Assembly Standing Committee on Higher Education

The Assembly Higher Education Committee is now called to order. I'd like to extend a warm welcome to everyone here today. Madam Secretary, please call the roll

[Roll Call]

Thank you so much. Colleagues, quorum has been established. Welcome to the special hearing of Once in a Bill by the Assembly Higher Education Committee today. Whether you're here in person or watching virtually, I extend a warm greetings to each and every one of you.

I will now go over some key elements of the structure of today's hearing as you proceed with the witnesses and public comment.

When everyone understands that the Assembly has rules to maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing, we apply these rules consistently to all people who participated in our proceedings, regardless of the viewpoint they express, in order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time as we will not predict permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings.

We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that incites a threatens violence. As you came into the hearing room today, Sergeants directed your attention to the rules for public attendance and participation which were posted outside the door. The rules for today's hearing include no talking or loud noises from the audience.

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

Please be aware that violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement actions. Additionally, please note, while this hearing will not have phone testimony, we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the Committee's website at ...

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 when a Call for Tweeners if a measure has more than two entities in the tweener category, only two would be allowed to speak for two minutes each.

Colleagues, since our meetings are public and some travel far to be here in respect of them and the author, please allow the author to complete their opening remarks before making any motions.

The public has idea what the Bill is about, please Note that the following Members have been excused from today's hearing, Dr. Patel and Dr. Sharp Collins and for today's hearing, I'd like to extend a warm welcome to some Members, Majority Leader Aguiar Curry and somewhere Matt Haney. Thank you so much for joining us here today.

At this time, though, we'll take up our item on the agenda SB638 Welcome.

Senator Padilla. Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for your indulgence today and I'm pleased to present SB 638 that isn't on an important topic to both you, Mr. Chairman, and I, workforce development and how the state implements and delivers on this issue and all the penetrating potential it can bring.

I'm grateful to your personal focus on this critical issue, Mr. Chairman. It's evidenced by the numerous work you have done in the recent years and the bills you have introduced on this issue. You've clearly been a leader in this space.

With the continued wealth gap in this state and across the nation, growing access to better paying and high quality jobs must be one of our top priorities. Knowing the challenges surrounding income inequality in America, the California Senate Democratic Caucus made workforce and its delivery system a core issue to address as part of its three Bill affordability package.

With the Governor's Master Plan for Career Education, the Legislature has a unique opportunity to shape the state's workforce delivery system and make it less burdensome and more cohesive to work for all folks. Not to mention, there is funding in this adopted budget to establish an entity to coordinate and streamline the state's workforce delivery system.

Mr. Chairman and Members Mr. Chairman, as a former community college trustee, you are keenly aware of these issues and have worked on them both as a trustee and as a Member of the Legislature.

I look forward to partnering with you and the Administration to merge concepts, ideas and bills to move forward in these final months in the legislative session to land a final proposal that improves California's workforce system and strengthens the lives of millions of Californians. SB638 does primarily two things.

It creates a coordinating entity or body, the Middle Class Pipeline Project that will streamline interagency programming, cross education and workforce development as well as adopt regulations to better administer programs related to career tech education, career pathways and workforce development to address regional disparities. In the short term.

The Bill will inject resources in particular to high unemployment, low income regions of the state through modifications of the Career Tech Ed Incentive Grant for local education agencies to then in turn create career tech education and pathways for historically underrated populations in partnership with California community colleges and employers.

We simply cannot afford to continue to push forward while only bringing certain communities along with us. The prosperity of the state should be for everyone to benefit from. With me today are Alex Graves, Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, and Seema Creason with the EDGE Coalition.

Thank you so much.

Welcome.

No, sure. Good morning, Chair and Members, Alex Graves with the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, or AICCU, here in proud support of SB638. For those who don't know, AICCU is the organizational voice for over 85 private, nonprofit, accredited colleges and universities across the state.

We recognize the value that a statewide education workforce coordinating entity can provide to the state, to policymakers, to students, families and employers. Our master plan is 65 years old. The landscape of higher education is very different. The needs of the state have changed. The profile of students going to college has changed dramatically.

We should be examining our education systems and policies alongside our workforce needs in a thoughtful, comprehensive manner. And for those reasons you see that I believe there have been copies shared of a letter signed by the majority of the members on our governing board, which includes University presidents and trustees.

If we were doing a big jigsaw puzzle, we would want to make sure that we had all the pieces in the box. We appreciate that SB638 brings together a broad group of stakeholders who can all contribute to meeting the challenges and needs of our state and communities.

We appreciate that that membership at the entity proposed in the bill includes the independent nonprofit University sector alongside our counterparts from the UC, CSU and community colleges. Our sector is a vital contributor to the high need professions of our state. For example, we confer 39% of the new teacher credentials issued in the state.

We produce over 50% of the baccalaureate and above trained nurses in the state. 15 of the state's 20 Physicians Assistance Programs are in our sector. In the mental health care space. Our sector confers over 90% of the degrees in clinical psychology, counseling and marriage and family therapy.

In short, we are here and ready to work collaboratively with stakeholders in this process to help ensure more students have access to these career pathways and other high need fields. California is the only state lacking a coordinating body and with $1.5 million appropriate in the state budget.

We think the time is now to meet this need and for those reasons we ask for your support. Thank you. Thank you so much. Welcome.

Good to see you. Good afternoon or still probably morning. Members and Chair I'm Zima Creason. I'm the Executive Director of the California EDGE Coalition. And I also have the privilege of serving on the San Juan Unified Board of Education, 10th largest school district in California.

EDGE is a nonprofit, nonpartisan statewide policy organization dedicated to addressing workforce shortages in high road, high opportunity jobs and expanding pathways to economic mobility for all Californians, while also helping employers access the skill and trained workforce that they need. Right now, too many good jobs are going unfilled while too many Californians are living below a living wage.

And at edge, we work every day to bridge that gap. We strongly support SB638 because it addresses long standing structural challenges that we've prioritized for years. At its core, this bill is about coalition building, something that's central to who we are. Coalition is in our name.

For decades, EDGE has brought together leaders from business, labor, education, workforce development and social justice to advance our shared goals. We bring the right people to the table to plan, collaborate and coordinate. SB 638 aims to do the same, and we know that this model works.

California invests billions annually across siloed education and workforce programs, each with its own set of rules, funding streams and goals. Even as professionals, navigating these systems can be absolutely overwhelming. And now imagine a family or student workers trying to access these opportunities. It could be equally or even more overwhelming.

This coordinating body would also help identify gaps and disparities across systems, ensuring that opportunity youth and adult learners don't face unnecessary barriers in their pursuit of economic security. Equally important, it would bring together key partners to build a unified, responsive system that works for all Californians.

This bill's alignment with the Cradle to Career Data system is also critical as data driven insights will help us to better target investments and evaluate progress to ensure measurable outcomes. On behalf of the California EDGE Coalition, I respectfully ask for your support of SB 638. And thank you so much. Time for your time and leadership.

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

Thank you. Chair Members Mark Mcdonald on behalf of National University in support. Thank you.

Happy summer. Chair Members or [unintelligible] Reyes on behalf of Long Beach City College in support. Thank you.

Good morning Chair and Members. Danielle Bautista with United Ways of California here in support. Also authorized to give a MeToo and support on behalf of Orange County United Way and GRACE & End Child Poverty in California. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition in a hearing room? Are there tweeners in a hearing room? CNN? Thank you so much Senator for your opening remarks.

And as you stated, the Legislature has been long interested in a coordinating body and personally, as you mentioned, this has been a top priority of mine for the past many years. As you noted in the opening, originally there was $5 million set aside for this.

Now it's at $1.5 million was allocated in the budget for a coordinating entity. SB68 assigns the entity many different functions, including oversight, regulatory, stakeholder consultation and data responsibilities in addition to coordination. Can you explain how the entity would staff up given the limited funding and what functions would they prioritize?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the question. And as you stated, when the Governor originally submitted in January provided an allocation, a suggested an allocation of 5 million General Funds on the May revise that was reduced to 1.5.

And as you well know, this bill as it moves forward is part of a broader agreement between leadership in both houses. It is part of the Senate Democratic Caucus's priority package around affordability in one of three major omnibus bills that we move forward out of our House.

The as you well know, this concept and final disposition on the nature, scope and operational efficiency or not of the court coordinating entity is yet to be determined. My bill that I respectfully ask you to move forward today proffers an operational coordinating entity. As you know, Mr. Chairman, because of your leadership, this is not a new concept.

It's one that evolved into the master plan over many years. And there have been varying views about whether this coordinating entity should be another layer of advisory conversation or whether it should be operationalized.

And so the direct answer to your question is my hope is as we get a meeting of a three party agreement, meeting of minds as to the nature of the coordinating entity, that will drive then decision making around how we would support it.

My personal opinion, and it's the reason why I have it in the bill in this form and again, my Senate colleagues joined me in this position.

The reason we have the bill in front of you is we think it should be operationalized and we think that if we can get agreement with the governor's office, with this House on how we land this, ultimately that I think will be the precursor for adjustments in budget allocation that would give it sufficient resources in the near term to staff up to meet its obligations.

The obligations, as you know, as laid out in the bill and in the analysis, talk about recognizing sort of an uncomfortable truth.

And that is despite good intentions over many decades, much of the way in which we implement workforce development and creating career pathways, aligning with industry demand, aligning better partnerships between all levels of formal education, including career tech and community colleges, is often disjointed it's very siloed, it's not integrated, it's not strategic and often not even updated to the demands of the 21st century Economy and certainly not the emerging industries that are going to drive our economy going forward.

So there's a lot of work to be done to create efficiencies, reduce overlap and redundancy, create more space for more participation, and perhaps maybe even reduce incremental costs to people.

Because ultimately, on the question of affordability, if people in California can't have access to pathways that get them marketable skills, whether that is in career tech or advanced manufacturing or other technical or trade skills, never mind a formal classical education, they are not able to participate in our economy.

And if they cannot participate in our economy, they can't even afford their basic needs.

Thank you so much, Senator, for that context. And look for the future conversations around the entity and the responsibilities and how it's framed and structured, as also noted in the analysis. And you also talked about just the work and efforts around CTE workforce development.

We know the California Workforce Development Board and other entities, including the California Community College Chancellor's Office, the Department of Education, local workforce development boards, and we know there's many of them across California. They all have different pieces of the pie in terms of policy development, including the California Workforce Development Board.

And looking at growing industries, looking at industries that are advanced manufacturing, as you stated, and other industries that are growing and looking at innovation around those areas, but also performance assessment, measurement and reporting in all those different entities.

What are your thoughts on the potential overlaps between this proposed entity and the work that the California Workforce Development Board is currently doing, and how would those be resolved going forward?

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. My short answer would be it would lie in how we integrate and operationalize a revised set of targets. I mean, there's been a lot of good work done by the State Board, but again, often it is misaligned with the current demand and there isn't really a strategic framework.

There is a functional framework, but it's not necessarily strategic. And I think that if we can broaden that and better integrate it, that's going to be something that I hope the scope of any operational coordinating entity will be able to achieve.

Thank you so much for that context. I know there's different economic development corporations and other entities as well, so that are doing work in the space to look at growing industry sectors for good paying jobs. Now at this time I'd like to open up to my colleagues if there's any questions or Comments from colleagues. With.

A motion and Assembly Member Gonzalez.

Thank you Mr. Chair. And like the author noted, you have been a leader in this in this realm and with that you've presented a previous bill that talks to to this specifically the this specific situation that we're referring to today and to the author.

Sir, you mentioned merging the concepts between the two bills, the chair's bill and your bill. Is there a plan moving forward how this will occur and when can we expect to see language of the merged concept?

Mr. Chairman, Assembly Member, thank you for the question. And as I noted earlier, this bill is one of three a part of a priority caucus package that has been been the subject of agreements between the leadership in both houses, the office of the Pro Tem and the office of the Speaker.

The intent here is to move these concepts forward and in this August and the chair and I have had conversations around this, the intent is to try to seek to get a three party agreement, Legislature and the Governor around, particularly this question of the form and function of the coordinating entity itself.

So I would suggest that according to the information I have from my leadership in my house that that late summer time frame is something that you can look to expect to see some additional.

Results knowing that you and I both represent areas with a high unemployment rate, close to 17%. Now I applaud your effort to improve the pipeline from the beginning of learning through career. That's something I talk about all the time. That's why I'm part of this Committee as my Alma mater National University.

Wherever you there we go, there they are very happy to see them. But with that being said, I have several concerns. This Committee noted in the analysis that the range of duties assigned to the coordinating entity is broad, including program oversight, regulatory action, stakeholder consultation, data infrastructure and student access analysis.

Although the bill allows for the prioritizations of duties in the event of limited funding, successfully carrying out even a portion of these responsibilities will require significant resources, staffing and interagency cooperation. Without sustained support and clearly defined authority, the coordinating entity may struggle to move beyond high level planning to operational impact.

I'm concerned that this entity is being given too broad of a spectrum of duties with too little resources. As a new entity, this is a behemoth of a body you are attempting to stand up and appears to have only have $1.5 million. I have the list of all of the jobs or duties in four pages here.

Which is significant. Which which of the 26 duties assigned to this new entity, except for the specifically called out duty, do you believe should be prioritized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Member, thank you for your question. It's a valid one. And I would just concede that your concerns are valid and I think they're probably shared by everyone who is trying to get us to a point where we can fashion the scope and function of a coordinating entity.

The whole purpose in our request to move this bill forward is so that this particular concept of an operationalized entity is on the table for discussion. The other models that have been currently on the table are advisory bodies only.

And I think that what we want to do is have that question in front of the leadership in both houses and the Governor. Do we want to create an entity that is another, all due respect, a gathering of folks to express opinions without any real other operational responsibilities or authority.

Does that add value or do we want to get to a place where we can make a collective decision that we should create an entity that has more operational responsibilities and obligations with specific deliverables? And I think I couldn't tell you of 26 functions.

You know how I would personally rank them, nor do I know that I'd want to do that in this hearing. But I think the point of moving this bill forward is to have this concept in this model on the table for those tri party conversation so that the Legislature and the Governor can collectively answer those questions.

I would hope that if the Legislature and the Governor decide that this piece is something that should be operationalized, then we would also collectively decide to prioritize it with sufficient support and budget allocation.

Well, the. Thank you. The Assembly Committee on Education questioned in their own analysis if the coordinating entity was duplicative.

Writing quote at the K through 14 level, the CWPJAC is formed through an MOU between the SBE and the Board of Governors of the Triple C California Community Colleges to provide recommendations to the State Board of Education on the California State plan for CTE, the the federal Perkins versus state plan and other K through 14 CTE issues and programs.

The Committee on Labor and Employment provided comments in the higher ed analysis in which they note that some of the mandates for this coordinating entity overlap with work tasks to the California Workforce Development Board. How would you address the questions of whether this new body is duplicative? It seems.

It seems we have multiple Assembly Committees concerned with this.

Mr. Chairman, Assembly Member, to your point, I would just respectfully suggest that despite all of the existing systems and programs that you just articulated, and I assume the insinuation is that, you know, why change the status quo? They're probably working well I would respectfully suggest they're not.

Despite being the fourth largest economy in the world, California has some of the greatest wage disparity. It has some of the most dysfunctional, disjointed, non collaborated or coordinated systems of workforce development, development delivery on scale in the country. It has one of the highest rates of poverty and workforce and working poverty.

So I would just respectfully suggest to this Committee that yes, there's a lot of good work that's been done. There are a lot of programs that have been in place for a long time. There are a lot of entities and systems that are very concerned about their role in this space.

But at the end of the day, what are the outcomes? We sit here as the fourth largest economy in the world and yet we still have much work to do in this space.

And I would just respectfully suggest that we have to revisit how we deliver these workforce programs, how we reduce and remove duplicity, how we create better room for more people to participate and find ways to make them more able to participate. And that is the whole point of the Bill.

Just to clarify, this is not me saying I'm with the status quo as you stated. What I'm saying is that the, our chair has presented a pathway forward. We all agreed on the pathway forward. This is duplicative in nature with what you're, what you're doing. Understanding that these duties are valuable.

It is worth having multiple bodies to do some work should the duplicative duties be removed from either entities.

I would think that ultimately, if there is an operational coordinating setup, that would be for that coordinating entity to make those determinations and take those actions. I'm not seeing that bill doesn't seek to prescribe that.

The bill seeks to identify and acknowledge deficiencies and try to suggest a framework that would then be actually empowered, not in an advisory capacity, but actually empowered, working with all stakeholders to get at the very questions and concerns that you're pointing to.

I'm just missing a piece to this because if this is, and I hear what you're saying is to work together and to empower and be collaborative, so on and so forth. We already have a bill like that. That conversation could have taken place. And I get it, there's leadership pieces.

But over here we have conversations all the time about how we can all work together. If there's already one bill, great, let me sign on as a co author and we can do some things to work to this so we can work together. But let me ask you this.

Why was the bill not heard by labor and employment.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure I'm following. I can't speak to that decision making. I wasn't part of it.

Okay, I'll move forward. If we were creating an entirely new courting body with a wide range of 2726 duties, shouldn't all relevant policy committees have time to review and approve the measure? Labor and Employment's comments in the higher edge education analysis showed valid concerns. The Committee previously passed Chair Fong's AB95 unanimously. How does this measure difference?

Mr. Chairman and Member, I think, I think you know that each house obviously is entitled to produce legislation that address the similar issues and I have great respect for the chair's leadership in this space. There's a bill that that was moving in this house, no longer moving.

My bill is the only one alive in the Legislature that contemplates an operational coordinating entity. And again, as I indicated earlier, that concept should be at the table in part of the conversation. That's the position of the Senate. There is agreement between the leadership in both houses that that should be the case as well.

Now I understand that you didn't take any suggested amendments from this Committee. Are you able to shed light as to why?

Mr. Chairman and as I've indicated multiple times, Assemblymember, but I'd like the question answered that anyone? I've answered it numerous times. I'll answer it again.

There is an agreement between the speaker and the Pro Tem that this bill will move forward, that it will be part of a tri party negotiation and the suggested amendments that were made were to strip in its entirety the coordinating entity completely from the bill.

It is not something that I can respectfully accept given that it is part of the Senate caucus priority package that there is agreement between the leadership and about and that that is. In other words, what I'm saying is my name is on this bill.

I was proud to move it, but it isn't, you know, it is a priority for the Senate leadership and it is part of a broader conversation that is being had going forward and so I'm not in a position to be able to accept those amendments.

Thank you so much. Any further questions or comments? Mr. Muratsuchi?

So I apologize for coming in late. I had another Natural Resources hearing upon adjournment and so I missed the earlier conversations and so I'm trying to catch up here. I should have checked in with the chair on this because I understand there's. Some. Background to this. We did hear this in my Committee in the Assembly Education Committee.

And we are in agreement that the status quo needs improvement, that there needs to be greater coordination with our educational segments and our workforce training agencies as it relates to career technical education. How that better coordination looks, it's my understanding, of course, we have Senator Padilla's bill here. We earlier had some Chair Fong's bill.

But it's my understanding that there is a agreement among leadership to try to work it out. Okay. So I see the chair nodding and so I thank you, Senator Padilla, for leading this effort.

I know that Chair Fong and I have been also working for the last couple of years on discussions, including the governor's master plan for career education, on how do we improve the coordination to promote what you're trying to do to have better coordination between our educational agencies and our workforce training agencies.

And so I will support this, this to continue those discussions. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Mr. Muratsuchi, any further questions or comments by Chair DeMaio?

Thank you. And I appreciate my colleague from Imperial county and Riverside County for the thoughtful questions. I too, am just completely concerned about going down this road with this bill. And if this has already been decided by the leaders, then why do we have a hearing? Let's just bring it directly to the floor.

You can do a Rule 88. Let's not pretend like we're going through a deliberative process here. I kind of find that offensive to the legislative process.

And my hope is that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will desire to pump the brakes on this because I think there are some improvements that could be made. And I am familiar with the chair's work in this area and I'm intrigued by it.

I'm open to considering those ideas to the regular order through the Committee process, not through, hey, you know, we've decided this is what we're going to do. Take it or leave it. That's, again, not the way the process, I think works best. There's an old adage, don't just stand there, don't just stand there, do something.

Well, in government it's different. Don't just stand there, spend something. In this case, it's, don't just stand there, create something and spend more. I do not see a single value added role in this new body. I see duplication. I see fragmentation and overlap. And it's designed to address the goal of reducing duplication, fragmentation and overlap.

In my prior life as head of the Performance Institute, we worked, we had a whole labor and workforce development division. We worked with workforce investment boards, across the country. This is not like this is a new thing.

This has been going on since the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, and a lot of other states have figured out how to do this and it hasn't taken form in the way that you're proposing here.

My colleagues, I think is onto something where we've got this smallish agency designed to do 26 separate functions, which many of these functions are duplicative of other agencies that are out there. So it looks like to me if we're going to do something, we ought to do it right.

And I don't see this as being doing it right. Now there's two things that we may want to consider. My hope is that my colleagues on the other side will push for this. Number one, we punt and make this a two year discussion. We look at this next year through the regular process.

Or number two, maybe this is a perfect item to refer to the Joint Legislative Audit Committee and that we prioritize an audit, have the Auditor put together a study Committee, look at it and bring it back to this body.

Because if we're going to pass legislation, let's make sure that we do it right and we can have a more deliberative and thoughtful process with a full blown audit. To look at these issues, I could get into the problematic DEI mandates that are in here.

The reason, and I'm not saying whether you guys want to do DEI or not, I'm just saying that one of the things with workforce development is that it is a public private partnership and that we do have opportunities to get federal funds for investing in workforce development.

And I don't want to put a target on an idea by including that.

So my hope is that you would reconsider what that's about and maybe we go with low income communities, make it more generic because if you're right about the diversity issues resulting in less advantageous outcomes, then you should be able to cover that with an income based, needs based criteria versus putting a target on the back of this.

Again, I'm looking to try to get California as much federal funding as possible. And we know that there is a new regime, there are new criteria. I don't want to lose out on that by putting a target on it so clearly in this Bill. So with that, I'm not prepared today to support this.

I really encourage my colleagues to either consider the audit approach or perhaps trailing the Bill so that we can have a more deliberative process over the next 18 months. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Mr. DiMaio. Any further questions or comments? CNN Senator, would you like to close, please?

Mr. Chairman, again, I just want to reiterate my personal respect for you and your work in this space. I look forward to the opportunity to be part of a dialogue that lands us in a place where I think every Member here has expressed a desire to get to. And with that, I would respectfully ask for an Iva.

Thank you so much, Senator Padilla, for bringing forward SB638. Thank you to my colleagues for your comments and appreciate the amendments you took in Assembly Education Committee think those amendments really improve the Career Technical Education Incentive Grant Program sections of the Bill as well.

And in terms of the coordinating body, look forward to future conversations there and how we can partner up, work together and really look at the functionality and the entity structure and set up. And I think there's been a lot of robust discussion on that. In terms of responsibilities.

We know that $1.5 million has been set for this, and we know that to make a very strong coordinating body, it would probably take a lot more resources there. So I have two concerns about the budget allocation and the functions of the coordinated entity.

But I look forward to future conversations around that space and really appreciate the work and efforts here. And today we'll be giving SB63 at a courtesy vote and look forward to future conversations going forward as we look for the best path forward with that. Madam Secretary, roll call.

[Roll call]

That measures five eyes. We'll keep the rope in for additional Members to add on. Thank you so much. Three notes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you so much, colleagues. For best hearing this morning, we'd like to add the have an opportunity for Members to add on at this time. Madam Secretary, roll call.

Please File item number one. SB638. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Haney. Haney, aye.

Thank you so much, colleagues. Thank you so much, colleagues, for a robust Assembly Higher Education Committee meeting. And I hope everyone has a wonderful summer recess with that. And thank you to everyone involved with today's hearing as well for really making accommodations for this special hearing of the Assembly Higher Education Committee with that have a wonderful summer.

This meeting is adjourned.