Assembly Standing Committee on Higher Education

Good afternoon. The Assembly Higher Education meeting is now called to order. We'll have the secretary call the row when we have a quorum. Welcome to our fourth policy hearing of the Assembly Higher Education, committee in 2026. This hearing is for the the third of several hearings for 2026 measures, whether here in person or watching virtually.

I appreciate your engagement in higher education policy making. Please note that a similar Celeste Rodriguez is out on maternity leave, and today's hearing will now have a replacement for a similar Rodriguez. Additionally, I'm pleased to welcome back Michael Erke, who once again is pinched hitting for our committee secretary today. Thank you, mister Erke, and welcome back. I'll now go over some key elements of the structure of today's hearing.

As we proceed with the witnesses and public comment, I wanna make sure that everyone understands that the assembly has rules to ensure that we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing. We apply these rules consistently to all people who are participate in our proceedings regardless of the viewpoint they express. In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes our early conduct of legislative proceedings.

We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that insights or threatens violence. As you came into the hearing room today, the sergeant's directed your attention to the rules for public attendance and participation, which are posted outside the door.

The rules for today's hearing include no talking or loud noises from the audience. Public comment may be provided only at the designated time and place and as permitted by the chair. Public comment must relate to the subject or bills being discussed today. No engage in a conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the early 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 enough will not have phone testimony, we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the committee's website at www.ahed.assembly.ca.gov. Those will be taken up in sign in order. However, committee members typically will present their bills after noncommittee members. Authors, you can sign in the sergeant's desk in Room 127.

Further, please note that the guideline for bills heard in this committee is allowed for testimony from two lead witnesses and not support and two lead witnesses and 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 they call for tweeters. If a measure has more than two entities in the tweeter category, only two would 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 the 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 will simply say that the motion will be recognized at the appropriate time.

Additionally, members, if you'd like to respond to a roll call, ask a question, and provide a comment, please be sure to activate microphone and speak into your microphone.

And for authors of bills up today, authors, each member presenting today will provide an opening statement and a closing statement. As for the state, your two lead witnesses will each have two minutes to provide testimony. And, actually, thank you so much, colleagues. At this time, mister secretary, we can establish a quorum. Roll call, please.

[Roll Call]

We have three bills on consent, and they are as follows. File item number six, Assembly bill 1669 by Assembly Ramos as amended. File item number 10, AB 2251 by Assembly Rodriguez as amended. And five on number 12, Assembly Bill 2436 by Assembly Member Fong.

I'm sorry. Assembly Bill 1759 by mister Ramos. Thank you. We have a motion by Vice Mayor De Maio and a second by Summer Patel. Any questions or comments, colleagues? Seeing none. Mister secretary, roll call, please.

[Roll call]

Thank you so much, colleagues. Consent calendar has six votes. So we'll keep the roll open for additional members to add on. The consent calendar is out, and we'll keep the role open for additional members to add on. At this time now, we'll begin with our proceedings for legislation to be presented today.

First up, I'd like to welcome Assemblymember Berman presenting item number assembly bill two seven seven one. Welcome, Assemblymember Berman. Item number 15. Welcome.

Any chance, mister chair, I could do 2236 first?

Oh, yeah. Absolutely. 2236. Yes. File number nine.

Welcome, Summer Burnet. Presenting assembly bill 2236. Welcome. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, mister chair and members. My previous legislation, AB 1111, requires the California community colleges to adopt a student facing common course numbering system, meaning comparable general education and transfer pathway courses have the same course number at all community colleges. A common course numbering system is crucial to reduce unnecessary confusion, ease advising, streamline transfer, and reduce excess credit accumulation. As community college students take courses that are part of the common course numbering system, articulation of these courses at the CSU and UC is vital.

Course articulation is a necessary function for transfer students and dual enrollment students who are in college credits at a community college and need those courses to count towards their bachelor's degree.

Given faculty's expertise and the central role in articulation, AB 2236 would set a target date for the Intersegmental Committee of Academic senates to establish an agreement for implementing streamline system level articulation of those community college courses. This would ensure that students receive credit for these courses and would not be required to take them again after they transfer. AB 2236 is a necessary step to fulfill the promise of common course numbering, saving students both time and money.

And I respectfully ask for an aye vote. I'm joined today by, Joshua Hagen, vice president of policy and advocacy at the Campaign for College Opportunity, and Alicia Nakhbal, vice president of legislative affairs at the Student Senate for the California Community College.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Great. Good afternoon, Chair Fogg and members of the committee. Joshua Hagen, vice president of policy and advocacy with the Campaign for College Opportunity, a nonpartisan policy and advocacy organization focused on ensuring all Californians have equitable access to college. Every year, California community college students intending to transfer do everything right. Set up education plans, decide their major, take the required courses, pass them, and prepare to transfer, only to find out that their credits are evaluated and accepted differently depending on where they enrolled.

AB 1111, also authored by assembly member Berman, required community colleges to establish a common course numbering system for general education and transfer courses to address these challenges. This past fall semester, students across the state started taking the first phase of courses in common course numbering system. Simultaneously, the community colleges have continued to work on developing courses to the course templates developed by faculty from all three systems.

Progress is promising, but concerns remain as students enroll in these commonly numbered courses without system wide articulation in place. Currently, each community college has to submit nearly the exact same course to each of the CSUs and UCs to articulate, where each individual campus decides whether or not to articulate this course.

This individual review and articulation process leads to scenarios where it is possible for students transferring to the same university from different community colleges who took the same course with the same course number to receive credit differently for the same work. That is confusing, that is inequitable, and that is extremely costly for students. Receiving credit for courses you successfully completed should not depend on your ZIP code. Commonly numbered courses, by design, ought to commonly transfer.

AB 2236 would solve this by charging faculty leadership to develop a process to articulate the common number of course templates so that student mobility can be maximized and the articulation for these courses is determined before students start taking them.

Thank you, and we respectfully ask for your eye vote.

Thank you so much and welcome. If everyone could just pull the microphones closer to them, it's a little loud outside today, so wanna make sure all all comments are being heard. Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Fong and members. My name is Alicia Nakapal, and I serve as the vice president of legislative affairs for the student center for the California Community Colleges. SSCCC is the official voice of more than 2,200,000 students within our system, and we are proud co sponsors of AB 2236. For far too long, community college students have been forced to navigate a complex transfer maze.

Each year, thousands lose valuable time, financial aid, and momentum because the courses they complete at different community colleges do not align with the requirements of their intended four year institutions. This misalignment creates unnecessary barriers, delaying degree attainment and increasing the overall cost of education for students who can least afford it. This is not just inefficient, it is costly. Students lose financial aid eligibility, accumulate excess units, and delay their time to their degree.

For many, this means an additional semester, even year of coursework that they cannot afford.

Though slack of streamlined articulation is more than a bureaucratic hurdle, it is an equity issue that disproportionately impacts first generation and low income students who cannot afford the excess credit penalty. AB 22236 bills on existing law and the promise of common course numbering by ensuring that once a course is identified, it is actually honored through a system wide articulation agreement.

By requiring faculty from the UC, CSU, and community colleges to establish a streamlined system level agreement by 2027, this bill ensures that a general education course at Fresno City College means the same thing as one at San Diego Mesa College, East Los Angeles College, or Berkeley City College. This bill provides transparency for students and helps ensure that they will no longer be left in the dark about how their hard work translates to a degree.

The SS triple c believes that a student's journey from a community college to a four year institution should be a bridge and not a barrier.

AB 2236 is a common sense step toward a truly integrated higher education system that puts student success first. On behalf of the 2,200,000 students we represent, I respectfully ask for your eye vote. Thank you.

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

Good afternoon. Genesis Gonzales on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Lenny Kounalakis as a proud co-sponsor in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Good afternoon. Carol Gonzales on behalf of the Cal State Student Association. Proud to support the bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Crystal Padilla on behalf of the chief executive officers of the California Community Colleges in support.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and members. Vincent Rosso with the University of California Student Association. We're here in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jessica Petros with John Burton Advocates for Youth in support.

Thank you.

Jesse Hernandez Reyes on behalf of the Campaign for College Opportunity in support.

Thank you.

Chair members, Austin Webster with W strategies on behalf of the academic senate for California Community Colleges. No official position, but appreciate the ongoing dialogue with the member's office.

Thank you.

Anna Matthews on behalf of the California Community College Independence Union, also no position, but appreciate the effort to rectify some of the issues in implementation. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Sarah Bouabibsa on behalf of the Institute for College Access and Success in support.

Thank you.

Jack Werson on behalf of Citrus College in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Dana Nakano, executive committee member for the academic senate of the California State University System, here on behalf of chair Boy to, state our position of opposition. You should also have received the note of opposition just shortly before the beginning of this hearing. So you said you should you should have that waiting for you when you're in mailboxes. Thank you.

Thank you so much. And actually, I think that was a are there any additional witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeters in the hearing room? Seeing none, colleagues, any questions or comments? Asomir Patel.

Yeah. I wanna thank the author for bringing this bill forward. We're spending so much effort in common course numbering and making sure we have systems and legislation in place to help us vertically articulate that is just so critical to this work actually taking place. I'm intrigued to hear that there was opposition, and I hope that you're working with the opposition because this is an absolute necessity for our students out there. And with that, I would like to move the bill and ask to appropriate time.

Thank you.

Appreciate it. Alright. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second.

Second by Mr. Muratsuchi. Any further questions or comments from colleagues? Sina, that's somebody we'd like to close, please.

Yeah. Appreciate everyone who came to support. Appreciate it as some folks who have concerns, and we've been having lots of dialogue and conversations with all the stakeholders. We'll absolutely continue to do that as the bill moves forward. And respectfully, I ask for an aye vote.

Thanks. And honored honored to have you honored to have you as a co-author. Appreciate you.

Well, thank you so much. Jackson. Thank you so much, Senator Berman. I really appreciate you bringing this bill forward and for your long standing work in this area. We know the common course numbering is something that the legislator has legislature has literally been working on for thirty years.

It's time to take the national next step and ensure that this work informs articulation between our segments. And with that, I'm happy to support your bill today. Thank you. Mister secretary, roll call, please.

[Roll Call]

Thank you so much. That currently has five votes, and we'll keep the roll open for additional members add on. Thank you so much, mister Berman. Next up, we'll welcome back, mister Berman, presenting item number 15, assembly bill two seven seven one, committee on business and professions. Welcome.

Thank you very much, Doctor Jackson. Good news is you've already voted for this. In BNP. Oh. AB2771 is the sunset vehicle for the Bureau of Private Postsecondary Education.

Specifically, this bill extends the sunset date for the bureau until 01/01/2031. Clarifies in their exemptions, tightens accreditation and approval requirements for schools and programs, and makes a variety of other technical changes and policy reforms in response to issues raised during the bureau sense of review. And I'm joined today by Elizabeth Elias, the deputy bureau chief of enforcement to answer any questions. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

Yes. Mister Chair and Member, Steve Hansen, on behalf of Northeastern University, we presented during the sunset review hearing, and there's couple issues we'd like to continue talking with your staff and the members about related to, the bureaus on report about high quality, low risk institutions having an easier path with the bureau and the STRIF and how it's administered on those institutions. Those students shouldn't have to pay those fees because they are essentially endowed institutions and are not at risk of failure.

And we've had a productive, I think, conversation with the bureau, but we'd like to continue to have this through the process. And thank you, Kevin, for your time talking about this and members.

So, Mister Berman, we'll see you soon.

Thank you. Thank you so much, Mister Hanson. Niatis and Otunas, welcome.

Sorry. I am in support of oh, support of please. For the bureau, set up a website again on behalf of the Institute for College Access and Success. We really support the bureau's ability to modify the fees to become fiscally solvent. It's a critical agency for protecting students in the first line of defense right now as the federal higher education ecosystem continues to de re regulate.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any additional questions or comments from colleagues? Seeing none. Someone would like to close, please.

Respect for that.

Well, thank you so much. It was an honor and privilege to participate in the joint sunset oversight hearing last month on the PPPE. And thank you, mister chair, for your leadership and efforts working with our staff and our and all committees and making sure that our hearing was a success in informing this legislation. The bureau serves an important role in the higher education space and has thrived under the leadership of director Debbie Cochran.

While we miss her at the bureau, truly delighted she'll be joining us at leading the California Education Interagency Council and her work and efforts, we greatly appreciate director Debbie Cochran for everything she's doing and will continue to do for our council going forward.

This bill incorporates numerous suggestions from the bureau, and I'm proud to support it today. With that, mister secretary, roll call, please. I'm sorry. Oh, yes. Okay.

Vice Chair DeMaio.

Sorry. I must have missed the member part. I had a question. So we've got this state bureau. The bureau for private post secondary education, how many private colleges does it oversee?

Do you have any known?

Yes. Currently, we have about 900 institutions and about 300 out of state registrations.

Okay. And so this doesn't oversee the the government or public sector colleges and universities, just the private universities. You spend 19 to $20.20 19 to $22,000,000 a year?

That is, I believe, the current budget that the bureau has.

You have over 350 staff? No. How many staff?

I believe our positions that we have is about a 110.

110 staff. Okay. So we're spending roughly $20,000,000, a 100 of full time equivalent staff of TE. Did this agency exist in 1990?

I believe so. I I'm sorry. I don't have that history with me at the moment.

So do we know when this this government bureaucracy was created?

I don't have that that information at the moment.

But there was a time when we didn't have this. And presumably, another government department would oversee private universities because we've had those for a while. Yeah. My concern here is we have a cost of living crisis. We have a budget crisis.

And, you know, there's always good intention somewhere behind every bill, bureaucracy, program that we we we start. We don't always agree, but I think that people say, well, here's a need and a role. Let's create let's create something. And then it never goes away, and it grows. And then someone has to pay for that.

We're at a point where I think we've built so much up that we have to start thinking through when these programs come up for your authorization. Is there a more thoughtful, more cost efficient way to do it? Rather than just saying, well, let's just extend it for presumably four or five more years. And I think that's what the bill's intent is. I'd like us to, in this legislature, start looking at these programs from that standpoint.

There are good refinements in here. I look at some of the things. I go, no. That makes sense. That makes sense.

And then I pause and say, but are we fundamentally getting to the the root problem that I think this state government is afflicted which with which is we've just become a behemoth. I might support this if I knew that there was a commitment that this would not increase costs. Would the author commit that any attempt to amend the bill to increase fees would be opposed by by you?

If it gets to the Senate and they say, oh, I think we need to use this to increase fees.

Yeah. I appreciate the question. And then for a little point of clarification, the the bureau is is funded by the entities that are being overseen by the bureau. So there's no general fund, draw. You know, it doesn't impact the the cost of living challenges of of folks except for people who are going to private post secondary education institutions.

Except for those all those people. How many people would that be? Tens of thousands of people?

of value.

But there's a lot

That's a

lot of people.

There's a

lot of value to those people to make sure that those institutions aren't using predatory practices, that the people who go to those schools are getting high quality education, that they can graduate and get good paying jobs. And so that's that's the trade off, is there's a cost, but but there's a cost of not having anything, which is a lot of the scandals that we've seen with certain, private post secondary institutions that have gone bankrupt and left a lot of their students holding the bag.

So that and so I I appreciate the concern around cost, but there's a, I would argue, a greater cost of not having the institution. The

So but you wouldn't make a commitment to disavow and prevent a fee being amended into this bill, an authorization for a fee increase or an extension? No. And that's my concern is that it appears in this committee as well. There's some refinements. We're gonna extend it.

It does good things, but there's no commitment that we're not gonna see the government say, see all the good things we're doing now. Let's extract the cost. Because that's what a lot of bureaucracies do is is they take on a life of their own, and they use a good intention to justify. And we have to kinda push back and say, are we getting cost benefit analysis?

You know, some of the same things that we would question about a private university can easily be questioned about a public university.

Are we seeing degrees that are are being offered that are are worth what what what we're we're we're paying for the degree, what those students paying. And then also, are we making sure that the funds being used by these government universities and colleges are appropriately being spent. So I'm not gonna support this today because I think that we need to do more thinking about is there a better way to provide oversight for various functions. I'm not saying we should have no oversight for the private sector.

We have a lot of laws that apply to both public and private universities, but I I think when we do a reauthorization of our program, we should be thinking about pairing back and being becoming more cost effective.

So I won't be supporting the bill at this at this

point. Thank you so much, vice chair. Any further questions or comments? Seeing none of somebody would like to close, please.

Yeah. I appreciate the the points. I appreciate the the dialogue and the conversations. I do wanna note that as it relates to the Bureau of Private Postsecondary Education, their application fees were last increased in 2009, so seventeen years ago. And their annual fees, which is another set of fees that they have, were last increased in 2018, So so eight years ago.

So I do think it's a bureau that's been very fiscally prudent, but the reality is that the cost of doing things increases over time. And and so that's why sometimes fee increases need to be considered, which we are considering as a part of this sunset process, which is why I couldn't make the commitment asked by the vice chair, but totally appreciate the comments and respect that for your vote.

Thank you so much, and thank you so much again for the joint oversight sunset hearing last month on the BPP. It's all the committees that were involved to really make sure that this from this legislation and plays a critical role in the higher education space as well to to regulate programs in here to make sure that we're not providing we're providing, like, valuable educational opportunities. There's a lot of fighting folks out there as well, veterans or anybody else that's they seek their, posting their education opportunities.

And so I think at that hearing, we had a robust hearing around a number of these issues. And going forward, I know there's a number of things that we're gonna continue to work on together here with BPPE.

With that, I look look forward to supporting the measure, and this incorporates many of the suggestions from the bureau as well. So thank you for the context. Mister secretary, roll call, please.

File item number 15AB2771. The motion is do pass and re refer to the committee on business and professions. Fong?

Aye.

Fong, aye. De Maio? No. De Maio, no. Berners, Gonzales, Jackson?

Aye. Jackson, aye. Marucci? Aye. Parasuchi, Aye.

Patel? Aye. Patel, aye. Rodriguez, Chuck Collins, Tangipa?

I'm sorry. Let me back up here. Can we have a motion on the item?

I'll make a motion.

Motion by doctor Patel, second by doctor Jackson. We have a motion to second. Let's do the roll call one more time. I apologize. Thank you.

Okay. File item number 15, AB2771. The motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Business and Professions. [Roll call]

Thank you so much. As the vote is currently four to one, we'll keep the rope in for additional members out on.

Thanks, everyone.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Alright. Thank you. No worries. Now we'd like to welcome Assemblymember Caloza presenting item number 11, Assembly Bill 2422.

Welcome Assemblymember Caloza.

Alright. Thank you, mister chair and members, for the opportunity to present AB 2422 today. Thank you to the committee consultants for their hard work on this bill. Happy to accept the amendments that clarify the length of the financial aid delay, the amount that will be postponed, and the requirements of students to provide documentation, if the aid is coming from an outside source that does not communicate with the college.

I'm proud to present this bill, AB 2422, which addresses a sometimes invisible, but deeply consequential issue affecting students across California's higher education system.

For thousands of students every year, financial aid is not a supplement. It is the difference between staying enrolled and dropping out. It pays for tuition, housing, books, and basic living expenses. Yet too often, students find themselves in limbo when their aid is delayed due to administrative backlogs, verification issues, or processing errors that are entirely beyond their control.

This challenge is becoming even more urgent in light of federal, uncertainty at the US Department of Education and the continued instability of some of those financial aid programs at the federal level.

This has led to pauses, delays, and confusions for students relying on critical support. When the Federal Government falters, it is our students here in California who feel the impact most directly. Imagine doing everything right, submitting your forms on time, responding to every request, meeting, and deadline, only to be told that your aid has not yet been processed. Meanwhile, tuition deadlines loom, enrollment holds are placed, and late field late fees begin to accumulate. For many students, this creates an impossible situation.

Pay out of pocket, money that they do not have or risk losing their place in school. Colleges will now have to provide reasonable protections for students whose financial aid is delayed due to factors outside of their control, and ensuring students will not be punished for circumstances they did not create. A d two four two two is about protecting our students, and making sure that we recognize that our systems are not always perfect, and when they fall short, students should not bear the consequences.

This does not excuse students from their responsibilities, nor does it lower standards. Instead, it ensures institutions respond with flexibility and common sense when administrative delays occur.

Maintaining accountability on both the student side and the college administrative side is critically important. And lastly, I just wanna add that at a time when we are trying to work to expand, as this committee knows, access to higher education and improve student outcomes and student success, these are the type of barriers that we need to continue to remove, especially when it's brought forth by our very own students.

And so with me today to testify in support is Alex McCray, a student from CSU Sacramento, reading on behalf of a student from UCLA who could not join us today, as well as Tanaya Safi, policy co director for What We All Deserve, which is a youth led organization that is the sponsor of our bill.

Thank you so much, and welcome.

Good afternoon, chair and committee members. My name is Alex McCray, and I'm an incoming freshman at UCLA. I will be reading Hannah Hernandez's personal testimony who is a senior at UCLA. I'm here today to support this bill because I personally experienced the stress and instability that occurs when financial aid is delayed as well as many of my peers. During Hannah's time in school, her middle class scholarship was delayed for approximately three to four months.

Throughout that period, there was very little transparency about why the delay was happening or when the funds will be released. She spent numerous hours anxiously check checking FAFSA on her emails for updates that never came. At times, she even wondered if she had done something wrong on her application and if she was the only one who's experiencing these delays because there was little to no information about it. This uncertainty had a serious impact on her academic excellent experience.

Instead of focusing fully on her education, she was distracted and overwhelmed.

She spent her time searching for jobs and trying to figure out how she would cover her expenses. Given her family's financial circumstances, she could only truly rely on herself. Because of these delays, she had to take out extra loans to cover school expenses and housing. She was unsure if she'd she would be able to afford basic necessities like rent or for how long. Many of my peers were going through the same thing.

One of my peers shared that they couldn't afford to buy Christmas gifts for their family that year because of these delays. Another one of my peers had their entire financial aid package delayed. They had to negotiate a payment plan with UCLA while simultaneously taking on significant loan debt. Even then, they had no certainty about when their aid would be resolved or when they would be able to keep up with their future or if they would be able to keep up with their future payments.

Students should not have to live with this level of uncertainty just to access their education.

Financial aid don't delays don't just affect our finances. They affect our mental health, our academic performance, and our ability to succeed. So that is why I urge you to support this bill so that students do not fear losing access to the resources that they depend on and the education that they deserve. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you so much, and welcome.

Thank you, chair Fong and members of the committee. My name is Tanaya Safi, and I'm a high school student in Sacramento, and the California co director of policy with What We all Deserve. Proud sponsors of this bill. AB 2422 prevents post secondary students from being penalized due to delays in financial aid disbursement, that are beyond their control. Under current law, institutions are required to provide an aggregate summary of financial aid awarded.

However, there are no protections or defined grace periods in place, when those funds are delayed. As a result, many institutions consider delayed financial aid as non payment, triggering automatic consequences, such as late fees, hold transcript holds, and students being dropped from courses. The bill requires that California community colleges and California state universities to create soft holds for payments and enrollment. As of 2024, one in four students say that FAFSA delays affected their ability to stay enrolled in their current

programs, jeopardizing their ability to marginalized populations face the most burden from financial aid delays, these disruptions create significant uncertainty for students awaiting time sensitive aid. Without protections, the period between financial aid award and disbursement can prevent students from enrollment in courses, causing them to lose class schedules and delay their academic progress. AB 2422 ensures that students can maintain enrollment and academic standing while awaiting financial aid, by shifting the burden of delays away from students.

It establishes protections and ensures that access to education for all Californians is not dependent on the timing of financial aid processing. Thank you for your time, and we urge you to give AB 2422 an aye vote.

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

Good afternoon. Carol Gonzalez on behalf of the Cal State Student Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, Sara Bobibs on behalf of the Institute for College Access and Success and Support.

Thank you.

Good evening. Bibi Hamida Hashmat from Davis on behalf of UC Student Association, and we support this bill. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Ikaria Magala, Cal State LA master's student, and I'm in support.

Thank you.

Good evening, chair or good afternoon, chair, and members of Vincent Roster with the University of California Student Association. We're excited to be coming on as co-sponsors and urge you to go by. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Sasha Horwitz, Los Angeles Unified School District in support.

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

As the cost of living increases, the challenges that our students are facing are ever daunting. Thank you for bringing this bill forward. I have two daughters in college right now and hear from their friends in college that these delays are causing enormous amounts of pressure and financial hardship on their families as well and increased anxiety and stress. I wanna applaud you for bringing this bill forward and working with the students to make sure that their voices, their authentic voices are heard.

And I'd like to move the bill.

Thank you so much, doctor Patel. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second by doctor Jackson. Any further questions or comments, colleagues?

Seeing none, Assembly Member Caloza, would you like to close, please?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote and just wanna thank the students again for leading on this issue, and I look forward to hopefully getting it out of this committee. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Assembly Member Caloza, for bringing this measure forward and for accepting the committee amendments as allow as outlined on pages five and six of this of the analysis. I believe that this measure supports student retention and equity by ensuring that financial aid delays do not derail a student's ability to stay enrolled and succeed, thereby maintaining their progress towards earning a degree or certificate. And I'm pleased to support this measure today. Mister secretary, roll call, please. File item number 11,

[Roll Call]

Thank you so much, colleagues. Standard measure has four votes. We'll keep the role open for additional members. Thank you, Summer Colosa. Next up, we would like to welcome Asama Pacheco presenting assembly bill one six six nine.

Welcome, Assembly Member Pacheco.

Good afternoon and thank you, mister chair and members. I am here to present Assembly Bill 1669, which ensures that college students may take a leave of absence for medical or mental health reasons and return to their studies through a clear protected process. I wanna thank the committee for all their hard work on this bill, and I will be accepting the committee amendments. College students are facing a mental health crisis. The data is bleak.

Thirty seven percent of college students struggle with depression. Nearly one third experience anxiety. One in five students contemplate suicide, and adults during and adults during college age years, which are ages eight to eighteen to twenty five, have the highest prevalence of mental health disorders. Poor mental health can have a drastic consequence for student success, both in the day to day functioning and their academic performance. During college, students don't always have access to the support they need to manage these challenges.

In some situations, the best solution for a student may be stepping away from school to focus on their health. Temporary leave allows the student to stabilize and return ready to complete their education. However, not all California colleges and universities have a clear leave of absence frame framework. While some schools allow a student to take a leave of absence, others require a student facing a mental health crisis to withdraw entirely. That can mean reapplying with no guarantee of readmission even after they have already started their degree.

AB1669 gives students the flexibility they deserve to step away from school to focus on medical or mental health treatment. It creates an accessible, equitable, and protected pathway for students to return to their studies where they left off without having to face academic consequences or reapply. This bill uplifts student health, safety, and well-being while prioritizing educational growth and success.

And with me today to speak in support of the bill is Natalia Cornejo Ayers, the UC Student Association disability justice officer and a UC Berkeley student. And Jen Kalinto.

Kalinato. Kalinato. K. Sac State Associated Student Academic Affairs vice president. And I will hand it over to my witnesses so that they can speak.

Thank you so much, and welcome.

Good afternoon, honorable Chair Fong and esteemed members of the Assembly Higher Education Committee. My name is Jen Gallonado. I currently serve as the vice president of academic affairs for Associated Students Incorporated at Sacramento State, where I have the distinct pleasure of representing over 31,000 students. I'm here today to share a student perspective on Assembly Bill 1669.

While ASI has not formally taken a position on this bill just yet, I'm here to speak about the very realities that our students are facing, not just at my campus, but throughout the system.

Right now, when a Sacramento State student experiences a mental health crisis, whether it be severe anxiety, depression, trauma, or another condition, they are forced into an impossible choice, either to remain enrolled while struggling and risk academic failures or withdraw from the university entirely. And withdrawing is not a simple pause. To return, a student must reapply for admission, pay application fees again, and go through the full admissions process without a guarantee of acceptance and often lose priority registration and financial aid.

For many students, especially those who are already in crisis, this process becomes a barrier to even come back. AB1669 directly addresses this gap.

And beginning in the twenty twenty seven, twenty twenty eight academic year, it would require that CSU campuses, along with the community colleges and the UCs to implement medical formal leaves of absence policies that allows students to take time away for one academic year or longer without losing their student status or having to reapply. It ensures that students can return when they are ready with stability and dignity.

This bill also recognizes that not every student needs to fully step away, but allows reasonable accommodations while allowing students to face those medical challenges and continue their coursework with flexibility and support. This is especially critical in higher education, not just at Sacramento State. Throughout the system, we serve first generation students, low income students, working parents, and student parents.

For many of them, withdrawing doesn't just mean taking time off. It often means never returning, not just because they lack the ability to do so, but because the path to come back is far too difficult to navigate. While at the same time, the demand for mental health services continue to exceed campus capacities more than they can handle. Students often wait weeks for appointments, and many choose to suffer in silence out of fear of losing their place at the university.

Assembly bill sixteen sixty nine helps remove that fear by ensuring that taking care of one's mental health does not come come at the cost of one's education.

As you consider this bill, I urge you to center student experiences. Talk to students who have had to withdraw and could not return. Talk to those who stay enrolled while struggling and saw their academic progress decline. I'd like to further emphasize that point that I am living proof of that. Well, again, as ASI has not taken a formal position, this is a critical conversation more now than ever.

Students deserve policies that recognize that mental health is health and that their support is their ability to persist and succeed. Thank you for your time and consideration on this bill.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Fong and Members. My name is Adalia Coronjo Ayers, and I'm a second year student at UC Berkeley here on behalf of the UC Student Association, who is a proud co-sponsor of AB1669. Today, I hope to you that you could put an end to the traumatizing nature of the withdrawal process, which must be undertaken for a mental health leave of absence, and we thank Assemblymember Pacheco for her leadership on this bill.

I'd like to share the experience of my former graduate student instructor, a top student in a world renowned graduate program at Cal.

Despite growing up on the autism spectrum, below the poverty line, and navigating racial disparities as Latino American, he found his passion in education. He earned high distinctions and secured opportunities within some of the most prestigious programs at the university. But even hard fought success offers no protection when life is turned completely upside down. Just before the end of his first semester of grad school, he learned that a single mother was experiencing domestic abuse.

Bearing that inexplicable weight while juggling financial pressures in the bay, teaching dozens of undergrads, meeting paper deadlines, and fulfilling rigorous fellowship and research obligations naturally took a severe toll on his physical mental health, ultimately forcing him to pursue a mental health leave of absence.

Withdrawing from UC Berkeley was the most decision difficult decisions he's ever made. He's relied on financial aid and instructor earnings, so taking time away meant even greater financial insecurity. What he did not anticipate was the severe trauma of the withdrawal process itself. He was required to gather evidence and describe his mental health and family crisis to his department and program heads.

With all of this happening within a month, he had no time to process or grieve his mother while actively battling severe depression and facing profound uncertainty about his return to Cal when there is no promise that he could return.

I'd like to leave you all with a question that he asks himself every day since this crisis. What is one good reason why students must endure trauma without any promise that they could return to their university? AB1669 allows for both medical leaves and absences for mental health reasons and extended reasonable accommodations for students with learning disabilities like myself and the 23,000 students I represent at the UC, ensuring consistency in our pursuit of a higher education.

At the appropriate time, I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

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

Leah Barrows on behalf of California Hospital Association in support.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Reina. I am from UC Irvine and on behalf of the UC Student Association, and I support this field. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Emma [Unintelligible]. I'm a student at UC Irvine, and I'm here on behalf of the UC Student Association. And I strongly support AB1669.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Hibah Khan. I'm also from UC Irvine and also on behalf of the UC Student Association, and I also strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Cindy Lee. I'm a UCI Barbour student with the University of California Student Association. On behalf of over 230,000 undergraduates, we strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

Hi. I'm Janae Thornton. I'm a UCR student, and I'm in strong support of this bill.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Miles May. I'm a UC Berkeley student, and I support this bill.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Nelad Gibson. I'm a UC Berkeley student, and I support this bill.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Jacqueline Diva, and as a student of UC Riverside, I support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments? The Summer Patel.

Thank you for bringing this bill forward. As I mentioned with the previous hearing, I have two children that are currently in college and one in high school. All three have expressed lots of concern for their peers and and making sure that we provide pathways to address mental health challenges when they come up. And having a policy in place where we know how we can do that safely and in a way that's sustainable for our students is very important. So I appreciate you bringing this bill forward.

It's it's important work. And if I can move the bill, love to do that.

We have a motion.

Keep doing that.

But thank you so much. We have a motion by doctor Patel and a second by doctor Jackson. Thank you so much, colleagues. Any further questions or comments? Seeing none, Assemblymember Pacheco, would you like to close, please?

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

Thank you so much, Assemblymember Pacheco, for authoring this very important measure to allow our students to receive medical leave at post secondary education institutions here in California, and I'm deeply sympathetic to the stories shared here today. And I thank you for your bravery and not only continue your education, but is speaking here today. And I look forward to supporting a measure here today. And with your permission, I would like to be added as a coauthor.

Definitely. Thank you.

Thank you. Mister Secretary, roll call, please.

File item number 2AB1669. The motion is do pass as amended, and we refer to the committee on appropriations. [Roll call]

That measure has four votes. We'll keep the roll open for additional members. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. We'd like to welcome Asilmar Ransom presenting Assembly Bill one seven one three, item number three. Welcome Asilmar Ransom. Welcome.

Alright. Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and members. I appreciate the opportunity to present Assembly Bill seventeen thirteen. Transitioning to higher education, whether from a k 12 school or as an adult returning to the education system can be a stressful time for any student.

But accessing higher education is far too difficult for students with dip disabilities in particular. There are thousands of students in California who receive academic accommodations because of a documented diagnosed disability. But when those students start their higher education careers, too many are forced to prove that they are still living with that disability. Students who have an IEP or a five zero four plan or who have relied on those accommodations are being told in essence that their school doesn't believe they have that disability.

Being sent off for a new diagnosis, especially for students with chronic conditions, is stressful, time consuming, and also costs a lot.

For someone sitting with their diagnosis in in diagnosis in hand in the IEP, this is just another roadblock our education system sets in their way. I'm proud to say that this assembly bill seventeen thirteen is

a bill that was brought to me by a constituent that you will hear from soon. This is a straightforward solution to make sure that our students in California who have documented disabilities are allowed to get the support that they need. AB 1713 requires an institution of higher education to accept an IEP or five zero four plan, which documents their disability as proof of their diagnosis.

This bill prevents academic institutions from requiring timely, costly rediagnosis that can discourage our students from seeking the accommodations that they need to thrive. With me to testify today are Madeline Hill, the constituent who submitted the idea to our office through the There Ought to Be a Law program and a paraprofessional for working in special education, as well as Khaled Rasheed with the Disability Resource Agency for Independent Living.

And with that, I'm gonna turn it over to my witnesses for testimony. Madeline?

Thank you so much, and welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair Fong and members of the committee. My name is Madeline Hill, and I am in strong support of AB 1713. As a child, I had a IEP beginning the first grade. Throughout my entire k through twelfth journey, I struggled academically and personally, but I kept going.

Like many students with disabilities, school was never easy for me. Every year required support, patience, and people who believed I was capable even when I didn't believe in myself. After high school, I attended community college, and unlike many students navigating disability challenges and major life transitions, I had to stop. I started again, stopped again, and then I started once more. It has truly been a journey of persistence, setbacks, and resilience.

Today, I'm proud to say that this June, I will be graduating with my associate's degree of arts. This is why this bill is deeply personal to me. AB 1713 matters because students should not have to keep proving what has already been documented through years of educational history just to receive support in higher education.

This bill helps bridge the transition from k through 12 into college, allowing IEPs and five zero four plans to serve as verification of disability so students can access accommodations faster without unnecessary delays. I work in education as a paraprofessional supporting special education, so I have experienced from this I experienced this from both ends.

Every day, I work with students who will one day become young adults entering our colleges and universities. I see this potential. I see their potential, their challenges, and support that they all need to succeed. I also see the importance of making sure the path does not become harder. The movement should not leave when they leave high school.

This is not just A Bill about my story. It's about the future of students we serve and now making sure that they have a smoother transition into adulthood and higher education. I respectfully ask for your support in AB 1713. Thank you.

Thank you so much, and welcome.

Good afternoon, chair Fong and members. My name is Kalu Rashid. I'm the systems change advocate with Disability Resources Agency for Independent Living, also known as DRIL. DRIL is designated to serve six counties, Amador, Calaveras, Mariposa, Tuolumne, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus. I also serve as the central rural regional deputy director for the disability organizing network, a California network for disabled people and all and our alley alleys who recognize who organize for systems change where people with disabilities live, learn, work, shop, play, and vote.

In my work, I hear from individuals with disabilities who are trying to move forward in their lives. Many of them pursuing higher education. What should be an exciting step often becomes frustrating and discouraging because they are asked repeatedly to prove their disability just to receive basic accommodations. I've seen how these delays impact confidence, academic success, and even deciding whether or not someone stays in school. I also bring my own experience.

When I went to college, I was on dialysis, and I just acquired my disability after high school. I did not have an IEP or a five zero four plan, and I didn't know what to ask for. I requested a note taker and permission to record lectures so that on days I had dialysis and was too tired, I could keep up. Transitioning to college is already stressful.

Adding a disability and being required to reprove it creates another barrier when a when the goal should be equal access and education.

Eighty seventeen thirteen is a practical solution. It reduces unnecessary barriers by promoting consistency and recognizing documentation students already have. It allows students to focus on learning instead of navigating systems that were not designed with them in mind. At DRAIL, we believe disability should never be a barrier to opportunity. This moves this bill moves us closer to that goal.

Thank you.

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

Hi. Good afternoon. Justin Selnick on behalf of the California Association for Postsecondary Education and Disability as well as the California Community College Chancellor's Office in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Natalia. I'm a student at UC Berkeley. I live with disabilities, and I'm a disability leader on my campus that has experienced this personally and sees hundreds of students have this exact problem, and I support this.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Jacqueline Diva. As a student from UC Riverside and for the UCSA, and as a student who works in the district, I support this because I understand the struggles that people personally in my life have to go with. So I support this bill.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments? The motion and the second.

Thank you so much.

I do have one quick question.

Assembly Member Patel.

I was wondering whether you have and you may not have this information, but I'm curious. Many students enter onto a UC campus, for example. There's a reason why I have the specific question. And they are required to purchase or add on supplemental insurance because their insurance policy doesn't cover it. Do you know whether those plans even cover that costly process of that redetermination?

So say that their own insurance plans don't cover it, but then they're required to get a plan to be on campus. Do those plans even cover it?

So assembly member, thank you for the question. That was not part of our research and preparation after this bill. So I'm we're I am not aware whether or not the, the school's insurance plan would cover the additional retesting. But I will tell you whether it covers it or not and and enduring having to re endure explaining your situation over again and be re diagnosed with something you've already been diagnosed with is problematic either way. But thank you for the question.

Yeah. Because, of course, what we know is those diagnoses are transient with grade level. Yep. Thank you. They are part of your physical being.

So Absolutely. Appreciate you bringing this bill forward. Excited to support it today. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Assuming we'd like to close, please.

Yes, chair Fong. Thank you again for the opportunity to present this bill. Again, this bill is grounded in the reality that our students face each and every day. Just out in the hallway today, folks were asking what we were doing, and they were sharing stories about how this affected their own family, their own children, nieces and nephews. And we don't like this for our children.

We know we've heard of students who've had to fill a class four or five times before they were taken seriously. And so going to school, higher education is stressful enough in anyone's life. It's a challenge and often a financial challenge, and it should not be an accessibility challenge as well. I wanna applaud Madeline Hill for bringing this bill to our team, and just say this is exactly how government should work.

Instead of people, you know, bringing us problems, bring us a solution, And that's what she did today.

So I wanna, really acknowledge that. And I wanna thank our other witness, Khaled Rasheed, for also being here to support our students and make sure that everyone can thrive no matter what their diagnosis. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on behalf of all of California students who are living with disabilities.

And thank you so much, miss Ransom, for authoring this measure and for working so closely with our committee staff on the bill and print, and thank you to your lead witnesses as well. And we know that maintaining educational access for disabled students is is not only a directive from our Federal Government, but also a more imperative. This committee has long, been supportive of protecting.

I look forward to supporting the measure here today and the thoughtful steps it takes to help students maintain access to education by reducing out of pocket cost to our students. Thank you so much again.

And mister secretary, roll call, please.

[Roll Call]

Thank you so much. That measure has four votes, and we'll keep the roll open for additional members to add on. Thank you, so much, sir.

Chairman. Thank you.

Next up, we'd like to welcome, so much, Stephanie, presenting item number five, assembly Bill one seven three four. Welcome Assembly Member Stephanie.

Thank you chair and colleagues. I first wanna start out by thanking the chair of the committee for their thoughtful work and collaboration on this bill, and I will be accepting the committee amendments. Today, I'm presenting AB1734, the Count Hunger Act, which responds to the Federal Government's decision to gut hunger data, basically, to gut the data, the collection of it. AB 1734 will secure and expand California's own food insecurity research.

The Trump administration has made a deliberate choice to stop measuring hunger in America.

They defended the USDA's annual household food security survey and cut funding for key food and nutrition programs. The message seems to be if you stop collecting the data, the problem will just disappear. But hunger doesn't just disappear when you stop looking at it. All that disappears really is our ability to respond to that hunger and food insecurity.

Without this data, California loses its line of sight into who is struggling to put food on the table, where the gaps are, and how federal how sweeping federal policy changes are hitting families across our state.

We cannot we cannot fight a problem we can't see. The Count Hunger Act refuses to accept that blindfold. AB1734 will secure funding for parts of UCLA's California Health Interview Survey and expand the pool of eligible survey respondents to account for the high cost of living in California. This bill is about refusing to let Californians go unseen and making sure no hungry family goes unaccounted for. With me today to testify in support are Marshawn and Maxwell from the San Francisco Marine Food Bank.

Thank you, Assemblymember Stefani. Good afternoon, Chair Fong and Members. My name is Marshawn Tabin, associate director of policy and advocacy at the San Francisco Marin Food Bank. Proud co-sponsors of AB 1734, the Count Hunger Act. The California Health Interview Survey, CHIS, is an annual health survey administered by UCLA Center for Health Policy Research.

It reaches over 25,000 households yearly across a variety of topics in health. The CHIS study has been a valuable supplement alongside the recently canceled national survey. However, with the impacts of federal cuts to these social safety nets programs in an uncertain future for CHIS funded for future surveys. This survey too is in jeopardy.

The actions California should take to ensure that doesn't happen, as a first step, the state of California should fund and support CHIS in expanding the food security questions to households below 400% of the federal poverty line.

That's approximately a 128,000 for a family of four, roughly the cost of living in California. The funding and expansion will provide us with a sustainable source of data on food security prevalence as the cost of living increases across California. I will let my colleague explain further. Maxwell.

Thank you, Marshawn. Good afternoon, Chair Fong and Members of the Committee. My name is Maxwell Titsworth. As chief data and technology officer at the Census Cameroon Food Bank, I can tell you that we're at risk of flying blind. As you heard, the USDA hunger survey has been suspended, and the CHIS food security screener, our

best remaining state tool, is now at risk. AB 1734 of the Count Hunger Act fixes this. It retains the existing CHIS food security measurement and expands screening from 200 to 4% of the federal poverty line because research shows that a third of food insecure households earn above the that 200% line. CHIS is a unique California asset. Respondents in every county surveys in six languages.

No existing survey in California matches that reach. This is a two year pilot. It's targeted. It ensures California doesn't leave struggling families invisible simply because they earn a few dollars above an outdated cutoff. This is evidence based policy making in action.

Thank you.

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

Hi. My name is Stephanie Orozco with First Five LA and here in support.

Thank you.

Mister Chair and Members, Adam Kegelan on behalf of No Kid Hungry in support.

Thank you.

Brian Leahy, AARP volunteer on behalf of our 3,200,000 California members in strong support. Thank you.

Josh Wright on behalf of the California Association of Food Banks, proud co-sponsors and in support.

Thank you.

Jonathan Munoz on behalf of First Life California in strong support and look to thank the author for her leadership on this.

Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chair and Members. Jason Schmelzer on behalf of Alameda Stop Waste in strong support.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeters in the hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments? Vice Chair DeMello?

How much, are we talking about for the the the survey?

200 it cost? 287,000, and we've already put in a budget request.

So $287,000, and it seems like we have, like, a predetermined contract awarder contract recipient?

Correct.

So you're the only group that can do the work?

No. CHIS has been doing this work for over two decades. So they've been familiar with this work. They had a infrastructure, the staff power, and they've been doing it for quite some time. So this is

Who was funding it prior? Is it the Federal Government?

Or who It's

through DPH. So Department of Public Health was funding.

So the government. State government.

State government. The it it varies year to year, but the challenge here is that we're trying to expand to cover more households who are risk of food insecurity.

Okay. So when you say you're covering more households, isn't this a survey?

Correct.

So why do we need a larger sample size?

Because households between 204100% of the federal poverty line are not included in the survey. And national research shows that about a third of households who are food insecure are above that 200 line. So we're missing quite a few folks by not including folks above that 200% line.

Who funds your existing baseline survey?

DPH through a variety of sources, funds the existing on a year to year basis, but it does vary.

Okay. And have we reconsidered how we're collecting the data using the existing money to see if we can cover both bases without expanding the cost to taxpayers by $287,000?

It's funded every year, so the funding is at risk right now. DPH is not committed to funding it. We're also again, we're considering expanding as well.

But but that's not my question. Have you reconsidered your research methodology? In today's day and age, we have all sorts of new automated technology systems, AI, social media. We're not I mean, I think we have some people up here that are familiar with surveys. If you're in a political campaign, you get a poll sometimes and those have become more cost efficient as they've moved from phone calls to, you know, live, you know, live questions to embracing technology, and now they're even using AI.

Again, I I come back to every every contractor wants a contract. Particularly in this case, you guys are the only ones getting the money.

Sorry. We're not contractors. We're with the Samsus Cameron food bank.

What's that?

We're with the Samsus Cameron food bank, not UCLA or CHIS.

Okay. They help distribute the food to those that need it.

But but there's obviously a a designated recipient of the money. It's not gonna be out to open bid, I I would presume. So for $287,000 on a survey being done by government, I I'm questioning is there have we sat down and really sharpened the pencil and thought through our research methodology or sample size or survey methodology in terms of collection of data. We've done that? Is this the only way we can do it?

Can we open it up to a a bid? Maybe we look at your baseline funding for this survey and ask a variety of actors out there if they can achieve the same or better data for a lower price.

So just to chime in, as we know, surveys does not cost under $287,000. Usually, if you wanna start a a new survey, you have to look at the infrastructure. You need to look at the questions. You have to look at the manpower. You gotta look at the system.

Is it automation involved and all that stuff? That's over $1,000,000 when we did the research on it. So using this exist existing infrastructure make more sense reasonably because the price is so affordable. Now when you say the zero to 200%, what was the cost? 200 to 400%?

Chase is getting a remarkable rate for this work. For both years and to increase or expand the survey up to 400%, it's only 287,000, which coulda easily been over 500 k if they really was interested in making money off the contract. I think their interest is simple, Counting hunger and making sure we address food insecurity in the state of California. So that's the focus. It's CHIS.

They've been doing it for over twenty years. If there's other entities out there that does this work, perfect. But we know CHIS has established infrastructure with data posted on their website about their methodology, how they take the survey, who they collect the data from, and how long they've been doing this work, and then the credibility behind this work. So we was looking at all that when we proposed this idea to assembly member Stephanie because we don't have time to wait.

We lost the national survey, so we lost that dataset.

If we don't act here, we will lose this dataset. And how do we count on her in California

at that point? National dataset. The national survey was was discontinued. I know we can, you know, try to, you know, wipe it away with politics, but people are typically looking for good data to make better decisions. We've seen even this administration invest in investigations, research to make decisions.

So to simply say, well, they don't like data. I'm just let's set aside the politics for a moment. Is it that we weren't using the information at the federal level that we were getting from the previous survey, or did the information continue to kinda reinforce things that we were already doing? Do you have a do you do you what's what was the data that you're seeing?

Was being used for several data sets. One in particular was map the mill gap that the federal data was being used for here in California. So we were using that data along with other states. I went to DC last month, and I was talking to some of my colleagues out there who does this work.

They was using the national survey as well, and they were disappointed about the discontinuation of it and excited that California might step up to the plate to at least replace it in the state of California.

We know that more need to be done nationally. But just because we stopped counting doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Hunger is still prevalent, and we need to do something to address it in the state of California. And this is the first step.

So I again, my concern goes back to we get a lot of well intentioned ideas up here. And it seems at first blush, oh, who can argue with more data? But if there was a reason why we stopped funding the survey, it probably was because it wasn't informing decision making, in a way that made policy makers at the federal level at least feel that they were, able to manage their programs better. And then secondly, I am very concerned about the no bid nature of this.

It seems as though we have a predetermined contractor.

I'm sure the contractor may or the the, you know, the survey group may be wonderful. They may do a great job, but we don't know that. And so I'm gonna oppose this bill not because I don't like data. I'm all about performance measurement in government. I'm all about data analytics.

Anyone who wants to Google my twenty five years in business knows exactly

We do.

My bona fides on this issue. But, sir, that's exactly why I'm raising this problem. Because I can smell a problem a mile away on data issues. And I believe that this is a contract that's hotwired. And I would like to make sure that when we are looking at evidence based policy making, that we really go out to the market and say, here are what decision makers are trying to grapple with.

Here's some questions that we're trying to get to the bottom of. Design and methodology in a survey and a data collection model, and then give us a cost that will help decision makers. Frank frankly, if you care about reducing the issues around hunger, you would wanna put us on hot seat. Elected officials should be telling you advocates, here's the data we need to see in order to make the following changes in law that you're trying to advance.

Because I'm willing to pay money for data as long as it results in good government decisions.

I'm not confident the bill before us today does that. I do not fault the author. I think the author is legitimately interested in good data. But I would caution that before we accept the recommendation of the contractor that we, as legislators, push back a bit more and maybe clarify maybe we need to do a little bit more of our work as to what are our goals and what sort of data would we need.

I'd like to hear from government program managers coming up saying, here's what I'm looking for.

Here are some of the questions I harbor, and this is what a survey instrument might be able to answer for me. So I'm open to continuing the discussion. This is an area that I'm a geek on, and that's that's why I saw some red flags that perhaps were not raised earlier in the process. Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Patel.

Thank you, Chair Fong. And thank you to Assemblymember Stefani for bringing this very important bill forward. And thank you to those that work in the food security industry in making sure that Californians can continue to be fed because that is absolutely critical at this moment. I have a couple of quick questions just to, get to the nugget of the policy position you're bringing forward.

Just to clarify for me, the California Health Interview Survey, is that a program that's currently ongoing with infrastructure well established and reliable to the state of California?

And this would be a simple expansion of that to the to bridge the gap that the Federal Government has created in its current policy decisions?

Correct.

And to stabilize funding. Correct.

Okay. Excellent. And in your bill, you also stated that it is it will be enacted upon appropriation, so you are seeking funding for that. And you're just looking for a nod from this committee so that you could go and pursue pursue that funding mechanism.

Very good explanation. Yes. And then

my final question is just around that 200 to 400% below poverty line. I would imagine that this population of folks in California are some of the hardest hit, most vulnerable community members, maybe not with a cell phone at hand or technology at their fingertips, to answer a survey digitally. Are there multiple modalities with how the survey is conducted so that we can actually reach our community members where they are in a capacity that they're able to speak with someone?

Correct. Yes. It moved to a telephone and web based starting in 2019. So there continues to look in the methodology.

Thank you. I really do appreciate you bringing this thoughtful piece of legislation forward. It's important that we as Californians fill the gaps when our Federal Government has created them. And hopefully, in future years, we will reestablish these, these very important money saving, cost saving, community benefiting programs across The United States because I would hate to see the inefficiencies we bring forward if every single state had to fund their own such survey. That would be terribly inefficient for 50 states to duplicate this program.

So thank you for filling the gaps for us in the meantime.

Thank you. With that, I'd like to move the bill.

Thank you so much. Do we have a second? Second by Doctor Jackson. Assemblymember Stefani, we'd like to close, please.

Yes. Thank you. And I I just wanna touch on a few things. The San Francisco Marin Food Bank brought this to me under a lot of distress given what's happening in our country right now and given the number of people that has increased in terms of who they need to feed.

And they brought this to me in distress because of what I said when I opened that the Trump administration, the Federal Government, defunded the USDA's annual household food security survey and cut funding for key food and nutrition programs.

Now in questions from the dais in terms of, well, why would the Federal Government do that? If you're asking us here, the three of us here, to explain why the Federal Government is doing anything that it's doing, we cannot. I cannot explain to you why Elon Musk stood on the stage with a chainsaw and with acted like a crazy person, tried to make all these cuts through all these different departments. What did that get us?

I'm not gonna be able to explain to you what the Federal Government is doing.

But what I can explain to you is that these are incredible people who are doing incredible work, and I resent the nefarious implications that we're just going to contract out to someone who has this contract they're doing this for nefarious reasons, God forbid. God forbid they measure hunger. God forbid they find out where the gaps are.

God forbid they try to do the work that they continue to that they need to continue to do to make sure people aren't going hungry and that we're hitting everyone who is food insecure. That's what this bill is doing.

We are trying to make certain that we have enough information in place so that these incredible individuals who work at the San Francisco Marin Food Bank can do the work they need to do to make sure that people eat. That's it. There's nothing nefarious about there. Nothing nefarious about this. It is making sure we have surveys in place to find out who's food insecure and then to find out how we feed them.

That's all. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much, Summer, Stephanie, for bringing this very important measure forward and for taking the committee's amendments. As you said, in the wake of the Federal Government counseling important survey reports on food and security, California must stand in the gap and continue to fund reports that provide credible and comprehensive data on the health and health care needs of Californians. And with that, I look forward to supporting the measure here today.

Thank you.

Mister Secretary, roll call, please.

File item number five, AB1734. The motion is do pass as amended and re-referred to the committee on appropriations. [Roll call]

Thank you so much. That measure has three ayes. One no, keep the role open for additional members to add on. Thank you. Next up, we'd like to welcome Summer Ahrens.

Presenting item 14, 2766. Welcome, Assemblymember Ahrens.

Good afternoon, mister chair and members. I'm here to present my bill AB 2766, which takes significant steps to enhance the ability of our foster youth and former foster youth and students experiencing homelessness to obtain stable housing in our California colleges and universities. It requires the California community colleges prioritize housing for current and former foster youth and homeless students. Colleges and CSU campuses along with UC campuses are requested to identify foster youth and homeless students within housing applications and prominently display the priority housing benefits on their websites.

Additionally, housing deposits and fees for foster youth and homeless students must be deferred until the financial aid is dispersed. As someone who was in the foster system, I understand firsthand the struggles that many of these students face today.

Additionally, I was also homeless at as I've spoken very publicly while attending our college, our our community colleges. And, I would just ask that, we consider the lived experience of the work that we're trying to do. And, with me today is Jessica Petras, the director of education at John Burton Advocates for Youth, and Izel Casillas, a first year student at UC Davis.

Thank you so much, and welcome.

Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. My name is Jessica Petros, director of education at John Burton Advocates for Youth. For far too long, students with experience in foster care and with homelessness have faced significant barriers leading to just 1215% respectively achieving a higher education compared with 49% of their peers. While California has made meaningful progress in closing this gap, two key factors continue to drive this disparity, persistent housing instability and limited access to the college courses they need to graduate.

Nearly half of foster youth attending community college and twenty five percent enrolled in the CSUs experience homelessness.

And there is a clear connection between a lack of stable housing and failure to persist in and complete post secondary education. While the CSU system is required and the UCs are requested to provide priority housing to students with experience in foster care or with homelessness, the California community colleges are not subject to this requirement. As a result, students at community colleges who make up the majority of these populations face unequal access to stable housing even as community college housing capacity has expanded.

At institutions where priority housing does exist, students are often unaware of this benefit, particularly students who have experienced homelessness. This coupled with upfront housing deposits and fees that are required often months before a student even receives their financial aid, can block access to campus housing, and in some cases, prevent enrollment altogether for students with little or no financial support.

AB 2766 will address these challenges by increasing access to priority housing across all three systems of higher education, removing unnecessary barriers to upfront campus housing fees, and expanding priority registration eligibility for foster youth at the community colleges, ensuring students can enroll in the classes they need to succeed and achieve the California dream through post secondary education. It is for these reasons that I respectfully urge and I vote in support of AB 2766.

Thank you so much, and welcome.

Hello, everyone. Good afternoon. My name is Azelle Casillas, and I'm a first year at UC Davis majoring in environmental policy. My journey to get here wasn't always easy as I experienced homelessness as a child and entered foster care system at 15. As a foster youth, I don't have a financial safety net to fall back on when emergencies happen, unlike many of my peers.

Without stable housing, it's nearly impossible to build a future, let alone succeed in higher education. For me, accessing on campus housing at UC Davis was critical to pursuing my goals, but nobody told me that foster youth were eligible for priority housing. There was no clear information on the housing website. Luckily, I found out through a question on the application, which connected me to that support. Having a question to ident to identify eligible pop eligible population about priority housing was a game changer for me.

Securing housing changed everything. It gave me stability, peace of mind, and the ability to focus on my education. It made me feel seen and supported by my university. I don't have a car and I rely on being close to campus to get to class. Without on campus housing, just getting to school each day would be a barrier.

While I was fortunate, many students are. Not all campuses offer a clearly communicated priority housing for foster youth. Students like me are working to overcome significant challenges that we that were never our choices. Policies like priority housing and registration helped level the playing field and remove barriers so we can succeed and transform our lives through a college degree. That's why I respectfully urge an aye vote on AB 2766.

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

Good afternoon, chair and members. Ruby Arceo on behalf of Children Now in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Kate Rogers on behalf of the Student Homes Coalition, proud sponsor and support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Justin Selmak on behalf of the California Community College Chancellor's Office in support.

Thank you.

Hi. Carol Gonzalez on behalf of the Cal State Student Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Sarah Bouabibsa on behalf of the Institute for College Access and Success and Support.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Serena Bracey. I go to UC Davis, and I'm a former foster youth, and I am in support.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Jada Martin on behalf of JBE, John Burton Youth Advocates, a student at UC Davis. I am in support of a B22766.

Thank you so much.

Hello. Sasha Horowitz with the Los Angeles Unified School District in support.

Thank you.

Hey. My name is Atalia. I'm a UC Berkeley student, and I'm in strong support.

Thank you.

Hey, everyone. Vincent Ross with the University of California Student Association in strong support. Proud to be coming on as co sponsors as well. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jason Anderson on behalf of the Faculty Association for California Community Colleges in support.

Thank you.

McKenna Mustazza with NexGen California in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair Fong and members. Karina Paredes with Public Advocates in strong support.

Thank you. Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Parshan Khosravi with uAspire in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Tara George, UC Davis student, and, uAspire intern in strong support.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Better not be. Are there tweeners in the hearing room?

Colleagues, any questions or comments? Second.

We have a motion and a second. Thank you so much, colleagues. Seeing no further questions or comments, so Assembly Member Arhens would have to close, please.

Thank you so much, mister chair and members for your due consideration. I'd like to just underline what was mentioned earlier. By age 29, only 12% of foster youth, who of students who have experienced homelessness are going to be able to complete just a two year degree compared to forty nine percent of the regular student population. And we don't need to do an expensive study to know that stable housing is a direct, contributor to the success of our students, especially our foster youth who've been through enough.

And I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much, Assembly Member Ahrens, for bringing this very important measure forward and for sharing your journey from homelessness to being in foster care to now serving as a legislator and being a champion champion of these very issues. In today's economy, post secondary education is essential for long term economic security and the development of a fulfilling career path. And yet 80 while 85% of foster youth aspire to go to college, only a small fraction ever complete a degree. Youth have experienced homelessness often follow a similar trajectory.

For proper support and guidance.

However, youth with experience in foster care or homelessness can be successful college students. And I believe this bill does just that, and it please support the measure here today. Mister secretary, roll call, please.

[Roll Call]

That measure is three votes, and we'll keep the rope open for this and members out. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you.

Perfect. Next up, we'd like to welcome Asomir Bower Kehan presenting two items. First up, file number eight, Assembly bill 2212

Followed by assembly bill two five zero four. File number eight. Welcome. Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan

Perfect. Thank you, Mister chair and members. Perfect. There you are. Good afternoon, mister chair and members.

Today, I'm proud to present AB 2212, the Higher Education AI Response Act or the HEAR Survivors Act. This is an appropriate time for this bill to be heard because April is sexual assault awareness month. And I would say this week is an especially important time for us to be hearing this bill in these halls of power. AB 2212 updates the definition of sexual harassment in the post secondary education code to account for modern digital technologies.

And it requires California's higher education institutions to develop policies that address nonconsensual deep fakes, cyberstalking, cyberbullying, and other forms of tech facilitated sexual harassment.

I'm accepting the committee amendments today, which clarify the standard of consent required for the creation and distribution of digitized sexually explicit materials, require universities to provide students with a list of resources for combating text facilitated sexual harassment, and make various technical changes. I wanna thank the committee for all of their work on all of that and more. As we know, harassment back when I was in college was almost exclusively in person, and the world has changed and our universities have not kept up to date.

And this bill is really an honor to carry in part because it was brought to us by the people most affected, the individuals at our universities who wanted this protection and who believe California can do better for everyone on our campus who's experiencing online, harassment of this nature. And so with me today is America Rodriguez-Lagos, a third year undergraduate student in UCLA and a member of Survivors and Allies, the sponsor of the measure, as well as Survivors and Allies members, Selene Betancourt.

Thank you so much, and welcome.

Good afternoon, chair and committee members. My name is America Rodriguez-Lagos. I am a third year undergraduate at UCLA and a member of Survivors and Allies, a proud sponsor of AB 2212. This bill updates the education code definition of sexual harassment to include AI generated sexually explicit material. Institutions need standardized policies to address tech facilitated sexual harassment.

I'd like to share with you all a testimony from one of our members. When I was in college, I sent intimate images to someone that I was dating. Months later, I discovered that they were using those images to create content without my consent. That content is still online. I was devastated and didn't know who to turn to.

I didn't tell anyone at school because I didn't think they would believe me, although it deeply impacted my mental health. I wish that my university would have provided the information about what I could do in this situation. I wish I had known what resources were available to me. Currently, higher ed institutions lack consistent standards to prevent, investigate, and respond to these cases.

In survivors and allies survey of California college students, one in seven survivors experienced online sexual harm, and 70% never reached out to their institutions for support.

AB 2212 recognizes that sexual violence is no longer confined to physical spaces and that institutions must respond to digital and AI generated sexual harm with the same urgency. We thank assembly member Bauer- Kahan for her leadership on this issue, and we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

And Selene Betancourt, just here for technical questions. I'm an adviser and alumna of UCLA and UCSB.

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

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair, members. Adriane Silvano with the UC Student Association in strong support.

Thank you.

Kyleigh Wallace with the UC Berkeley ASUC Sexual Violence Commission, strongly in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Mars Van Arsil on behalf of the UC Berkeley ASUC Sexual Violence Commission. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Roma Kapoor. I'm co director of the ASUC Sexual Violence Commission public policy department, and I'm in strong support.

Thank you.

Becca Cramer with Kaiser Advocacy. We really appreciate the author's office working with us, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation is pleased to support.

Thank you. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in a hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments?

A motion and a second. Thank you so much. Seeing no questions or comments, Assemblymember, we'd like to close, please.

Thank you.

And I just wanna thank all of the students that traveled up here. I know time is of the essence when you're a student and you have so much on your plate, and their advocacy does mean a lot. And it's resulting in these really critical changes in the code that will help protect all of our students that are in California institutions. So thank you for being here. With that, I'll stop the ask your aye vote.

Thank you so much, Miss Bauer- Kahan, for working so closely with our committee staff on this very important issue, and I appreciate you accepting the committee's amendments. I was concerned when I learned during this committee's artificial intelligence hearing that the CSU did not have a policy to address technology, facilitate a sexual harassment, and I'm grateful that this bill rectifies this oversight.

And I look forward to supporting the measure here today and with your permission, Assembly member, I would like to be added as a co author.

I love that. Thank you.

Thank you. Mister Secretary, roll call, please.

File item number eight, AB 2212. The motion is to pass as amended and we refer to the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. Fong?

Aye.

Fong, aye. DeMaio?

Aye.

Demaio, aye. Boerner? Gonzalez? Jackson?

Aye.

Jackson, aye. Muratsuchi? Patel?

Aye.

Patel, aye. Rodriguez? Sharp- Collins? Tangipa?

That measure has four votes, and we'll keep the rope in for additional members to add on.

He didn't hear.

Thank you so much. Now we'll have Assembly member Bauer- Kahan presenting item number 13, Assembly Bill 2504. Welcome, Bauer Kahan.

Thank you very much, Mister chair. I am profoundly grateful to be able to present AB 1641 today, which amends the education code to formally include tribal colleges and universities as a recognized segment of public post secondary education in California. This recognition ensures that tribal institutions are no longer sidelined, but instead are meaningfully included in higher education planning, legislation, and coordinating bodies where critical decisions are made.

It affirms the academic excellence and cultural leadership of tribal colleges, making clear that these institutions and the communities they serve are no longer invisible within our state's education system. With me today to speak on the impact of this bill are Shawn Ragan, Executive Vice President of the California Indian Nations College, and Nathaniel Barrett, vice president of external affairs with the Associated Students at the California Indian Nations College.

Thank you so much, and welcome.

Good afternoon, chair Fong and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of AB 1641 and the need for tribal colleges and universities in California. We're proud to sponsor AB 1641 and thank you Doctor Jackson for his leadership on this bill and also Mister Ramos, Mister Gonzales, and Mister Wallace for their support as well. California Indian Nations College is an accredited public two year associate degree granting tribal college, chartered by the 29 Palms Band of Mission Indians.

We're located in Southern California, but we have students from throughout the state, both native and non native.

American Indian students face numerous challenges in higher education, historical, cultural but they are resilient. And with their with and with the proper support, they accomplish their goals and help make their communities better. Tribal colleges or universities or TCU's are a vital part of that process. Students who started at TCU are four times more likely to earn their bachelor's degree. California is home to one fifth of all federally recognized tribes and over 1,400,000 people who identify as American Indian or Alaska native.

There is a need for TCU's in California, but the current education code definitions do not recognize TCU's. We're not a UC, a CSU, or a CCC. And as a public institution, we do not we're not part of the independent institutions of higher education. So as it stands now, TCU's are the invisible institutions of higher education in California. AB 1641 revenues that.

From our point of view, AB 1641 does not create a new segment of higher education, but rather recognizes and codifies one that already exists in but rather recognizes and codifies one that already exists in the state. We are here. Our students are here. TCU's and TCU students are not currently seen. We're not part of the discussions around higher education.

TCU's and TCU students often do not have that voice, and their voice is important. We thank you for allowing us to speak today and for giving us a voice here in this committee. Turn it over to one of our students, Nate Barrett, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 1641.

Thank Hello.

My name is Nathaniel Barrett. I'm an enrolled member of the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians and I'm also a student here at, CINC, where I serve as the current student body of VP External Affairs. Like many indigenous students, I walk two worlds, one world filled with traditions and cultural values, another one with Western systems and practices. I have firsthand experience of what it is like to see my community go overlooked and unseen. TCU connects excuse me-

Like many indigenous students, I walk two worlds, one filled with traditions and cultural values, another with Western systems and practices. I have firsthand experience of what it's like to see my community go overlooked and unseen. TCU connects those two worlds as a TCU CIENC as informed because it gives opportunity for underserved students to be recognized and acknowledged.

This college is rebuilding in the relationship between natives and the education for a lot of us with the history of boarding schools and western education that sought to strip our identity.

Our relationship with education came before we were even born. Because of colleges like CINC, I can overcome systematic barriers where I can feel supported and recognized to pursue my degree. Also, my dream is of being a travel lobbyist. CINC is consistently evolving and opening doors for medic students like myself to speak at tables where that we lack representation to address what we need. With AB 1641, it helps give TCU's the opportunities and acknowledgment that is needed.

I wanna thank you, chair and members, for your time, and please help us be seen and vote aye on 1641.

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

Hello. My name is Lillian Aleniz. I am a second year student at California Indian Nations College, and I support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, chair members. Chris Morales on behalf of the CSU office of the chancellor in support. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon. Jessica Dong at the University of California, also in support. Apologies. We weren't able to get our letter in on time.