangipa

Thank you. And for clarity, does this bill prevent individuals of the public using it? Does it make it to where only professionals, UC professors, can live in housing or is it open to everybody?

It's open to faculty and staff. And this has been kind of a sticking point in a lot of labor conversations as far as getting more accessible affordable housing. But I'll let my experts speak to the details of that. I want to make sure you get a solid answer.

Is it just staff?

No, it's also members of the public.

So the UC would be able to use these tax credits and build housing that we give preference for our employees, faculty and staff. If there's additional housing available, it could be made available to the public.

And this is housing on UC property.

But the part that it's just interesting to me that-- so the preference is created for the UC staff, UC members there, but it uses a lot of the public dollars from public individuals to basically opens the door to that. But it just seems like there are barriers for somebody if we're looking at affordable housing.

But it also looks at creating another more competition when we're looking at funding a lot of these public options where a lot of the public doesn't have option to be there.

So what I would like to have you focus on is cities already can access these kinds of project dollars and build housing in the public, in the communities. This is housing that's focused on certainly helping our UC system attract and retain excellent staff to educate our students here in the state.

So thereby taking those investments in that public, those public dollars, returning them back to the public.

On any of those city projects, is there a preference for city workers?

No, but those aren't city properties. Those aren't always necessarily city properties for affordable housing projects. Those are often privately owned lands that go through local community planning processes like a local community planning board and then graduate up to the city council for approval. But those are within city jurisdictions, but not city-owned lands.

My biggest issue with this is just that it's the preference for-- and it's not just generally open to the general public. Where I see right now that there's a massive, massive housing availability crisis, that preference is-- we should really prefer, you know, opening it up and opening the door for everybody to have that same opportunity to be there.

Certainly. And I would like to imagine a scenario where our faculty and our staff are competing for the available low income housing out in the general community.

And with this preference of having accessibility on campus, it would not only do the benefit of reducing traffic in our communities and bringing down greenhouse gases as we reduce commute times, but it would also allow availability of low income and affordable housing in the wider community for members of the general public.

So it actually helps both sides of the pressure points on the housing crisis situation. The exciting part here is that right now affordable housing, there are incentives. And if the UCs can leverage those incentives, the UC system can take advantage of their properties that they have to build that housing.

Without these tax credits, it does become burdensome for a UC system to leverage their obviously public available dollars to build housing when it's not affordable. But you know, feel free to weigh in.

I think that was answered perfectly. I don't know if you want to--

I would just emphasize that to be competitive for the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, it would be expected that the UC would contribute its land for, you know, for no cost. So this provides an incentive to provide land available for affordable housing production in a very high resource area.

The UC systems are located, have land with excellent access to amenities to cultural resources, educational resources, transit, etc. So there is a big push in the affordable housing community to get affordable housing in high resource areas. So this is potentially a good win-win for that as well.

Thank you. Vice Chair DeMaio.

So these projects, are these projects going to be built with project labor agreements? Union only hire. Is there a policy that--

Yeah. So these would be projects that would-- To access the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program, they would be owned by the affordable housing development developer and the tax credit investors. So they would be a third party coming in under a ground lease with the university to propose this project.

So they would be required-- they would be following all sort of applicable laws associated with the financing the Low Income Housing Tax Credits. We have a policy of requiring payment of prevailing wage for all construction on UC land. So that would be a requirement of UC.

And what about project labor agreements specifically?

I think I'd have to come back to you to make sure, but I do not think that they apply in these cases.

I'm troubled by the-- Look, I'm all for housing for all. I'm an all of the above guy. I'm like, let's just cut the red tape, let's get the housing because then everyone can enjoy the benefits of more affordable housing in their community with added supply.

My big concern is that we are enacting policies that favor different groups. And I understand the author's intent. I understand the notion of workforce housing. It helps certain employers be able to offer a more attractive package. Understood.

But I think we have to deal with the issue in a broad based manner because then government creates different classes and unfortunately this becomes a special class for government employees that they're the ones that are being able to get more affordable housing. But then the general taxpayer and citizens, they're left out in the cold.

So I can't support this bill even though I believe the intentions are very honorable because of the notion that we may be doing discriminating against the general public in terms of their access to being able to get these units.

Thank you so much. Assemblymember Tangipa.

That's essentially just where I feel that it's UC land preferring UC employees using public dollars and public credits. And that's the issue is that, you know, I see and-- I mean working at the local level, I've seen a lot of these public private partnerships that will also lead to the appreciation of value and lead to--

The UC seems to be the largest benefit in this part-- And I love the UC system. I believe that they do a lot of good work. But it's the-- They're the biggest benefiter utilizing public dollars coming from everybody. And that's part where I have issues with this bill.

And I just want to let you know, thank you for bringing this forward. I do not support this bill.

Thank you. Any further comments? Seeing none, Assemblymember would you like to close. Actually I'm sorry, we had one more witness in support please.

I'm so sorry I wasn't in in time. Robert Moutrie for the California Chamber of Commerce, in support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Assemblymember Patel, would you like to close please?

Yes. I just respectfully asked for an aye vote to help us get more housing availability into our communities, especially in the hardest hit areas where the UCs are located. Thank you for your support today.

Absolutely. Thank you so much Dr. Patel for bringing this measure forward. Definitely believe that our state needs to be as innovative as possible in addressing our ongoing housing crisis.

By establishing the UC Faculty and Employee Housing Act, this measure will allow a process to begin leading on affordable housing issues for UC faculty and staff, bringing parity with our CSU and community college faculty and staff. And with that I look forward to supporting the measure today. We'll do the vote when we have additional members. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

And we actually have an author in waiting. If you don't mind, maybe we can come back to you. Thank you Dr. Patel. Assemblymember Quirk-Silva, welcome. Assemblymember Quirk-Silva presenting item number two, Assembly Bill 500. Welcome. All right, we have a motion, seconded. Thank you colleagues, but let's let our Members speak as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, today I present AB 500, a Bill that brings needed transparency and accountability to how the University of California system updates its undergraduate admissions criteria.

Members, this came out of a Select Committee from this actual Committee last year where we heard about the Boers decision that was made through the UC system with the Committee and questions that came out of that Committee simply were how did this decision arise? Who was part of this, in essence, group that made this?

But the real question and why I'm bringing this Bill forward was that this really impacts K-12, particularly those high school juniors and seniors who are looking at colleges.

And when we make changes at the UC, of course it impacts those students who are already in the progress of attaining certain requirements that they've been told would allow them to move forward into our UC system.

We know it doesn't just impact the students, of course it impacts their families as well as they have been planning for college for many years. We know that we are not trying to take away responsibility from the UC. So to be clear, AB 500 fully respects and preserves the UC's constitutional authority to determine its own criteria.

It does not, this Bill does not mandate policy decisions and it does not interfere with their ability to set or revise admission requirements. What it does do is it's about transparency and ensuring that students, families and educators are not caught off guard by significant policy shifts that can affect a young person's future.

With that we have, today I have Nancy Reynoso who is Legislative Director with the UCSA Board and a fourth year undergraduate student at UC Irvine in Orange County.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Good afternoon Chair Fong and Members of the Committee. Thank you for having me. Like as Assemblymember Quirk-Silva said, My name is Nancy Reynoso and I'm an undergrad student at UC Irvine studying Political Science and Psychological science with a minor in Humanities and Law.

On behalf of the UC Student Association, we strongly support AB 500 and thank Assemblymember Quirk-Silva for authoring this Bill.

And as a state with 40 million residents with deep roots in the value of higher education to produce a skilled workforce, California must be a pioneer for collaboration and this begins by ensuring transparent collaboration and decision-making on admissions changes requirements made by the UC Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools, also known as BOARS.

AB 500 would ensure that seamless collaboration happens with diligence by ensuring UC BOARS works with important stakeholders, including students through UCSA, K through 12 partners, like the California Board of Education, and our four-year counterparts at the CSU Board of Trustees prior to making any changes to UC admission.

Attending the UC as a first generation Latina from San Jose, I recognize how important it is, it was for my high school to have the necessary information to advise students like me on admissions to top schools like UC Irvine and Cal State Fullerton.

I was lucky to have been in my AVID program, which provided me with advising on the college admissions process and any changes that might have happened during my four years there.

The reality though is that for the majority of Title 1 schools, academic counselors are swamped, advising hundreds of students, while colleges make decisions behind closed doors making it easy for students to slip through the cracks if they don't have accurate information on admissions.

AB 500 reinforces the idea that if admissions changes are being considered, there must be strong dialogue for our education stakeholders to give feedback, prepare advising, and change their outreach plans to ensure students have the necessary information and course plans to get into their dream schools rather than backdoor decisions without expert feedback that can perpetuate educational opportunity gaps.

Opportunity gaps. Thank you for your time and I respectfully urge your aye vote.

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

Good afternoon Chair on the Committee. My Name is Jelani Nelson. I'm Professor and Chair of the Computer Science division at UC Berkeley. I urge your nay vote. I oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Are there tweeners in the hearing room?

Good afternoon. Jessica Duong with the University of California Office of the President. UC doesn't currently have a position on this Bill, but we would like to raise that issues around admissions change processes may be better discussed within a higher education coordinating body, which there are several bills on this year.

We look forward to continuing our discussions with the author's office. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Colleagues, any questions or comments? Vice Chair Demaio.

I love open government bills. This is an open government bill. It gives people a heads up of what policy changes may be made. If you don't have sunshine, you don't have participation. You don't have participation, you don't have good policy. So I'm proud to move the Bill and urge my colleagues to support it.

Thank you so much. Any further comments? We have a motion and a second. Assemblymember, would you like to close please?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you Assemblymember Quirk-Silva for your action on this issue. As we learned last year in the oversight hearing on this very topic in October, UC BOARS could have had more meaningful conversations with our K-12 and CSU prior to making the decision that impacted both systems. This is definitely an oversight.

In order to be a collaborative partner, the UC system can continue to have engagement prior to making any changes in admission policies to the UC system. This Bill is an artful approach that both preserves UC autonomy and the Legislature's desire for consultation. With that, I look forward to supporting the measure today. Thank you.

Madam Secretary. Roll call, please. Let's, we're gonna do the vote right now. Okay, Madam Secretary roll call, please.

Thank you. Thank you Members.

File item number two, AB 500. The motion is due pass to the Education Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure has five ayes and we'll keep the roll open in for additional Members to add on. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we'll have Assemblymember Patel presenting item number three, Assembly Bill 684. Thank you. Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon once again, Mr. Chair and Members. Today I am happy to present AB 684 to this Committee. The Bill aims to enhance transparency in higher education by making meetings at the University of California Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools, UC BOARS, subject to the Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act.

On July 7, 2023 UC BOARS decided that data science would no longer serve as an acceptable substitute for Algebra 2 in UC Undergraduate admissions.

In further meetings, UC BOARS revised the definition of advanced mathematics, requiring all K-12 districts, charter schools and private schools to resubmit their math courses for evaluation to ensure they meet UC standards for algebra 2 content or the new advanced mathematics definition.

This decision was extremely difficult for schools to quickly adjust to because by summer, many classes for the upcoming school year were already selected. The possibility of a student getting rejected by no fault of their own but due to a class they took in high school now not meeting A through G requirements is very concerning.

Unlike the UC Regents, UC BOARS is not bound by the Bagley-Keen Act, meaning their meetings are closed to the public.

Minutes produced by UC BOARS, which are often altered after release, indicate that decisions frequently made by UC faculty do not conform to the course content standards and frameworks set by the State Board of Education for K through 12 courses.

The UC holds constitutional autonomy and is the only public higher education institution operating free from executive or legislative control. As a public trust entity, it must adhere to the Bagley-Keen Open Meetings Act, obliging it to conduct open meetings that allow public stakeholder and policymaker engagement regarding its decisions.

Contrary to claims made during the joint oversight hearings, UC BOARS indeed makes unilateral admissions decisions without public consultation. Moreover, UC BOARS can alter admission conditions by changing which courses are deemed approved A through G.

Any modifications to A through G requirements should involve public feedback and be implemented in a manner that permits high schools to adjust their courses accordingly. Having been a trustee in a Board of Education, I know and deeply recognize the importance that this would have in school districts.

Abrupt changes implemented without notice severely hinder a high school student's ability to qualify as a UC applicant. Such changes are essentially marginalizing students who would benefit from a UC education. Here to testify on this measure is UC Irvine student Nancy Reynoso.

Move to pass.

We have a motion. Motion seconded, thank you. Welcome.

Long time no see. Yeah, and hello again. So I want to thank Assembly Member Patel for authoring AB 684, which will bring transparency and accountability to the UC's Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools, also known as UC BOARS.

Growing up in San Jose attending a Title 1 funded high school, I was fortunate to have access to the necessary A through G requirements needed for UC admission and had support from my AVID counselor through completing the IB program, which gave me access to a fourth year math class.

During my senior year I also took advantage of an AP Intro to Computer Science course which also counted towards my A through G requirements as a fourth year of recommended math.

Having these upper level math courses helped me get into my dream school at UC Irvine where I have spent the last three years studying criminal justice reform and climate policy through research opportunities found nowhere else in the world. AB 684 is simple.

If the UC is seeking changes to admission such as attempting to remove data science as an alternative math pathways for thousands of low income students, or requiring a fourth year of math which would heavily impact rural communities, then they must comply with hosting accessible public opportunities for community engagement as outlined by the Begley-Keene Open Meetings Act.

While a A through G is common knowledge among education experts, the reality is that as a freshman in high school, these requirements can seem daunting and unfamiliar. The first time that I heard about A through G requirements is when I entered high school from my AVID advisor who explained it as an opportunity to change the trajectory of our lives.

These requirements were then reinforced my junior year, which I maintained even if there were options like having a lighter senior schedule which was optimal for students like myself who worked part-time throughout high school.

On behalf of the UC Student Association and prospective students who are seeking the opportunity to attend one of our premier research universities, we strongly support AB 684 and respectfully request your aye vote. 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 a hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments? Seeing none. Assemblymember would like to close please.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you so much Assemblymember Patel for bringing this legislation forward today.

While I appreciate the UC Regents providing a delay in implementation and asking the academic center codify a consultation process, we know that more progress can be made in ensuring that the public will have access to those who made the decisions for how admissions occur at the UC.

UC is a public trust and must engage continue to engage with the public and that is why the UC Regents meetings are open meetings. I look forward to supporting this measure here today, providing an additional layer of transparency to this process. With that, Madam Secretary, roll call please.

File item number 3 AB 684. The motion is do pass to the Governmental Organizational Organization Committee. [Roll Call]

Mr. Gonzalez, did you want to,

Jeff Gonzalez? Aye.

We have five ayes and we'll keep the roll for additional Members to add on. Thank you.

Welcome Assemblymember Bryan. Great timing. Presenting item number 12, Assembly Bill 1122. Welcome.

We have a motion, second. Senator Bryan welcome.

Did I just get a motion to move it? And a second?

I heard.

They come from here? Respectfully ask for-- Thank you Mr. Chair and colleagues. I want to begin by thanking the committee staff who always does just a phenomenal job on the analysis and engagement with our office on this bill. I'll be accepting the committee amendments.

I'm proud to present AB 1122, a practical, forward thinking bill that ensures every California high school student has access to dual enrollment opportunities, proven programs that help close equity gaps, improve college readiness, and save families time and money on the path to college.

Dual enrollment allows students to earn college credit while still in high school, reducing the overall cost of higher education and increasing their chances of earning a college degree or certificate.

According to studies from the Public Policy Institute of California and EdTrust-West, students who participate in dual enrollment are significantly more likely to enroll in and complete college.

This bill provides local school districts and community colleges with the flexibility to create the dual enrollment partnerships that best serve their students while establishing a clear statewide expectation that all students have the opportunity to access these life-changing programs.

Critically, AB 1122 supports equity as it encourages Colleges and Career Access Pathway agreements to prioritize outreach to students who are underrepresented in higher education have been most impacted by opportunity gaps. I wouldn't be here today without dual enrollment.

When I was in high school in California, and I went to three high schools throughout the state, I was not one of the highest achieving students who was looking to gain college credit to get a head start on college.

I had actually fallen through a number of cracks going from school to school and I didn't think college could have been a pathway for me.

So I went to community college, dual enrolled while I was in school at Chaffey Community College and Mount Sac Community College to try to make up credits and to prove to myself and to others that I could be college bound.

It was through that dual enrollment process and through those college credits while I was a senior in high school that ultimately helped me matriculate into college and both convince myself and the admissions process that I could eventually graduate top of my class in my UCLA Public Policy Department.

I think every student in California should have that kind of opportunity. I think every high school in California should have a partnership with a local community college to expand dual enrollment access.

I have two people with me today who believe that as well to testify. And that's Dr. Naomi Castro, who's the Chief Program Officer for the Ladders Project and Armando Robles who's Intergovernment Relations Partnership Supervisor with College of the Desert. And then Melissa Bardo is here from EdTrust-West with technical assistance.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Thank you and good afternoon Chair Fong and Committee Members. As the Assemblymember said, I'm Naomi Castro, I'm the Chief Program Officer at the Career Ladders Project and I live in beautiful Torrance, California, Assemblymember Muratsuchi's district. And I've spent my career working to expand equitable college access.

And I'm honored to be recognized as a leading voice in the field of dual enrollment. At Career Ladders Project, we've spent over two decades working alongside educators, administrators and policymakers to support equity-minded community college redesign. And that includes expanding and scaling high quality dual enrollment. There's a research consensus dual enrollment improves educational outcomes.

It improves high school graduation rates, college attendance and college degree attainment. And those percentage point gains that we see for participating students are even higher for students who are low income, first generation and students from groups that are historically underrepresented in post secondary education. Yet despite these proven benefits, opportunity is still uneven.

And I'm going to quote a 2021 study from our colleagues at Wheelhouse that says "dual enrollment opportunities remain scarce or non-existent for many students and largely depend on the high school they go to."

Because you see, every community college in California has some kind of dual enrollment, but not every high school does. So as long as some students have access and others do not, we're playing favorites with young people's futures. Let's level the playing field and provide access to dual enrollment in a way that's fair to the students of California.

We know that the key to family-sustaining wages and a thriving, beautiful California economy remains closely tied to to college attainment. So by requiring high school districts to have a formal dual enrollment partnership, we're creating fair access to college.

So thank you Assemblymember Bryan, for championing this important measure and thank you Committee Members for your ongoing support in expanding access to dual enrollment.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Good afternoon Chair Fong and Members of the Higher Education Committee. My name is Armando Robles and I'm the Intersegmental Partnership Supervisor at College of the Desert in California's 47th District. We also serve students in Assemblymember Garcia's 36th district where-- sorry, Gonzalez's 36th district. I grew up in your district.

I'm from Indio myself and as a fellow Marine, Semper Fi. But today I'm here to specifically share how dual enrollment partnerships support student success. At College of the Desert, we're privileged that in our region we're able to partner with three comprehensive K-12 districts along with a number of private and charter schools as well.

In fact, this year alone we've been able to offer a free college credit earning opportunity to over 2000 individual students throughout our region.

These students have taken courses in several fields including Automotive, Culinary, Hvac, High Volume, AC, which like the system that thankfully kicked on here, these are industries that drive the economy back in my home district.

For many of our students, particularly for the large number of first generation students that we serve, the dual enrollment experience is the difference between a student who doesn't see themselves as college bound and one who ultimately does pursue a higher education degree.

The students in our program benefit from a meta college experience that includes completing a formal college application, navigating a college website, using a college learning system. It's more than just attaining college credit. Dual enrollment, as we've heard, can truly change a student's trajectory in their educational journey.

I've personally seen the spark in a student's eye when I tell them that, 'That class that you just completed is a college class. You are college material.'

By supporting AB 1122 today, you are not simply expanding dual enrollment access, you're also bringing California into a growing list of over 20 states that currently currently offer universal access to dual enrollment, and supporting Governor Newsom's 2030 goal of 70% post secondary degree attainment.

AB 1122 specifically encourages all types of dual enrollment partnerships, but thankfully also includes CCAP, College and Career Access Pathway Partnerships, which are uniquely flexible in their administration, opening the door for all districts to benefit, including our socioeconomic and rural districts as well.

AB 1122 is an opportunity to align the state's goals while providing an opportunity for more California students to recognize that they are college ready. I respectfully ask today for your aye vote and support. Thank you.

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

Jocelyn Yow on behalf of Ignite and a proud alum of California Community Colleges, proud to support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sandra Morales on behalf of the High School Coalition in support.

Valerie Johnson with the Campaign for College Opportunity in support.

Maria Morales with Hispanas Organized Political Equality as a proud co-sponsor in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Carol Gonzalez on behalf of Oceanside Unified School District who couldn't be here in support.

Thank you.

Hi. Kimberly Sanchez with NextGen California in support.

Thank you.

Rob Moutrie, California Chamber of Commerce in support.

Thank you so much. Yes, please.

Melissa Bardo on behalf of Ed Trust West, proud sponsor and in support.

Thank you. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues, Any questions or comments? Mr. Gonzalez.

I'm a little disappointed in the author that you didn't come to me to co-author this. This is a project that I've been working on to work with not only College of the Desert, Imperial Valley College, Palo Verde College. This is one of my initiatives.

So I want to be able to, I humbly ask to be a co-author so I can help make sure that not only my community is supported in this, but help to echo at the highest of hills to make sure that this is a program not only that is enacted by legislation but that there is action taken because the bridge to higher education is far and we have to shorten that bridge and this is exactly the type of stuff that I want to be involved in.

So let's talk. I proudly support this and proudly ask to be a co-author.

Thank you so much. Assemblymember Tangipa.

I too want to thank the author because everything that you had stated I understand personally. I have a younger brother right now who I couldn't be more proud of that started a dual enrollment program and first generation family, you know.

And on Monday he just got accepted into SAC State and he will be starting his freshman year pretty much as a junior because of this program. So I hope that there are more individuals who have that same opportunity.

And his now goal, when I think before and when he would really as especially as a COVID kid that had missed three years of school, has completely changed, completely changed that.

Now his entire goal is since I'm the first person in my family to graduate from college and I got my master's, his now goal is to be the first person who has his doctorate's. I think the author really do for bringing this forward.

And Jeff, a little day late and a dollar short, but I'd love to join him if there's an opportunity to do so. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Yes. Assemblymember Muratsuchi.

Thank you, Mr. Bryan, for bringing this measure forward. You know, as a first generation college graduate myself, I also wish that I had dual enrollment opportunities to help demystify the higher education experience. And so I certainly recognize and I'm a big supporter of dual enrollment programs. I have seen some concerns raised about the mandate.

And so given that this Bill is going to be coming to the Education Committee next, I wanted to give you the courtesy of telling you that I'm going to be not voting today to allow my Committee, the Education Committee, to be able to address any, make sure that we don't have any unintended consequences of mandating this dual enrollment on all school districts, all thousand of our school districts throughout the State of California.

I do see the California Federation of Teachers in their opposition letters to your Bill raising some concerns. I wanted to see if you might have any comments regarding their reasons for their opposition.

Yeah, tremendous respect and relationship with CFT. Unfortunately, haven't read the letter and assumed if any opposition was serious enough they would have shown up to Committee to make sure that we all heard that opposition. But since not a soul showed up to speak in opposition to this Bill, I don't think it's anything we can't work out.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Vice Chair Demaio.

Heck, if CFT's against. It, I'm even more excited to vote for it. No, I think it's a common sense, very common sense Bill and my hope is that stakeholders will reach out to your office and if there are issues, iron them out. But I look forward to supporting this on the floor.

Any further comments? Seeing none, Assemblymember would like to close, please.

I just, I think anytime you can come to Committee and do something that you believe is righteous that has personally impacted you and others and pick up two Republican co-authors, it's a good day for California and I just respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much, Assemblymember Bryant, for working with my team on the amendments as well and appreciate your intentions on this Bill as well, and power and promise of higher education and dual enrollment is so, so critical. And I also believe that there should be universal access for these types of programs.

Just last Friday I was at East LA College for their dual enrollment event. They had 10 high schools there, about 500 students. It was 8:30 in the morning and everyone's getting fired up to enroll in these types of programs. And when we look at this as well.

Just, I know that in the analysis there were some concerns also on the unintended potential consequences. But I know he'll be continuing to work on those as well going forward. But look forward to supporting this measure today. With that, Madam Secretary, roll call please.

File item number 12, AB 1122. The motion is do pass as amended to the Education Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure has four ayes. Nguyen not voting. And we'll keep the roll for additional Members to add on. Thank you.

All right. As the chair is going to present several bills, I'll take over as Chair. We'll bring up AB 714 Assemblymember Fong, item number four on today's agenda. Mr. Chairman, you may begin.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, Members, good afternoon. Assembly Bill 714 removes commercial driving from programs that may be exempted from the Private Post Secondary Education Act, which established the Bureau for Private Post Secondary Education in 2010.

The bureau oversees private post secondary education, making sure these programs meet minimum educational quality standards to prevent harm and fraud to our students. Some of the programs that are exempt from the bureau's oversight include those that cost under $2,500. This was meant to exclude programs like test prep courses such as the MCAT or LSAT.

Unfortunately, commercial driving programs that charge less than $2,500 were also included in this exemption. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, there are 436 heavy truck fatalities in California 2022. An average of more than one death per day involving large trucks.

Most of us in this room, along with our friends and family, share the road with large trucks each and every day. We must ensure that commercial driving programs are properly regulated to ensure drivers are properly trained to operate large trucks safely.

Here to testify in support is Steve gold with the 160 Driving Academy and Aaron Read with the California Association of Highway Patrolmen. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for having me here today. My name is Steve Gold and I own the 160 Driving Academy truck driving schools. I'm here to discuss AB 714. With 154 schools nationwide and licensed in 44 states, the 160 Driving Academy is the largest commercial truck driving school in the country.

In 2024, we trained and placed over 30,000 new professional truck drivers across our school system. In 2025, across our 10 California CDL schools, we will create and place over 3,000 new truck drivers into high paying jobs.

By way of background, I'm the former chief supply chain officer for PepsiCo, where I had the responsibility, among other things, for the largest private fleet in the country. I started the 160 Driving Academy 13 years ago.

As when I was at PepsiCo, I could not identify high quality truck driving training institutions that met PepsiCo's training standards and safety standards, especially when we had unsafe drivers that required extensive training. In all cases, poor training was directly correlated to incidents and accidents, some of them fatal.

I had the unpleasant task reporting this information to the board of directors of PepsiCo every quarter. CDL training is governed uniquely by each state by the Federal Department of Transportation. In California our companies are licensed and governed by the Bureau of Proprietary and Post-Secondary Education, or the BPPE.