Assembly Standing Committee on Higher Education

Good afternoon. I'd like to welcome everyone to the Assembly Higher Education Committee. The Assembly Higher Education Committee is now called to order and Happy New Year to each and every one of you and welcome to our first policy hearing of the Assembly Higher Education Committee in 2026. This first hearing is for two year bills.

Whether you're here in person or watching virtually, I'm grateful that you have joined us. Please note that Assembler Celeste Rodriguez is out on maternity leave. Congratulations to Assembly Member Celeste Rodriguez and her family. Super happy for her and her family.

And we'd like to welcome Assembly Member Patrick Ahrens, who will be the replacement for Assembly Member Celeste Rodriguez for today's hearing. When he's here, we'll give him a warm welcome but welcome Assembly Member Patrick Ahrens. 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 ruled to maintain to ensure that we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing.

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

We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence. As you came into the hearing room today, the 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 comment must relate to the subject or bills being discussed today and no engaging 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 full testimony, we are accepting written testimony through the Position Letter portal on the committee's website at Www.ahed.education.ca.gov bills will be taken up in sign in order.

However, Committee Members will typically present their bills after Non Committee Members and authors. You can sign in at the Sergeant's desk in room 126.

Further, please note that the guideline for bills heard in the 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 it called for tweeners. If a measure has more than two entities in the tweener category, only two will be allowed to speak for two minutes each.

For Members of the Committee Members, since our hearings 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 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, provide a comment, please be sure to activate your microphone and speak into your mic.

For authors of bills up today, each Member presenting today will provide an opening statement and a closing statement. As previously stated, your two lead witnesses will each have two minutes to provide testimony. So thank you again for everyone's participation in today's hearing and we're going to hear the bills and sign in order.

Our first author up today is Assembly Member Alvarez. Welcome, Assembly Member Alvarez presenting item number one, Assembly Bill 664. Welcome. Welcome Mr. Alvarez.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Committee Members, thank you for the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 664. I respectfully asked that you support this Bill which focuses on addressing a critical workforce and higher education gap that exists in South San Diego despite being the largest city in California without a public university offering bachelor's degrees.

Chula Vista, specifically the city. But South San Diego as a region has thousands of students ready and eager to pursue their higher education dreams. Yet local options are limited and many are forced to leave their community to continue their studies.

Labor market studies show that South County has 147 high priority occupations that require a bachelor's degree in fields tied to the binational economy, public safety, health and education as the main driving forces. Right now, local public university capacity is insufficient, leaving students with few realistic options to meet these workforce needs.

Within our region, AB664 offers a targeted and temporary solution. It allows Southwestern College to develop faculty led bachelor's programs that respond directly to those documented needs while collaborating with CSU and UC partners. This Bill does not duplicate or replace any existing university programs.

It also includes independent evaluation, a statutory cap on the program and a sunset of the program ending in 2035. The Bill is part of a broader strategy, AB662, which is already enacted thanks to the support of this Committee, this last year lays the groundwork for the future public higher education and university programs in Chula Vista.

It explores long term governance, coordinated planning and alignment across community colleges, the CSU and the UC, ensuring that when a Chula Vista University campus is built, it serves the region efficiently, equitably and on the needs that exist. AB664 addresses immediate workforce gaps now.

Programs such as allied health, forensic studies, teaching English to speakers of other languages and interaction design allow students to stay in the community, complete their degrees and contribute to California's growing economy without diverting students from the CSU or UC campuses. As these programs are not being offered by those campuses.

Southwestern College has been instrumental in providing bachelor's degree opportunities at its own higher education center on their campus in Chula Vista. They've demonstrated both the capacity and commitment to expand local higher education access to students. This pilot builds on that proven track record.

And that track record includes this fall the launching of six Bachelor's degrees at the college campus, the community college campus itself.

This Bill also has strong local support, including Southwestern College's Academic Senate, student organizations, regional education partners, all of our local governments, business leaders, building and construction trades and economic development groups, and just hot off the press, also the Board of Governors for the community college. They just supported this today.

I want to thank the chair of the Committee, Consultant Powers, for your guidance and support as we were drafting this Bill over the last several months to get us to where we are today. I respectfully urge your support for AB664.

Happy to answer any questions you may have, but first I'd like to introduce our partners in this effort. First, we'll start with Dr. Mark Sanchez, who is the President of Southwestern Community Colleges. And then Dr. Marilyn Palomino, Aso, student Senator and Administration of justice at Southwestern College. Dr. Sanchez. Yeah.

Thank you Assemblymember Alvarez. Thank you Chair and Members of the community for Committee for allowing me the opportunity to speak today on behalf of Assembly Bill 664. Southwestern College in Chula Vista, California serves more than half a million residents as the only public institution of higher education in the South County of San Diego.

For decades, our community has worked collaboratively on a solution to expand access to an affordable, innovative workforce and regionally responsive higher education ecosystem. Assembly Bill 664 is one limited piece of that larger long term effort. I would like to briefly address why this Bill exists alongside The Assembly Bill 927 process Southwestern College has utilized. Assembly Bill 927.

One example is our proposed transborder environmental design degree Bachelor's degree, which was a program identified through a comprehensive university research study done by our faculty, some of whom are here today in this meeting and the Transborder Environmental Design Program was recommended for inclusion in future legislation.

Instead, the program was submitted through the Assembly Bill 2027 process, yet it has been stalled for more than a year because it was deemed duplicative of a traditional architecture program. The Transborder Environmental Design experience highlights a structural limitation in the current Assembly Bill 927 process.

Non duplication can hinge on course level similarity without fully accounting for workforce relevance, university capacity and student mobility, resulting in prolonged delays for regionally responsive programs. Assembly Bill 664 does not replace Assembly Bill 927, nor does it attempt to resolve the statewide system policy tension. It asks a more targeted question.

Can a small time limited, collaboration driven pilot responsibly build academic infrastructure in a region where no local 4 year option aligned to workforce needs and evaluated over time? The next Witness One of our students at Southwestern College. I'm very proud to have her with us here today.

We'll share what these access barriers look like at the student level. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Chair and Members of the community, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. I am a student at Southwestern College and an ASO Senator. I am an Administration of Justice and Forensic Studies major.

I am also a single mom and I'm here today with my 11 year old daughter and I do have a 7 year old son at home as well. Every decision I make as a student is with my children in mind.

My goal is to work in a police crime lab doing forensic work and I was worried about what would come next. The only forensic science bachelor program in the state is in San Jose, which means that transferring would require relocating hundreds of miles away with my children or leaving them behind.

And those are options that are impossible for us. I don't face these challenges alone. Since 2019, less than 2% of our transfer students have transferred to any public or private university outside of the San Diego County. Long commutes and relocations are not realistic for working students or for those with family responsibilities.

I'm grateful to Southwestern College and our local universities for working together. AB664 gives students like me a realistic way to continue our education, stay with our families and prepare for careers our region desperately needs. Thank you for your time and for considering AB 664.

Thank you so much. Assembly Members will take a motion a second when we establish quorum momentarily so thank you so much. Thank you so much. Summer Alvarez and team for the presentations. Are there witnesses in support? In the hearing room.

Good afternoon with the California Community College's Chance Office on behalf of our Board of Governors in strong support. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much. And we're going to take a brief pause. Thank you so much, everyone for queuing up. Like to welcome Assembly Member Patrick Ahrens to the Higher Education Committee. Welcome Assembly Member Ahrens. Thank you. And Madam Secretary, if you can call the roll, please.

[Roll Call]

Thank you so much. Colleagues. We have established a quorum, so I appreciate that. Now we'll move back to public comment. Mr. Mark McDonald, please.

Thank you. Chair Members Mark MacDonald, on behalf of the San Diego Community College District and National University in support of the Bill. Thanks.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Gian Marco Zuno. I am the ASO President for Southwestern College and I fully support Assembly Bill 664.

Thank you.

David Graham on behalf of the City of Chula Vista, and we strongly support AB664. Thank you.

Hello. Kris Galicia Brown, President, Board of Trustees at Southwestern Community College District, and I support AB664.

Thank you.

Hello. Nicole Asagura, Vice President of the Governing Board and here in full support of 664. Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm Dr. Meg Echols. I'm a biology professor at Southwestern College. And on behalf of our life Science Department, we support the Bill.

Thank you.

Hello. I am Dr. Chrissy Palumbo and I respectfully urge you to support AB664. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. I'm Mercedes Robles. I'm the student trustee at Southwestern College and I come here in support of AB664. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Beth Gray. I'm a dental hygiene faculty at Southwestern College and I respectfully ask that you would support AB664. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. I'm Sofia Salgado Robitaille. I'm the Executive Director of Community Engagement and Advancement at Southwestern College in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Dr. Zaneta Encarnacion. I lead policy and CSU and UC partnerships at Southwestern College and I respectfully ask you to support AB664.

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

You may want to scoot over here. Welcome. You each have two minutes.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Chris Morales with the CSU Office of the Chancellor, in respectful opposition to AB 664. This Bill would allow Southwestern Community College District to offer four baccalaureate degree programs by circumventing the consultation and feedback currently required by state law.

In 2021, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed into law AB 927, which authorizes the California community colleges to establish up to 30 bachelor degree programs per academic year.

This law requires the community colleges to consult with and seek feedback from the CSU, UC, and AICCU to identify and prevent duplication of existing programs and curricula currently offered by our institutions. This process has led to the creation of more than 50 permanent baccalaureate degree programs offered at community colleges across the state.

The CSU supports the author's intent to expand access to higher education in South San Diego County.

In the past year, as the author mentioned, San Diego State University and California State University San Marcos have worked to address the region's workforce needs through the development of various partnership programs, including in person baccalaureate degree programs in nursing, psychology, business administration, computer information systems, and cybersecurity at Southwestern College's campus, many of which will begin this fall.

I will also note our transfer success pathway and the 30 associate degrees for transfer at Southwestern to guarantee transfer to the CSU. However, AB 664 would undermine the collaboration at the heart of these partnerships.

The Bill creates a precedent for other community college districts to establish additional bachelor programs without regard to duplication or the inefficient use of state resources. The Bill does not identify what those programs are or will be and could presumably be any program already offered by our institutions.

We encourage Southwestern Community College District to pursue the baccalaureate degree proposals through the AB 97 process, and if there are problems with that process, we welcome conversations on how to improve rather than circumvent it if insufficient to meet the region's workforce needs and provide better outcomes for our institutions, the region, and the state.

And for those reasons, the CSU respectfully requests a no vote on AB 664.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Welcome. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members, and Happy New Year. Jessica Duong of the University of California, here in respectful opposition of AB 664. I'd like to align my comments with my colleague from CSU and would respectfully encourage Southwestern to utilize the process already in law to additional baccalaureate degree programs.

AB 664 circumvents this process contained in existing law by not allowing UC or CSU to object if these programs are duplicative of existing degree programs and if enacted, would allow more degree programs than the 30 per year authorized under existing law.

The AB 927 process was an agreement between the segments and the Legislature and allows for consultation from the other public segments. Although this measure is described as a modest pilot program, this could potentially open the door to all other community college districts in California to circumvent this agreement, which was passed not too long ago in 2021.

If the community college districts feel that this process is not working for them, I would encourage them to work with their local UC and CSU campus on two plus two pipelining programs that start students in their local community college before transferring to CSU or UC to finish their bachelor's degree program, such as the public health degree collaboration in Chula Vista, which the author was instrumental in creating.

For these reasons, we oppose AB 664 and would strongly urge more work on collaboration projects. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there any additional witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Alex Graves with the AICCU. We were not able to get a letter through our process by the deadline, but we have shared with the author's office that consistent with concerns we've had on previous proposals in this space, that we would have a position moving forward and would align our comments with my counterparts.

Thank you so much. Are there tweeners in a hearing room? Colleagues, are there any questions or comments? Vice Chair DeMaio.

Thank you and I appreciate the work that the author has put into the Bill. I support our community colleges, but we have a state law in place to provide a disciplined, data-driven process for consideration of changes in bachelor's programs for community college districts.

And my concern is if we step outside that process, then we're going to get a whole bunch of other community college districts coming up here, a choose your own adventure sort of expedition that we'll be having to deal with when, in fact, we've, as a Legislature, established a process.

In the last year, I did support a bill for a pilot project to create opportunities for community college districts to offer bachelor's degrees in nursing programs. Our colleague, Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva, put a lot of time in. What's that?

Soria.

Soria, sorry, although she—Ms. Quirk-Silva also was, strongly in support. Put a lot of time and effort into that Bill, but the Governor vetoed it. And so, my hope is that perhaps we can let the Assembly Bill 927 process play out a little bit more, work with stakeholders, do this in a more disciplined manner.

And I would also conclude by pointing out that through partnerships, the community college district appearing before us today already has six bachelor degree programs, which is pretty impressive for a community college district. So, unfortunately, I will not be able to support the Bill at this time.

Thank you. May I provide a response?

Yes.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. DeMaio. I would, I would just like to clarify that the Bill still continues to be aligned with the 927 process.

And that was also a statement made by the opposition that just basically any degree that's currently being offered at another campus could be offered at this community college. That is factually incorrect.

The language of the Bill, specifically section 78047.5 identifies Section 78042 that that has to be met in order for this Bill to be able to be implemented. And so, to your point of that process, there's a lot to be said about that process.

As one example, there is a year long process that is taken for a degree that's been submitted through that process, which has been, just so you're aware, was submitted by Southwestern College last year. It's been over a year. There's no decision on that yet.

We had a college campus nowhere near San Diego oppose that degree because they said they offered the same degree. And as you heard earlier from our student testimony, 2% of students who attend our community college never leave San Diego County.

So, asking them to go somewhere else to complete their degree is really, I think, not something that's really out there—available for them. So, that's why I would request that you reconsider. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We're going to have a Assemblymember Boerner followed by Assemblymember Patel followed by Assemblymember Ahrens. Welcome to Assemblymember Boerner.

Thank you. And I appreciate Assemblymember Alvarez, you bring this forward. This is a really important Bill for San Diego. As a former community college part time faculty member, I know how important and diverse the lives are of people who attend community colleges.

And we need to—I have a working group on career technical education and how do we improve outcomes through coordinating better with high schools, community colleges, CSUs, and UCs. I've sat on this Committee for several years. This is my eighth year. I've seen these fights.

The fact that it's a year and Southwestern hasn't gotten that means that AB whatever number it was, process isn't working. And we have to move forward.

There has to be outcomes for people. People who have rich, full, and sometimes complicated lives are not going to move to other parts of the state, take out the debt to be able to get the degrees that they should get at home. And honestly, once people move to San Diego, no one wants to leave.

Like that's—we all know that. Right? So, I applaud you for bringing this forward, and I'd like to be added as a coauthor.

Thank you, Assemblymember Boerner.

Did I move—I already moved the Bill. I moved the Bill.

I receive a motion by Assemblymember Boerner and Assemblymember Patel.

Mr. Alvarez, thank you, Assemblymember Alvarez. Thank you for bringing this Bill forward. When we look at the Jobs First Initiative and we're identifying those, those workforce areas that are in desperate need in our region and across the state and where those programs are offered, we need to see some alignment. I do have a couple questions for you.

You touched upon with AB 297—that was before my time in the Legislature—but if you could please give me some more details on an example of a program that went through the AB 29—927—process and what lessons were learned that you had to now author AB 664.

Yeah. Let me talk about the 927 process in general, and then, I'd ask the President to speak on the concrete example of what's taken over a year and no resolution yet.

927, as I've come to learn, was really a response by the Legislature at a need that existed at the time that was not being met by our current four year institutions. And unfortunately, what has continued, in my opinion, is that the status quo still holds true.

So, when you're talking about jobs first and degrees that are aligned to our workforce, you see very little, and we've had some oversight hearings through the Committee that I chair, change in the type of programming that our institutions provide. They are not responding to the demands of the workforce needs. They're not adapting, they're not innovating.

And so, the degrees that we're talking about through community college are all—they're not theoretical, not research based. These are people who are going to take that degree and they're going to get a job in a field that is demanding workers. And that right now, our institutions are not producing the workers that are needed.

And so, that is why this is the approach that's been taken with data, not just—I heard a phrase earlier today at the Board of Governors and I have to hopefully find out who the gentleman was. These are not degrees in search of students; these are degrees that are needed by students.

And so, we're not just creating another program—and I'm going to use psychology because I'm a psychology major—it's not just another psychology degree. It's a very focused degree, based on a set of skills. And that's the way that higher education, in my opinion, should be responding. And that includes community colleges, the UC system, and the CSU system.

That's my point of view. But to speak to the specific process, because Southwestern's going through it and I'm sure they know of other examples, I turn it over to the President.

Yeah. Thank you, Member Patel. And so, as I noted in my talking points, there are some challenges with the AB 927 process when they're looking at degrees. So, Southwestern College submitted a trans-border environmental design degree in the program over a year ago, which is essentially an architecture program considering architecture from a binational perspective.

It was challenged by Cal Poly Pomona. And none of, when we looked at the data, none of our students have transferred to that institution in years. And the irony on the methodology in AB 927 is one of our sister colleges in our...region, which is the San Diego and Imperial Community College Association region, Palomar submitted almost the exact same degree in our trans-border environmental design to no challenge by the CSU systems.

So, the methodology and the consistency in Assembly Bill 927 for determining duplication is inconsistent and has room for serious improvement and that's the experience that we've had in the submission of our degree programs.

Thank you so much.

Certainly, that creates new information and wondering whether there's an opportunity to revisit the principles of 927 as well. The community college system allows us to be nimble. It allows us to be adaptive towards the current work environment and the workflow.

And as stated many times before, people who go to CS—go to the community colleges, they tend to stay in the local area, so, when we're looking at jobs, we're looking at the local region and what jobs are needed in the local region and whether those jobs require some kind of degree or accreditation.

And I like that the community college system can be flexible to that and can be adaptive towards that.

I do share some concerns of—a word in public education we don't like to use is encroachment, but along that process of creating baccalaureate degrees and bachelor's degrees, how can you—I see in your Bill language, you put in a sunset, you've put in provisions.

You're trying to be very mindful of not encroaching upon programs that are offered in the local area. It's a pilot program. One thing San Diego does well is pilot programs. We seem to, to do a lot of those.

Can, Assemblymember Alvarez, can you speak a little bit to the reassurances and the guardrails that are put in your Bill?

To make sure that other community colleges don't just willy nilly start adopting bachelor's programs.

Yes.

Yes. Thank you for that question. And I'd call attention to what's been shared primarily from the opposition as things have worked well, I would, I would just like to really note all that work took a lot of work, I would say personally and from the President of the college, working with our local institutions.

That was not something that came from the top down from the systems. It was the work that we were doing together. And so, I'm proud of that work. It's not easy to get those partnerships done. It takes a lot of effort. You've witnessed some of it over the last couple of years that I've worked on here.

And we will continue to do that and we will continue to seek partnerships. And there's language in this Bill to those who are thinking maybe we can do this other places.

Well, you better do things like two plus two articulation agreements that don't exist everywhere else, but we have them at Southwestern College with San Diego State and with UCSD and with CSU San Marcos, dual enrollment pathways, which we have with our high school district, our community college and our CSU partners.

We're now looking at credit for prior learning, which is something that we all adopted in the budget last year and is being rolled out at the community college. Shared use of facilities. I think there are very few—I won't say there aren't any.

But there are very few institutions, community colleges, where they actually host—house—universities on their campus. That is happening at Southwestern College for these partnerships. If you don't have any of that, then, you know, you're not doing the work you need to do to provide these access and these opportunities. That's a requirement in the Bill, and as you stated, something we don't do very well here is study what we've done and see if it works.

This has a sunset and this has two review periods by the independent Legislative Analyst Office which will determine where this program is, is it being successful, is it being utilized the correct way?

And whoever is here in 2035, some of you may be, I will be trimmed out by then, will determine whether this actually has worked or hasn't.

But to be honest, the goal here is that this becomes another incubator for our long term vision of the shared university campus in Chula Vista, that this is one of the other programs that gets established long term and hopefully, one of our local UCs and CSUs decides to take on this, these programs, as theirs, if that's what they want to do and then, there's no need for this to exist.

So, it's got a term limit. It will not continue beyond 2035 unless, at that point, the Legislature determines that it should.

Well, in closing, I appreciate all the guardrails that are put here and I have noted that I haven't had any outreach from CSUSM or SDSU with concerns specifically in our region. And I am happy to support this Bill today and will commit to revisiting.

I hopefully will be here in 2035, so I will have that opportunity to take a look at it and continue to make sure that it's serving the purpose and not causing harm to our UCs and our CSUs. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Assemblymember Patel. We'll have a Assemblymember Ahrens, followed by Assemblymember Gonzalez. Assemblymember Ahrens.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to appreciate the author for bringing this Bill forward. Before getting elected to the Legislature, I was the Community College Board President and certainly understand the need for these types of programs.

And I think sort of what I would like to just emphasize is the focus on affordability issues because, you know, quite frankly, with respect to the opposition, we're increasing student fees almost every year while cutting classes, while making it harder to graduate on time. And we're not focusing on affordability. And that's what I really am not hearing.

I'm hearing about agreements on previous years, but I'm not hearing a commitment and a focus on affordability issues. And that's what this Bill is trying to do. You know, I don't, I don't see a really strong argument there. And Sacramento has got to get real on focusing on affordability.

And so, you know, I'm happy to support this, this Bill, Assemblymember Alvarez, but I do think, you know, we have, you know, it's only my second year in the Legislature and we need, we need to sort of turn up the volume on focusing on access and affordability.

Just in my community college, in my district alone in Silicon Valley, there are 2, 3 year wait lists to get into some of these nursing programs and that's not acceptable. It's not acceptable that, that we sort of not work together.

I mean, I know that, in previous years, we've talked about coordinating bodies of the CSUs and UCs and community colleges, forcing these institutions to work together because with all due respect, you don't work together enough. You don't meet enough as coordinating bodies.

And you know, we're thrown to sort of fight over jurisdictional issues when we should all be, quite frankly, working together to make it more affordable and accessible in the largest system of higher education. So, you know, with due respect, we're not doing enough. And baccalaureate programs at community colleges are the answer. I hope there's more encroachment.

I hope more community colleges find ways to make it easier and more affordable, because if the CSUs and UCs aren't doing it, then the community colleges are and they're offering affordable pathway that's not going to take on and rack on all this debt that we are saying is acceptable. And so, with all due respect, the word of this year needs to be affordability, and I'm happy to support this Bill.

Thank you so much, Assemblymember Ahrens. Assemblymember Gonzalez.

Well said to my colleague, Assemblymember Ahrens. Stole everything I was going to say. Stole my notes.

You can just continue agreeing with me all year, Jeff.

Assemblymember Alvarez, you and I had the opportunity to speak on this Bill and we share a lot of the same—there's similarities in our geography, right?

With border, community, so on, so forth. In my district, which is the southeast corner of California versus the southwest corner of California, we have San Diego State, Imperial Valley College, Palo Verde College, College of the Desert, Cal State University San Bernardino, and University of California, Riverside.

That sounds like a lot except the fact that when someone from Needles needs to go to one of these, they have to travel 120 miles. Someone from Calexico who's working, a working mom, single mom who cannot move to go to another place needs to find a solution to bring up her, her family.

So, that being said, we have to look and I am looking at it, hence why I'm here on this Committee, is we have to be innovative when it comes to our higher education across the board, all of our education. We have to think outside the box because we are, we are falling within the box so often and it's hurting our Californians, so, affordability, 100%.

And if I can get someone who doesn't have to move to go to a community college to get a bachelor's in nursing or architecture or whatever that might be without having to uplift all of their family to do this, let's make it happen because we are constrained by our rules. We need to open up and become innovative.

And that's what I think we're here for. At the same time, we have to be cognizant of how we do that financially. Right? We have to, because that's huge, from a financial perspective, we have to be good stewards of what we're doing.

And unfortunately, like my colleague said, affordability is the word, but that word needs to have action, and this is a place where we can do that. So, with that, I'll be—I know I'm a coauthor on this already, but I am in full support of what's going on in San Diego, in hopes that we will see data that proves that we need to spread this throughout California, especially in our rural districts, where I have a 20% unemployment rate, where I have people that absolutely need access to higher education.

So, thank you for that. No question. Just a statement.

Thank you so much, Assemblymember Gonzalez. Assemblymember Muratsuchi.

So, you know, over my time in the Legislature, you know, we always go back to the master plan and the respective roles of the three segments, but it seems—it's become clear to me that the master plan is out of touch with the evolving realities of the state.

And so, it seems like the main holdback to addressing issues like access and affordability, you know, are governance issues or political issues like who's running what and whose turf is this or that.

And, you know, so that seems to be a problem, you know, a fundamental problem, that we should be trying to figure out how to fix in some way. And so, you know, I appreciate your proposal. I've supported past efforts to offer bachelor's programs for nursing for—at our community colleges.

But I just wanted to pose to you, Mr. Alvarez, and maybe you talked about it and maybe I missed it, but did you have—has there ever been any consideration about Cal State programs operating on the Southwest college campuses?

Yes. And I can give you a brief response to that. We have, in San Diego, the perhaps most impacted CSU campus of all, San Diego State University.

We had a hearing, oversight hearing, during the fall with our Budget Committee that identified some enrollment patterns at the CSUU, where campuses like San Francisco State dropping in enrollment, yet we're funding them, in the way I stated it, and I think this is accurate, over funding them by millions and tens of millions of dollars on an annual basis for the last several years.

If the system wanted to meet students where they're at, we should be focusing our resources to the campuses that are doing the innovation, that are creating the programs that are attracting the students. It's not doing that.

And so, what we've had to do in this case, we do have a CSU San Diego State, and we have CSU San Marcos on the Southwestern College campus starting bachelor's degrees this fall.

But it was a difficult budget negotiation that occurred with our leadership and certainly, with the help of, of locally the campus and both the CSU, UC campus, and the community college. These are not the easy things to do.

So, to your point, your main point, I was going to close with something that you've inspired me to sort of think about a lot over the last couple years. You've already kind of come out and said it. The master plan for education is severely in need of a revisit.

It is outdated. It has created a lot of conformity, and a lot of people feel very comfortable in what this plan, which is now going on 60 years, is.

And it's clearly not meeting the needs of Californians, whether you're in the southeast corner of the state, southwest corner of the state, or the far north corners of the state—I hear that from our colleagues that represent those areas as well. So, we've got to do something.

This is my attempt at something that's research-based, because we did tremendous amount of research, which we're happy to share with you—independent research, collaborative-based, with faculty in mind, based on the needs. Narrowed it because we heard from the Governor, 1400 was too big, we're thinking too big, we're giving too much access.

My phrase, obviously not his. So, we said let's tailor this and be more narrow because maybe if we're more specific, then you'll see that this is a better approach.

But to your point and to what I'm I guess now publicly stating, here is the master plan, I think requires us to do some deep level analysis, revisiting and probably some changes are needed in the state.

Thank you so much. Any further questions from colleagues? I know we had a motion. Do we have a second? Second by Assemblymember Ahrens. Thank you so much to all my colleagues for their comments and questions as well.

This is obviously a very big issue in terms of program duplication that our Legislature has grappled with over the last many years. We know that we got to continue to find ways for our segments, all segments, to continue to thrive and to work together.

And so, Mr. Alvarez, thank you for your leadership and efforts and around Southwestern College and really building out different training programs and partnerships around that area. And when we look at this particular pilot, I believe that we should possibly also look at possibly expanding the pilot so that we can look at studying the impact of intentional, targeted program duplication at different parts of the state.

And I heard some of the remarks when we look at different parts of the state where there's the very northern portions of the state that might be very rural, not have access to different campuses in hundreds of miles, maybe in the central part of California and other areas where different programs are not available.

As we heard that when students attend our community colleges, they're very placed...and that 5 or 10%, 90% of the students, really, the majority of students are really around five miles of their campuses.

And so, as this Bill continues to have the discussions, I think we need to look at targeted program duplication, different parts of the state, that will help us to continue to inform future legislative action and to help us gather that additional data. So, I just wanted to put that up there and uplift that as well.

But we know that's continually important to serve students where they are and the work and efforts around what's Chula Vista really, to really have that coordination as well, to make sure that we're not having any unnecessary duplication going forward as well. So, really a lot of robust comments around this issue.

And this is something we're going to continue to have conversations around and whether it's around the master plan or other issues, to really make sure that we're continuing to make sure that all segments of our public higher education systems continue to thrive as well.

So, I look forward to supporting the Bill today, and we look forward to working with you as this Bill moves forward and really appreciate everyone's comments here today. With that, Assemblymember, would you like to close, please?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you all for your engagement and comments. I definitely appreciate that. It's encouraging to hear the thoughtfulness around this issue, which is a real problem that we're facing in California.

I would expect nothing less from each one of you to do what I'm trying to do here, which is provide access to your constituents that currently don't have access to higher education. I think every corner of the state deserves that.

And if there's other ways to do that, certainly, you'll find someone that would support you and embrace that.

You also will find in me that in the last year and in your chair here, there are probably no two other members of the Legislature that fought really, really hard to make sure that the UC and the CSU system did not receive the cuts that were proposed by the Governor last year.

And we succeeded in doing so, I think, and in a way that now, in this year's budget, shows more stability for the UCs and the CSU. So, I say that because this is not an anti-anybody type of proposition. This is a bill that is for everybody.

There's a role for all of us to play, for each institution to play, and sometimes, when those institutions are not meeting the role that is needed to serve the people of California, we, in the Legislature, must find ways to change that. And 927 was one way to do so. It has fallen short.

So, then, now, you have proposals such as this one before you, and I would not be surprised if you do see more because I think you, if, again, I wouldn't blame any of you who would want to fight for the same thing for your district, for your constituents, to have access because they deserve that.

Just because in the past we decided to invest in 21 campuses and 10 campuses throughout the state for a bachelor's degree—we left a lot of people out. And I know the people in Central Valley know that. I know the people far north know that.

But so, those of us down even in San Diego, as much as it sometimes feels like it's a very, very urban place, it's a big place.

And so, for those reasons, I'd ask that you support 664 to give us an opportunity and more importantly, to give students, like the one you heard from today, an opportunity to achieve an education and to put that education to work by getting a job, because these are workforce-aligned degrees. And I ask you for your support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.

[Roll Call]

Thank you so much. Colleagues. That measure has eight Ayes. When. No, we'll keep the ropen for additional Members. That measure is up. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Next up, we'd like to welcome Assembly Member Schiavo presenting Assembly Bill 1241. And welcome to our Superintendent of Public Instruction, Mr. Tony Thurman as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Today I'm presenting AB 1241. And before I begin, I just want to acknowledge and thank the Committee staff for their work and collaboration on this Bill as we've been tweaking and thinking and figuring it out.

And first, I just wanted to mention, as has been discussed today, affordability, A for affordability, A is the word of the year or affordability is the word of the year. And this is a reality so many of us face.

I personally didn't think I was going to be able to go to a four year college when I was a senior in high school because my family couldn't afford it. And fortunately through a fee waiver, through my dad's veteran benefits, I was able to do that.

But since the mid-90s when I went to school, we know that college tuition, public college tuition has gone up 6, 7, 8 fold. And this can be the difference between people having an opportunity to go to college or not. And so we're trying to really address that issue with AB 1241.

And you know, this is something where CSUs are now 8500 and it was in, you know, around $1500 a year when I went to school. UCs are $16,000 a year.

And even after receiving public and private financial aid, most students have to take out additional loans and often leads to additional financial hardship as they meet life's milestones such as starting a family or buying their first home.

Considering the extended burden that our current financial aid model places on students, we really have to explore other options and models that would effectively give students the opportunity to complete their education without taking on life altering debt. One financial aid model is the Pay it Forward model which is used in Australia.

Now in the UK it allows for in Australia it allows for eligible students to attend college without upfront tuition and fee tuition fees and instead collects repayment automatically through government methods once the graduate reaches an income level and allows them to repay the cost of attendance.

Repayment amounts are right sized based on the individual's income level, so lower income earners also have lower repayment amounts. AB 1241 directs the California Student Aid Commission and the Legislative Analyst Office to conduct a study on Pay it Forward financial aid model.

It requires the study to be submitted to the Committee as well as the Senate education Committee by September 2027. I've been had the honor to work with our Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tony Thurman on this issue and he'll speak more about it.

But I just think to the point of the discussion that happened earlier, I think we need to think outside the box. We need to come up with big ideas to really address the affordability challenges of our time.

Especially when it comes to higher education, which we know can be a pathway to economic stability for people if they have access to it.

Thank you so much and welcome to our Superintendent of Public Instruction, Mr. Tony Thurman.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Committee Members. An honor to be back in the People's house to speak in support of AB 1241, a Bill that we're pleased to be sponsors. I think this is an opportunity to build on some of the conversation and themes from the last conversation about affordability and about the master plan.

How many of you have ever heard someone say that they went to college for free in California? I've heard that many times.

When I heard that I look back on my own experience as an undergraduate student and when I ran out of money and couldn't pay for tuition or anything else and had to stop going to school because I simply couldn't afford it, or when I didn't have money for food or any other expenses.

We have an opportunity to use California ingenuity to come back to a system where California students can everyone have access to to getting a high quality education in higher education. We all know that we are having an affordability crisis in every way that you can imagine. Housing, groceries, gas. Higher education is no different.

Right now many community college students struggle to be able to afford to go to college. And many California students struggle with the high cost of loan debt that they carry. There are 4 million Californians who are holding probably $150 billion upwards of that amount in loan debt.

This is an opportunity to study an issue and to set a framework for how to move forward on a pay it forward framework that can help California students. Why shouldn't we help those students transfer that debt away and to be able to be focused on things like being able to buy a home or start a business.

Instead they face an uncertain future of a Federal Government that provides less support for repaying loans. And pay it forward can be a solution for how we help to move forward to help California students and support future ingenuity in our state. For Those reasons I respectfully asked for your aye vote on AB 1241.

And I thank Assemblymember Schiavo for your leadership in bringing this issue forward. 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. Okay, sorry. I think we have Dr. Patel, followed by Dr. Jackson, followed by Dr. Sharp Collins. Dr. Patel.

Thank you for bringing this Bill forward. It is an innovative program to help address increasing challenges for affordability to higher education attainment. Couple questions for you. Just as I try to understand the policy aspect of this when, when budgeting for when a UC or a CSU budgets, is this going to impact their ability to budget?

I'm guessing the way it's written, the state is going to pay, is still going to provide to the UC or the CSU in the same amount, so it's not going to be budget impactful in any way. Is that correct?

Correct.

Yeah. So the idea is that the state would carry the burden of covering the cost, and then the state would be paid back by people in the future.

And it would be managed by the California Student Aid Commission. Excellent. And then my last question is, how are you going to select which what are the parameters for how you're going to select which CSU, UC, et cetera, gets the opportunity to participate in this program on behalf of their students?

I think this study, and I'll turn it over to the superintendent, but I think the study is really needed because we need to figure out how broad we can go. Right. And what the costs will be associated with that.

And so I think until we figure that out, it's going to be hard to figure out who gets what and who gets to be a part of it.

But in some areas and in some other states, for example, like New Jersey, Massachusetts, they've kind of tailored it more specifically to targeted programs like healthcare, renewable energy, information technology, demand areas. Right? Yeah. And so that's one approach as well.

And so I think it'll be helpful to have this study and look at different approaches and how they've worked and how they've come up against challenges, what those are and what hopefully a state as large as California has more opportunity to do something like this where it's been nationalized, in some other countries where it's been successful.

But I think we need, you know, it's still a new idea and we need to do our due diligence to make sure that we do it right.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Assembly Member Jackson.

Assembly Member I want to thank you and thank the state superintendent for continuing to find ways to do something different. You know, one of the things I keep thinking about is when I was going through high school, we had a very. We had a roadmap.

If you do this, this and this, you will be able to do this, this and this. And of course, if you kept your mouth shut, which I have a problem with. But one of the things that we have to realize is that those things did not just happen. They were designed by people who served here. Right.

The question always becomes, what does the 21st century path of opportunities look like for the next generation so that we can help them to get to where they need to be and be able to thrive?

I want to thank you for something that is innovative as this pilot program, and thank you for continuing to try to find ways for us to do something differently. Because if we don't, the path for future generations is going to be really rough. So thank you very much.

Thank you so much. Dr. Sharp Collins.

Thank you so much for bringing forth the Bill. I do like the idea of thinking outside the box. We do have to start doing something different so we can figure things out and be able to move forward and make sure that things are affordable for our students.

And one of my questions was actually pretty much asked by my colleague Assembly Member Patel, over already in regards to the budget. So I just wanted to flag that.

That will be, you know, an actual topic of concern because of the fact that if there's no financial backing from our budget to even be able to do that, we're going to run into, you know, some kind of barriers there.

So I just want us to make sure that we are paying close attention to that as we continue to move forward. But my other. But my main question now is just that we know that there are other states, such as Oregon, who have studied this model and their findings find this to be financially unworkable.

So I want to try to try to figure out what is California going to do different to avoid similar outcomes and trying to make sure that those that do qualify will pay it back so we won't fall into a debt situation.

Is there anything that you've already thought about to make sure that we're going to be different and avoid those outcomes?

I mean, I think to the point I made earlier, just about California being the fifth largest economy in the world, we have opportunities to do things that may not be attainable by other states. That being said, we all know we have a difficult budget right now, and so we may have to look at public private partnerships.

You know, there's all kinds of, I think, creative solutions that we have to think about and, you know, hence why we want to start with a study instead of a program. Because those are the things we need. Those are the questions we need to answer and the things we need to figure out.

And I'm not sure if the superintendent wants to add anything.

Oh, I would echo what the Assembly Member has said and appreciate your question. I do hope that we won't let something being difficult be the reason that we do not explore it.

And I think that the study gives us an opportunity to explore and while it's being studied, also gives us some timing to see what California's revenue situation, how it might change.

And so, you know, I want to thank the author for being thoughtful about the timing and not asking the state to Fund the pilot now, but to study it, to think thoughtfully about the best way to implement it, including whether or not it allows us to feel hard to serve degree holders who might go into healthcare in a rural community, in places where we don't have providers, we have the opportunity to do something that other states haven't and to put the California stamp of innovation on it and to think about what our needs are.

Many of you have referenced it. The master plan is so outdated and so out of touch, and it is time for a refresh. And this can be an important part of that conversation.

There are robust conversations whether, no matter what anyone thinks about it, there are robust conversations taking place about potential new revenue for the state of California. And so the study will envision all scenarios and how to create this and bring this forward in the California way for our students.

Thank you so much. Any further questions? Vice Chair DeMaio?

I just want to thank Assembly Member Sharpe Collins for raising what I was going to bring up. Other states have already spent money on this. And the question Ms. Sharpe Collins raises is exactly correct. How is this different than those other states?

And the answer is, well, we're the fourth largest economy in the world and we can just do it better. We are entering a very type budget environment. And every time we ask an agency to do another study, another report, it's a cost of doing business.

And so I would be open to supporting something along these lines because I like innovation, I like creative financing.

But in the absence of something new here, I think we're throwing good money after bad and we're adding another requirement to agencies during a time when the Budget's going to be pretty rough, so I'm not going to be able to support it in its present form today.

I like the idea in concept, but come back with something more innovative that we can actually test out as a pilot project that other states haven't already studied.

Well, just, if I may, there are other states who do have these programs, as I mentioned, Massachusetts, New Jersey, they have public and private dollars that finance it. And as I mentioned before, it's more targeted and sector specific.

So that's one avenue that we could look at that dials it back a little bit, makes it more affordable, more targeted to the industries that really we need to drive a workforce and train a workforce. So I don't want to leave this conversation with the impression that no other state has been able to do it before.

There's two states that are doing it right now. But, you know, we understand kind of the big shebang in Oregon, they have found to be financially challenging. And that's again, why we think.

I think it's a worthy investment because of the benefit that we could see on the other side and how this could really profoundly help so many students in our state.

And, you know, as someone who went to college with fee waivers and Cal Grant and Pell grants and loans and all of the things, I had so much support and the cost of college was so much less when I went to school 25 years ago, 30 years ago, and who's counting, really? Who's counting?

And still I am paying school loans today and I didn't even take out that much, you know.

And so this kind of support and being able to cover the tuition so people can afford to live or for food or for the books and materials they have to get, this can make the difference between being able to go to college or not. And I think that's a worthy investment for our state to make.

I would echo the author and just say I appreciate the concern about how it's going to be paid for, but I don't think that's a reason to look away from something that we know is certain. California's experienced an affordability crisis.

California's to the tune of 4 million people, are experiencing heavy loans that they may never be able to pay. If they didn't have to repay those loans or at that level, that might be money that might go back into our economy to support starting a new business or to buy a home.

And so we have to also ask ourselves, in economic terms, what is the cost not to act? And I would submit that the cost of a study is fairly modest in return for the benefit that we will get for being able to answer questions about filling certain sectors and reducing debt for Californians in our state. Thank you.

Was that a closing statement?

We'll count that as our closing.

Well, thank you so much again to Assembly Member Schiavo for your leadership and efforts on looking at a creative way for addressing costs of earning a college degree, and to our superintendent for your leadership and efforts on this issue as well. And thank you, really, for the creative thinking and thinking out of the box.

And as we heard from a number of comments, as noted in the Committee analysis as well, a number of states have tried the pay it forward method as well. Oregon's proposals looking at approximately $9 billion a year.

And then we here in California, with nearly 40 million people, finding the upfront costs during these challenging budget times is something that we would have to continue to address and going forward, so we do identify the upfront funding. Also, the ongoing costs would be something that would have to be looked into, obviously, as well.

But we know it's a challenging time and affordability is a critical issue here for our students, and we will look at issues to look at models that will benefit our students and overall higher education success rates.

This is something that I really appreciate the creative thinking and this measure before us is a model requires only a study of the model. So with that, I look forward to supporting the measure today.

I know that the questions that have been posed here today and the questions would be thoroughly addressed in the study going forward and that the Legislature would have an opportunity to evaluate more thoroughly any potential implementation of the program. And so with that, I look forward to supporting the measure today. Madam Secretary, roll call.

[Roll Call]

Thank you so much. Colleagues, that measure has eight aye's. And. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, do we have a second on the motion?

Second or a second? Oh, I'm sorry, You did?

Oh, he did. Mr. Aarons did a second motion. Thank you. For the record, Mr. Aarons, the second motion earlier.

Okay.

Is that.

Yeah.

Okay. So that measure has eight eyes and two nos. That measure is out. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

At this time, we will entertain Member Add ons. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. On the items to add on, please.

File item number one. AB 664. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Patel. Patel, aye.

That measure has nine eyes and one no and is out. Thank you. Next up, we have Assembly Member Jose Salache presenting Assembly Bill 713. Item number two. Welcome Summer Solace.

Okay. Good afternoon Chair Fong and Members of this Committee. I'm a little jealous that there's four San Diego Members of this Committee because I really want to sit on this Committee one day. So I'm a little jealous of all San Diego's delegation. I might have to move districts one day on that. I'm proud to represent AB713.

The Bill will allow students at the University of California, California State University and California Community Colleges equal access to campus job opportunities regardless of immigration status. California has a long standing commitment to expanding access, affordability, equity and student success in higher education.

The Legislature has enacted policies to support undocumented students, including eligibility for in state tuition, access to state financial aid, loans and grants. Despite these efforts, undocumented students continue to face significant financial and structural barriers that prevent them from fully accessing and completing higher education.

One of the most significant barriers and the inability to access paid on campus employment. Can you imagine wanting to just work and get paid? Who would have thought of something so simple but so significant? For some people, which are our students who are working hard.

Thousands of students in California are unjustly bared from obtaining paying jobs on campus, including exceptional jobs and jobs needed to complete their degrees solely due to their immigration status.

By allowing undocumented students to be eligible for work opportunities, California will ensure all students have equal access to the need to provide financial leave for themselves to work, obtain their degrees. A previous version of this Bill, AB 2586, authored by Assembly Member Alvarez, passed the Legislature in 2024.

That Bill passed with support of many of you last year. A state court ruling affirming that the UC's prohibition on hiring documented students is discriminatory. That ruling paved the way for AB713 to remedy this inequality. I commend the Chair and the Committee staff for working and thoughtful analysis on this Bill.

We understand the gravity of the moment and we are in and remain committed to continuing engagement of remaining questions and opportunities to strengthen opportunities on student data. AB 713 will allow undocumented students to continue their dreams by having the same opportunities for employment as their peers.

If you are concerned for student safety, we know that our undocumented students will much be safer working on campus and being forced to pursue unofficial or under the table employment. Our students are just asking for equal opportunity to work. I believe this is an issue that we should be able to come together on here to support.

I would like to introduce Hari Haran. She's a President of the UC Student Association. Carlos Alarcon, Policy Analyst with the California Immigrant Policy center and we also have Tiffany Mog with CFT available for any technical questions.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Good afternoon Chair Fong and Members of the Committee. My name is Carlos Alarcon and I'm a Policy analyst with the California Immigrant Policy Center, a co sponsor of Assembly Bill 713.

We are deeply grateful to Assemblymember Solace for authoring AB 713, a historic and really timely Bill that upholds our state's commitment to providing equitable access to higher education and economic mobility for all, especially California students. Working while in college is a seminal experience, especially amidst these difficult economic conditions.

For many students, working a job is the only way to finance their college aspirations. Whether for convenience, interest or career alignment.

Many students will find that in an employment opportunity on campus as they work, these students are able to support themselves financially, gain crucial professional experience, apply their academic training, and more broadly, support in retainment and postgraduate success. Unfortunately, undocumented students are currently and unjustly barred from campus employment in our state. But they don't have to be.

For over 20 years, California has led the nation in passing several landmark bills that extended the promise of higher education to all California students regardless of their birthplace. AB713 builds directly on this legacy by ending this unjust discrimination of undocumented students in campus based employment.

This unnecessary ban threatens our state's progress and the Governor's vision for debt free higher education by exacerbating a crisis of affordability and access for undocumented students. More importantly, behind AB713 are the lives of thousands of immigrant Californian students and their families across our state. I would like to share some of those stories now.

A CSU undocumented undergraduate student majoring in public health aspiring to become a physician shared And I quote, AB 713 would allow me to accept an offer to become my professor's undergraduate student researcher to conduct research supporting the development of sound public health policies in the medically underserved region of the Central Valley where I was raised.

Likewise, an undocumented student majoring in psychology at the California Community College said that if 713 was passed into law, they would immediately apply to become a peer mentor in their campus's Undocumented Student Center.

They said now more than ever, they want to work in a role where they can support other undocumented students in pursuing and succeeding in higher education.

In the face of these unprecedented times and attacks that seek to vilify our immigrant communities, California must remain steadfast in its commitment to equity, justice and opportunity for all, regardless of our residency. The current political climate on immigration is no reason to retreat on that promise.

Instead, we must double or triple down our defensive efforts and our values. In California, we believe that every person, every worker, every student should have an equal opportunity to succeed.

In passing AB713, our state will continue to expand access to higher education and reap the benefits, economic or otherwise, that would come from integrating these students into our state's mainstream economy. Therefore, I strongly urge the Committee to pass AB 713. Thank you all so much. Thank you so much. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair Fong and Members. My name is Aditi Harihran and I serve as the President of the UC Student association, representing over 230,000 undergraduate UC students across the state. I want to thank Assemblymember solace for authoring AB713 and standing up for students when we need state support urgently.

UCSA has prioritized advocating for every student to ensure their equitable success no matter their background or lived experiences, and this especially includes our first generation immigrant and undocumented students who are a critical part of our campus communities.

California has taken important strides to expand educational opportunity for all students regardless of their immigration status, including in state tuition and the California Dream act.

With nearly 100,000 undocumented students enrolled at a UC, CSU or California Community College who pay tuition and fees while supporting campus life and our local economies, AB713 would scale support scale support to ensure their success. Undocumented students are currently blocked from access to campus employment research and paid internship opportunities that support affordability, retention and career preparation.

Despite their contributions to our campuses and community, at UC and CSU, undocumented student enrollment has declined by nearly half since 2016, reflecting the stark barriers that will only continue to deepen without access to paid professional opportunities.

When asked why university employment is a needed resource, an undocumented graduate student at one of our UC campuses explained that having access to on campus employment would help them earn enough to cover the cost of attendance while also learning valuable skills to contribute to society and their professional career. Doesn't every student deserve this?

In 2024, AB 2586 passed the Legislature with broad support and we now have legal clarity from the California Supreme Court that the UC is discriminating against students who currently do not have access to to campus employment. AB 713 builds on that work, helping ensure that every California student can participate fully in academic and professional endeavors.

As federal actions attack diverse communities and continue to narrow immigrant pathways, California must remain committed to educational access and workforce development to support our families and strengthen our economy. On behalf of UC students statewide, we respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

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

Welcome. Welcome, everybody.

Good afternoon. My name is Carla Trujillo. I'm an undergraduate student at the University of California, Irvine and I'm in support of this bill.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Alan Peralta. I'm an undergraduate at UC Irvine as. Well and I'm supportive of this bill.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. I was a student at UCLA and I support this bill.

Thank you.

Hello. Diego Limo, undergrad at UCI, and I support this bill.

Thank you.

Monica Madrid, on behalf of the California Dream Network and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights cheerleading in strong support of this bill.

Thank you.

Carlos Lopez with the California School Employees Association in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Dr. Ileana Perez. I serve as the Executive Director of Immigrants Rising. We're a proud co sponsor of the bill and we're in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Members, Doug Subers, on behalf of the California State University Employees Union in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association in support. We're not able to get a letter, but just wanted to be on the record that we are in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Valerie Johnson with the California Undocumented Higher Education Coalition in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Members. Erica Cervantes, Director of Policy and Advocacy with Alliance for Better Community. We also lead the College for All Coalition who is with Members LA Urban Foundation, Kid City, Hope Place, Californians Together Unite, LA UC Student association and the Council of Mexican Federations in Northern California, Northern America in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Raul and I am support. I am in support of this bill.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Vanessa. I've commuted over 100 miles to work from UC Irvine. Constant, sorry, from San Bernardino in support of this bill.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm a law student at UCLA in support of this bill.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Candice Fan. I'm a third year at UC Davis, Government Relations Chair of UCSA, which is the co sponsor of this bill. We strongly urge your support for AB713. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Mario Alberto Arc Acosta. I'm a master's student in statistics at UC Davis. I'm a student organizer at UC Davis and a Member of Immigrant Justice in Action Coalition and I'm in support of AB713. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Hilda Pio Garcia, second year at UC Davis and I strongly urge you to support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Alejandra Ramirez Peralta, first year. Student At UC Davis and I also am in support of this bill.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chairs and Members. Manuel Pazaraguin, I'm here with California Immigrant Policy Center as a co sponsor and urge you as to strong support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Zenith Yahya, I'm with ACLU Cal Action. We weren't able to get a letter in on time, but I wanted to come in today to register our support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm with the Immigrant justice and Action Coalition in strong support of the bill.

Good afternoon. Yesenia Rabancho with End Child Poverty California and also as a proud daughter of immigrant parents. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Armita Rajarahimi. I'm here with UCSA and a third year at UC Davis and I respectfully. Ask for your support on this bill.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Michael Andrew, also here with UCSA and a student at the University of California, Santa Cruz. And I urge you to support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Marshall Nakatani, on behalf of United Auto Workers Region 6 with over 100,000 active and retired Members in California, proud co sponsor and here today in strong support. Thank you so much.

Are there witnesses in opposition in a hearing room? Are there tweeners in a hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments? Vice Chair DeMaio, we have a motion by Dr. Sharp-Collins. Do we have a second? Second by Senator Ahrens. Vice Chair Demaio, please.

Thank you. I guess I should start with the congratulations to Congressman Solace. Because if you're interested in pursuing this policy, the only appropriate venue, even though I don't support it, the only legally defensible venue would be for you to run for Congress and change federal law. This is performative politics.

You know that if we pass this Bill that it will not be legally defensible. Federal law prohibits employment for people who are not here with work authorization. Full stop. You want to change that?

You can run for Congress, but you are asking this Legislature to put students at risk of losing their opportunity to become naturalized because they have violated federal law. You are putting state workers at risk for civil and criminal prosecution. You are putting community college districts at risk of having to bear the cost of litigation, costly litigation.

With all due respect to the remarks regarding California courts, they do not trump federal courts. And no, it is not discriminatory to deny someone employment if federal law makes it an act. That's not legal. That's not discrimination. That's following federal law, which is the duty of our government employees at the school districts.

It's also being done to protect you, the student. But politicians don't want to explain these complexities. Instead, they want a grandstand and they want to inflame. So again, if you want to pursue this, do it in the right venue.

Do it in a way where we aren't going to put state workers, school officials, teachers at risk legally and that we're not going to put these immigrants at risk legally. I will not be supporting the proposal. I don't believe that it contributes to honest and collaborative dialogue. And I urge my colleagues not to go down this road.

I understand why some of you might want to go down this road, but it's simply not, it's not an appropriate piece of legislation for us to be moving forward on.

Thank you so much. Let's turn to Tangipa.

Who was answering technical questions. So I would ask you, do you believe that this law is in direct conflict with the federal law?

No.

You do not believe so why is that?

First, I want to thank you, Assemblymember Tangipa, for your question and appreciate your engagement and also for further collaboration in the future. If you have questions, our more detailed senior attorney apologizes for not being available today.

The federal prohibition on hiring undocumented people does not mention states, which means state government entities are not bound by this prohibition under irca, the Immigration Reform and Control Act. This is obviously a complex part of the law, and so that is what we believe is to answer your question.

I think that would only apply if federal funding wasn't included. But do you believe that this potentially would threaten our ability to receive federal funding anymore in the future? Because this is actually in direct conflict with that.

I understand your comment, and it is our opinion that the federal prohibition on hiring undocumented people does not apply mention states. And because it doesn't mention states, then we are not bound by this Prohibition. Under the U.S. Supreme Court presidents, when Congress wants to impose requirements on states, it must do so clearly.

But Congress did not mention states in the law on unlawful employment under irca. So while other laws that do bind states mention states explicitly, such as the Fair Labor Standards Act, Family and Medical Leave act, and the Age Discrimination act, this law does not explicitly mention states.

And as such, state government entities are not bound by this prohibition.

So when the Federal Government allocates additional resources and provides that, it's under the assumption that those entities will follow in compliance with federal law. The biggest issue that I have with this is because we've seen a track record through this past year, the federal Administration is on a different plane than we are here in California.

Again, whether we like it or not, it's the threat of again, what is happening. If we look to the future years, we're seeing and getting reports additional budget deficits are going to be in the future.

And now it truly does seem like we are specifically putting ourselves, our state entities that receive federal grant funds in direct conflict to where it's probably more than likely because the track record on where the pullback has happened on high speed rail, where the pullback has happened with medical funding, all of these pullbacks are starting to come right now.

And again, when it comes to snap, we're going to see that because we're not coming into compliance with it that when our UCs have a $17.2 billion in funding that comes from the Federal Government, the Federal Government can say you are in direct opposition with federal law.

Here's a hole now that we are going to have to pick up at $17.2 billion on just the UC side. On the CSU side. We understand that there's also a lot of federal dollars there. The other question that I have as well is community colleges are not protected under the state. Right.

So the attorney General, if we file a lawsuit against the Federal Government, can protect the CSUs and the UCs. Who's going to protect our community colleges?

Our understanding is that the community colleges are a quote, arm of the state. And so they are considered for these purposes to be a state legal entity. I apologize. We did not have the detailed memo that we have already created. It was unavailable because our attorney was unavailable to provide it.

But we should be able to do so and continue this dialogue if you would like.

So is it generally believed that somehow the attorney General will protect this, the community colleges as well, even though that there's no. There's not a case record and track record of that happening because those are private entities, their own governing boards.

Our understanding is that the governing boards are not private entities, that they are an arm of the state.

Do you what the untechnically on that area there when it seems like there's just a lot of this could potentially happen, this could potentially what I'm talking about track record. And what we have seen is again in the districts for the community colleges, those aren't protected by the attorney General.

It is our understanding that the community colleges are an arm of the state. And so I think as an arm of the state they would fall under that legal.

But for me the biggest thing is California needs all of the resources that we can get right now. I know And I understand where. We. Want to be, who we want to protect. But as the Member from San Diego had talked about as well, there is federal law and we should try to work together.

We should see where the areas where we can change laws in the future.

But if we're going to move something forward like this that then threatens 100% of all of the students, I think that's irresponsible for us as legislators that we may say this is what we want to do by sacrificing everybody, leaving holes in our UC budget, leaving holes in our CSU budget that the state has no ability in the future to backfill.

Absolutely impossible. There's no way we can pick up a 17.2 billion dollar deficit under just the UCS alone. There's no way we can pick up the whole if the Federal Government says you're in direct violation and then what, we're going to wait three years?

Because that's kind of where we'd have to do before the Next Administration would come in. It's just not going to happen. And we're going to start losing professors, we're going to start actually declining in enrollment or we're going to have to massively increase cost for every other Californian.

And I believe that that's irresponsible on our part and there's no way that I could support this. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much, Assemblymember, for bringing this Bill forward. I appreciate the conversation about the concern about protecting students and protecting state resources. And I hope that my colleagues will join us in supporting the attorney General and suing the Trump Administration.

Who is the real risk of our students, who by the way, in suing the Trump Administration, we have won over two thirds of legal cases and proving that this federal Administration is violating the law in, in just my instance alone in my alma mater at UCLA, the shakedown of over $1 billion in federal student funding.

So the only risk to students here is this fascist Federal Government who is taking hundreds of millions and billions of dollars away from our public higher education system.

And, and so I appreciate the concern and I looking forward to you all joining the majority and supporting those lawsuits so we can get the legal money and budgets that the UC CSUs and community colleges are entitled to. There is a reign of terror happening against our students and it's from the Federal Government.

And so proud to support this Bill and encouraging my colleagues to join me. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Any further questions or comments?

Yep.

Yes.

Summer Patel, thank you for bringing this Bill forward. I hear loud and clear from the students in the room and here in front of me about needing to have employment opportunities for work on campus. As a mother of two college aged kids, I understand how very important it is.

Their work study, part of their financial aid packages and how it impacts their ability and to keep their debts as low as possible.

I do continue to have concerns around student data protection and student privacy protection and the unintended possibility of there being some kind of, you know, collection of data now that becomes discoverable by the Federal Government. With AB540, I believe it was, we allowed our undocumented students to enroll and that was a phenomenal opportunity.

In the state of California, they are protected under ferpa. We allow undocumented children to become insured under Medi Cal and that is protected also under hipaa.

And so I would love to see some kind of inclusion of privacy protection for our students because I am very concerned about them ending up on some kind of list and would love to see that in order to get to a support position. I'm very concerned.

I cannot imagine what our UC CSU campuses would look like with Ayes on campus. I've seen what it's like on the streets. It's horrifying to me. So would love to get to yes, and I don't know that I can do that today.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any further questions or comments? Would you like to close, please?

Yes. Thank you. I have some prepared remarks. In closing, I'm going to put those to the side. I'm going to just how we say, Linwood, my proud district. Let me keep it real for a second. First and foremost, I want to respectfully decline the congratulations from the Member from San Diego.

I have no intention to run for Congress. I am happily a new legislator.

Day two of week two here in the Legislature and no other time has my district needed a strong voice to protect not only our immigrant community in my district, but our undocumented community, the people that contribute to our state, the people that take care of our communities.

So I will respectfully decline because I'm proud to be an Assembly Member with all other 79 Members of you, even if we don't agree on everything. It's proud and honored to serve because the people of California sent us here to be a voice.

I want to thank, of course, the folks that spoke today to our student leader who I share a similar story. I was a statewide chair of the CSU system back in my younger days when I was in College along with Dr. Jackson when he and I were both young, even though I'm younger than him.

I say this with a heart here to the Members that spoke. It's a very simple Bill. And first and foremost, this is not performing politics. I think if we talk about performing politics, we could look at websites and people making YouTube videos on how they want to govern their state.

So we can leave that for the voters and the constituents to have their opinion. But I'm here to do the people's work, and I want to keep it very simple to all of us.

So if you can all look at me in the eyes for two seconds, just two seconds, look down at your laptops, not your cell phones, you can just look at me for two seconds. Just two seconds. California is proud to lead in so many areas. And I think we're proud Californians fair. These students simply want to work.

They're not asking for a handout. They're not asking for additional dollars. Right. I appreciate our folks on the other side of the aisle saying that people want a handout, that they want something. No, they want to work hard. They want to work, and what a better place than their campus.

They want to work at their college campus, provide through the university, and yeah, get paid for work performed. Simple. My parents came to this country from Leon Guanajuato to give me an opportunity to work. And let me tell you, I worked my ass off to be where I'm at today.

Handouts are not something that my parents taught me. They taught me to work hard. And these students are working hard to get a degree. They work multiple jobs. They have to work offside campus because they cannot legally work on campus. Let's be strong Californians and give them the opportunity to provide for themselves, for their families.

To the Member from San Diego, absolutely a concern that I have, and I cannot say how much I share that with you because, yes, we want to protect our students. We want to be counterproductive. Say this last moment here, you guys mentioned AB 540. I come from the district where Marco Antonio Fireball.

I live five houses away from the high school that we named after him. He was the author of a 540. So how important would it be that I, a representative of that same district, continue the work that we started?

And let me remind you, 850 has been a great legislation, has been so great for our students to have an opportunity to get their degrees and perform and just be great citizens to this country. So for those of you that are concerned, I share concerns. I'm not.

I'm not being dismissive, but let's be the leaders and let's give these students opportunity to work. They're not asking for a handout. They're asking for let me work and get paid for it. Simple things that our friends on our other side of the aisle say. People come to this country, pay your dues. Well, guess what?

They're in this country. They want to pay their dues. Join me. And how symbolic that you don't vote no, but at least lay off on this. I would at least respect that. So. But if not, we could continue making websites and youtubes and that's fine too.

But be a leader with me and let's give these students say, wow, we gave these students opportunity to work and just simply work. Not a handout. I'm asking you today for a handout. I'm asking let them work. Let them go punch in, punch out and work and contribute to the university, to the college, till they call home.

With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you so much, Senator Solace, for bringing this very important Bill forward and for your leadership and efforts on this. And I was proud to be a co author last year of Mr. Alvarez's Assembly Bill 2586.

And I believe then, as I do now, that leadership is very critical and necessary on this issue for our students. And we heard from a number of colleagues, but also concerned about the unintended consequences as well.

And thank you for working with my team and and staff and the discussions with the segments also to explore language on this as thoughtfully as possible. Really appreciate you and your leadership and efforts on this and anything that we can do to continue to support and uplift our undocumented students in this critical time is so critical.

So thank you for your leadership. I look forward to supporting the Bill today and working with you as the policy moves forward with that, Madam Secretary, roll call.

Please File item number two, AB713. The motion is do passed to the appropriations Committee. Fong.

Aye.

Fong Kong. Aye. Demayo. No. Demaio. No. Berner. Aye. Berner, aye. Jeff Gonzalez. Jeff Gonzalez. No. Jackson. Jackson, Aye. Mersucci Patel. Patel. Not voting. Aaron. Aaron's aye. Sharp Collins. Sharp Collins. Aye. Tongipa. No. Tongipa. No.

That measure has five eyes. One not voting and three nos. We'll keep the roll open for additional Members out on. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you so much. Colleagues, we are on to our final item of the hearing. Assembly Bill 1171 presented by Assembly Member Dr. Darshana Patel. Item number three. Welcome, Dr. Patel. Welcome, Dr. Patel. Hi.

Welcome. Hi. Thank you for being here.

Ready?

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. I would like to start by thanking the Committee for their work on this legislation and to confirm that I will be accepting the Committee amendments which are very clarifying in nature and much appreciated.

Today I'm pleased to present AB 1171 that modernizes California's existing part time faculty health insurance program to better reflect the realities in today's community college workforce. California's community colleges rely on tens of thousands of part time and multi district faculty who teach the majority of our students.

Yet, despite an existing state program, access to health care coverage remains inconsistent, fragmented and dependent on where how many places a faculty member teaches. AB 1171 builds on the program already in statute by creating a clear statewide framework that requires all districts to participate and that eligible faculty can access health coverage consistently and predictably.

Importantly, this bill does not create a new entitlement or benefit. It strengthens utilization of an existing funded program for multi district faculty. AB 1171 preserves the current reimbursement model. Faculty who teach at multiple districts will continue to self purchase health insurance and receive proportional reimbursements from their districts.

With the state fully reimbursing districts cost for single district part time faculty, AB 1171 simplifies access by allowing faculty to select a health plan that works for them and receive a reimbursement equal to 50% of that premium capped at the district's cost of the most commonly subscribed health insurance plan.

This provides flexibility for faculty while maintaining precise cost controls for districts. This approach addresses one of the most significant gaps in the current system, the wide variation in health care coverage across the state.

Driven by more than 70 separate collective bargaining agreements, AB 1171 creates continuity without mandating that every district provide identical coverage or exceed existing funding levels. Concerns have been raised regarding cost and dependent coverage. To be clear, AB 1171 does not eliminate dependent coverage and maintains reimbursement caps tied to district plan costs.

Estimates based on existing participation rates show that even under very conservative assumptions, costs remain within the current 200 million annual allocation. The existing allocation has operated at a fraction of its capacity since this program began. Ultimately, AB 1171 is about fairness, stability and retention.

Faculty who teach our students should not lose access to health care simply because they teach at multiple campuses or work under inconsistent rules. Here to testify on the measure are Leslie Bonta, faculty member at Mendocino College, and Joshua Is it Christ.

Christ, the vice president of the Mount San Antonio Faculty Association and when the time comes I would respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon Chair Fong and Members of the Committee. Thank you for having us today. My name is Leslie Banta. I'm a faculty member of Mendocino College where I teach math, serve as president of our local union, and I am also the Legislative and Budget Committee Chair for FAC.

The Faculty Association of California Community Colleges AB 1171 requires community college districts to provide full time faculty benefits to part time and multi district part time faculty. Access to health care is fundamental for faculty's ability to teach and support students.

Having district provided health benefits has allowed me and many faculty across the state to focus on instructional time rather than on affording care for a medical emergency or for long term medical concerns. Although I am now a full time tenured faculty Member, I was once in the part time faculty ranks.

I am also a 30 year cancer survivor and I can't say enough about the importance of health insurance when it comes to access to routine preventative care. That access literally saved my life.

I have known too many people in my life and career who did not have access to health insurance and the same proactive care that I did. They skipped important screenings or follow up visits due to the cost of such care and they are no longer with us because of it. We can do better for our faculty.

The state has allocated funding for part time faculty health care for several years now, yet many districts still will not negotiate with faculty for those benefits. It is imperative that districts use this funding for its intended purpose. Health care saves lives. We appreciate Assemblymember Patel and the Committee's work on this important issue. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Welcome honorable Assembly Members. Thank you for providing time and listening to our testimonies today about why support for AB 1171 is so important for community colleges, our part time faculty and most importantly our students. My name is Joshua Christ. I'm a Professor of Career Education.

I'm the elected vice president of the Mount San Antonio College Faculty Association and and I've been a co-lead negotiator for that association going on my second year now. In my three total years of experience on the negotiations teams, part time faculty health care has been the preeminent issue that we've been negotiating with our district.

Rooted in how Mount Sac is choosing to spend their apportionment every year. They have continuously declined to use the statewide apportionment being offered the $200 million that has been legislated into the budget. The Union has proposed utilizing this every single year. The district has turned it down.

Every single year the union has engaged in conversations with HR about how we can make this work, how we can become one of the 100% reimbursement districts. And we continue to be denied.

We've had one on one conversations with our President and with every board of trustees Member about why this would impact Mount SAC in a positive way. Not only providing healthcare to our professors, but but also in putting money back in Mount Sac's budget.

Even after all this engagement, our board of trustees has given direction to the district negotiating team to not participate in the current program because they fear for their own political futures if this money was for some reason to be swept away in a future budget.

They fear the repercussions of having to take away part time healthcare from their employees more than they fear the idea that they're not giving it to them and they're wasting the state apportionment by not doing so. This is the prevailing argument that we have faced for three years at the table.

Last year we did have a small amount of movement. The district allocated an extra $500,000 into part time healthcare funding from their local budget, not from this state apportionment budget. That budget's now at 1.4 million and they provide the same district contribution to our part time faculty Members as they do to our full time faculty Members.

Unfortunately, that 1.4 million only covers 147 of our part time faculty Members out of the 1000 actively employed part time faculty Members. This is on a seniority basis and this is on a basis of you sign up every single semester.

Which means we have part time faculty Members coming into and out of health care plans every single fall and spring semester. This leaves some 850 of them wondering if they will be able to enroll in the next semester because they don't know if the person with more seniority will enroll or not.

Most Importantly, this takes $1.4 million of Mount Sac's budget out of its budget. This is money that should be going into our classrooms for our students. This is money that should be going towards supplies and increasing our budgets in the classroom every single year.

But instead it's going towards part time faculty health care while more than 3/4 of the $200 million sits unused every single year. If AB 1171 is passed into law, it would allow for our part time faculty to receive the equitable health care options they deserve for their unrelenting service to our students and the education of our communities.

For Mount sac. This would also allow duplicate, duplicated monies to go back into the classrooms and towards local and state educational objectives. I do thank you for your support of education our communities and I ask for your support on this bill. AB 1171 thank you.

Thank you so much. We have a motion. Do we have a second motion by Assemblymember Gonzalez and a second by Assemblymember Ahrens? Thank you so much. Colleagues. Any questions or comments? Vice Chair DeMaio.