Assembly Standing Committee on Higher Education

Good afternoon. The Assembly Higher Education Committee is now called to order. Welcome to the third, policy hearing of the Assembly Higher Education Committee in 2026. This hearing is the second of several hearings for 2026 measures.

Whether you're here in person or watching virtually, I'm glad that you have joined us. Please note that Assembly Member Murasuchi has been excused from today's hearing. Assembly Member Jackie Irwin will be the replacement for Assembly Member Murasuchi for today's hearing.

And when she's back, we'll give her a warm welcome. Welcome back to the committee, Assembly Member Irwin. Additionally, please note that Assembly Member Celeste Rodriguez is out on maternity leave. Congratulations again to Assembly Member Rodriguez and her family.

Assembly Member Steve Bennett will be the replacement for Assembly Member Celeste Rodriguez for today's hearing, and we'll give them a warm welcome when he arrives. Additionally, I'm pleased to welcome Michael Erkey, who's pinch hitting for our committee secretary today.

Thank you so much, Mr. Erkey, and welcome to the committee. I will now go over some key elements of the structure of today's hearing. As we proceed with the witnesses and public comment,

I 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 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 orderly 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 as permitted by the Chair. Public comment must relate to the subject or bills being discussed today.

No engagement in conflict and conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes orderly conduct at this hearing. Please be aware that violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement actions.

Additionally, please note that while this hearing will not have phone testimony, we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the committee's website at www.ahed.assembly.ca.gov. Those will be taken up and sign in order.

However, committee members typically will present their bills after non committee members. Authors, you can sign in at the sergeant's desk in Room 126.

Further, please note that the guideline for bills heard in this committee is to allow for a testimony from two lead witnesses in support and two lead witnesses in opposition to speak for no more than two minutes each.

Stakeholder groups and entities that are neither in support nor in opposition will be allowed to give testimony for no more than two minutes when they call for tweeters. The measure has more than two entities in the Tweener category. Only two will be allowed to speak for two minutes each.

For Members of the committee, Members, since our hearings are public and some travel far to be here, in respect of them and the author, please allow the author to complete their opening remarks regarding the bill before making a motion so that the public has an idea what the bill is about.

If a motion is made during the author's opening remarks, I'll simply state that the motion will be recognized at the appropriate time. Additionally, Members, you would like to respond to a roll call, ask a question, and provide a comment, please be sure to activate your microphone and speak into your mic.

For authors of bills up today, authors, each member presenting today will provide an opening statement and a closing statement. As previously stated, your two lead witnesses will each have two minutes to provide testimony, and we'll take up the consent calendar when we have a quorum.

And with that, like to welcome mister Alvarez presenting item number 14, Assembly Bill 2660. Welcome, Assembly Member Alvarez.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, committee Members, and staff. Appreciate the opportunity to come before you to present Assembly Bill 2660 to codify Cal Bridge and in Lasset programs. I wanna thank the committee staff for the analysis and the work preparing for today's hearing.

AB 2660 is a critical first step towards strengthening and diversifying California's STEM workforce by building a coordinated pipeline that starts in high school to faculty industry leadership positions.

Specifically, the bill would codify two existing STEM programs, Cal Bridge and Enlace, to help students from underrepresented communities to achieve a PhD and join the state science and technology industries as leaders in their fields.

California science and technology industries are main economic drivers of our state's economy as you all well know. However, due to a lack of diversity in these industries, the state unit underutilizes the talent that we have. The lack of diversity is evident in the workforce statistics.

Two that I wanna share with you today are only 15% of the 1,500,000 tech workers in our economy are black or Latino, and only 26% of these workers are women.

Despite each group, both Latinos and blacks, a minority group, and women representing half of the state's population. A key factor contributing to this underrepresentation is a lack of faculty who reflect the students' backgrounds,

which leads many students from these groups to exit stem educational pathways. The issue is further reflected in faculty demographics where only 4.5% of UC stem faculty and 9.2% of CSU stem faculty are Latino, black, or native American.

To address these gaps, the Calbridge program creates a structured pathway for students from the California community colleges and California State universities to pursue stem PhDs and careers in academia and in the tech industry.

Through five sub programs, Cal Bridge provides mentorship, financial aid, research opportunities, and professional development, supporting them from undergraduate studies through post doctoral stages.

In addition to that, the Enlasset program operates independently, but complements these these efforts by supporting stem pathways at the high school level for an through the undergraduate education system.

Together, these initiatives would create a pipeline model that would increase participation in STEM PhD programs by historically underrepresented groups. In fact, they have been so successful.

They've been fund these programs have been now out partying for a few years. And what this bill does is it codifies these programs so they can continue to be in existence as part of the work that our higher education segments do.

Unfortunately, our lead witness, Dr. Alex Randolph, fell ill and could not make it today.

But in addition to him, there are some letters of support that have been submitted to the committee, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Assembly Member Alvarez. Are there witnesses of support in the hearing room?

Thank you. Kathy Van Austin representing the American Association of University Women. I'm way too short for this thing. Of California in support, if I may, since his lead witness isn't here.

We one of our core tenants is making sure that there's equal access to a quality public education for all students. In particular, with young girls, but also boys, we would like to make sure that there are rich programs that they can access,

in order to achieve those those higher levels of education. And we are, greatly pleased to support this bill and and feel it's very important, especially during a time when diversity is being challenged.

And so we do we think that these types of programs are really critically important to move forward, and we certainly request your Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Jalen Woodard on behalf of the Alameda County Office of Education in strong support.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeters in the hearing room? Thank you. Assembly Member would like to close, please.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And again, thank you to those who spoke. We are trying to address an issue of underrepresentation by several of our populations in California in the STEM fields. These programs have proven to be successful.

The legislature has supported these programs in the past, and we think it's appropriate that, we, solidify these programs on an ongoing forward basis. That's why we have this bill before us today, and, appreciate, the support when the appropriate time comes. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Assembly Alvarez, for bringing this, important measure forward. I believe that your bill strengthens California stem workforce by creating a coordinated intersegmental pipeline from high school through post doctoral training,

aligning our community colleges or CSU and University of California to unified pathway and investing in mentorship, research, and financial support. This bill expands opportunity, increases diversity in STEM fields,

and helps ensure that California remains competitive in innovation and technology. And with that, I look forward to supporting this measure at the appropriate time. So thank you.

Thank you so much. Thank you. Next up, we'd like to welcome Assemblymember Mark Berman presenting item number eight, Assembly Bill two one two one. Welcome, Assembly Member Berman.

Thank you, Chair Fong and colleagues. I wanna start by thanking the committee staff for their work on this bill, and I will be accepting the committee's amendments described in the analysis.

AB 2121 responds to the Trump administration's systematic dismantling of federal student success programs by removing barriers that prevent community colleges from backfilling this loss in federal funding.

Specifically, this bill would provide local control to community colleges by allowing them to backfill the federal cuts to minority serving institutions and the trio programs.

By temporarily excluding those backfill dollars from the 50% law that requires community college districts to spend at least half of their unrestricted funding on classroom instructors, community colleges can preserve these federally defunded student support programs.

Importantly, AB 2121 includes transparency requirements and annual district certifications with a sunset after five years or upon restoration of federal funding, whichever occurs first. This bill maintains safeguards for faculty, such as not reducing spending on classroom instructors.

Further, this bill does not request new state funding or create any state backfill requirement. Finally, in order to prevent the immediate disruption of essential student support services, this bill would take effect immediately.

I respectfully ask for your Aye vote, and I am joined today by chancellor Bradley Davis of the West Valley Mission Community College District and Leilani Huerta Hernandez, President of the Associated Students of West Valley College.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee Members. My name is Bradley Davis. I serve as the chancellor of the West Valley Mission Community College District in Silicon Valley, and we are the sponsor of AB 2121.

Our two colleges are federally designated minority suit serving institutions with robust trio student support services programs, and they are directly in the crosshairs of what has been a full scale federal attack on student support programs at colleges across this country.

These programs are the backbone of how we serve our most vulnerable students.

Trio provides the one on one advising, tutoring, and mentoring that keep first generation and low income students enrolled and progressing. A federal evaluation found trio participants at two year colleges were 48% more likely to earn a credential or transfer.

MSI grants like HSI and Anapisi go even further. They fund the institutional infrastructure that benefits every student on campus, learning centers, transfer pipelines, early alert systems, dedicated counselors, STEM tutoring labs.

When those grants disappear, the capacity they built starts to erode for all students, not just the students those programs were named for.

In response, our district and several others across California have decided these programs are simply too essential to let go, and we're prepared to find the dollars within our existing budgets to keep them running.

But the moment any district replaces those dollars from a lost federal grant into its local budget, they count against it under the 50% law, even though not a single dollar of instructional spending has changed.

A well intentioned state law unintentionally prevents community colleges from stepping up to protect their most vulnerable students.

This is why the temporary and narrow exclusion in AB 2121 is needed to respond to this moment. I respectfully ask for your Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Thank you, Chair and Members. My name is Lilani Huerta Hernandez, and I am here today because this bill is not just policy to me. It's personal. West Valley College is a Hispanic serving institution, but it's but that's more than just a designation.

It reflects who we are. The majority of our students are Latino, Asian American, Pacific Islander, and students of color. Many of us come from immigrant families and are first generation. Navigating systems that were never built with us in mind.

The federal programs at stake exist for students like us. They exist because someone recognized that getting into college is not the same thing as getting through it.

I am a proud first generation Latina student. When I started college, I didn't know how to register for classes or how to apply for financial aid. I was doing it all on my own, and at one point, I almost didn't make it.

I came very close to dropping out my first year, and without the support of the programs like these, I would not be here today.

I work with students who need support every day, who balance school, work, and families, students who want to succeed but cannot do it alone.

When the Federal Government walked away from us, our district stepped up. They committed their own dollars to make sure students like me would not lose the people and the services that help us continue.

All we are asking is that the state not stand in the way of that commitment. This bill is not just a number, and it's not just a piece of paper. It's support for students who have been told their whole lives that they cannot make it.

Your decision today is an investment in us, in our futures, in our ability to walk across that stage at graduation with pride and say we made it. And when we do, it will be because of people like you who believed in us enough to invest in our success.

On behalf of the students of West Valley College, I respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.

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

Cristal Padilla, on behalf of the Chief Executive Officers of the California Community Colleges, in support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Mark Mac Donald on behalf of the San Bernardino, Los Rios, State Center, Kern, Southwestern, Antelope Valley, Victor Valley, and, Lake Tahoe Community College Districts in support. Thanks.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jordan Reichs, Director of Government Community Relations for Mount San Jacinto College, MSJC, rise in support.

Thank you.

Hi. I'm Bibi Hamida Hashman from UC Davis, and I work with the student association, and we support this bill. Thank you.

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

Tiffany Mok, on behalf of CFT, I just wanted to note that our oppose and last amended position is to the bill in print. We wanna thank the committee and the author for the wonderful amendments that we believe will go far to address some of our

concerns, hopefully, all of them. We wanna thank the student testimony for illustrating really why we're all in this and why we really think it's important.

We wanted to make sure that the bill doesn't impact the instruction students receive once they're in the school. Right?

Because even if they register and they get there, we have to make sure they have classes that are robustly staffed. So thank you so much, and we appreciate your time and consideration in amendments.

Thank you.

Jason Henderson on behalf of the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges. While we appreciate the author's intent to address federal funding instability, even as amended,

AB 2121 allows districts to exclude unrestricted local funds from the calculation required under the 50% law. The 50% law is one of the state's most important safeguards to ensure that community colleges funding is directed toward instruction in students.

Although this measure provides a temporary provision, creating a carve out set set sets a concerning precedent that risks weakening the standard of the 50% law. Additionally, recent federal budget actions have reduced some of the immediate

uncertainty around these programs, calling into question the need for this proposal. We believe there are more appropriate ways to address federal funding disruptions. For these reasons, FACCC must respectfully oppose. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there tweeters in the hearing room?

Anna Matthews on behalf of the California Community College Independence Union. We are a watch position. We 100% believe in the principle of this bill. We just wanna ensure that there is collaboration between,

AB 2121 and the regulations going through, the community college systems process at this time, and we really appreciate this latest round of amendments and the author's office's collaboration, with us on that. Thank you.

Thank you.

Tony Triero on behalf of the California Teachers Association. We want to align our remarks with this California better, Federation of Teachers.

We appreciate the work that's been done, and we really want to acknowledge the outreach that the author's office did during the interim before the bill was introduced.

So we appreciate that work and hope that we can all come together on a bill at some point. Thank you.

Thank you. Colleagues, any questions or comments? Assuming we'd like to close, please.

I just appreciate the testimony. Appreciate the engagement from all the different stakeholders. You know? Yeah. As as the last one mentioned, we have been doing as proactive of outreach as possible to everybody who might be impacted,

and we'll absolutely keep those conversations going to see what we can do to to address as many concerns as possible.

I expect to ask for a vote once you have a quorum.

Thank you so much, Assmblyman Berman, for bringing up this timely and very important measure, and I appreciate you accepting the committee's amendments.

And I agree with you that this is a measure confined approach and is befitting to address the cuts from the Federal Government while also maintaining the promises that we have made to faculty to maintain salaries and full time positions.

And when we have quorum, we look forward to supporting measures today. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr.Berman. Next up, we'd like to welcome Assembler Mark Gonzales presenting item number six, Assembly Bill 1920. Welcome, Assembly Member Gonzales. Oh, hello.

You. Hello. Ready. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Thank you for the opportunity to present to you today.

I would like to also thank the chair and the committee staff for working with my office on this bill. AB 1920 addresses a small but significant, issue in the California College Promise program. A bill that Mr.Fong and I have known well way too well.

I've been working on this since, 2014 when I was district director for my predecessor, Mr. Santiago. Under current law, students receiving the promise fee waiver can lose their eligibility if they earn a certificate even when that certificate is part of their pathway to an associate's degree.

That means that a student can do everything right, and they can stay on the track, get straight a's, and complete meaningful milestones, and they'll be penalized simply for their success. Many of our community college programs are intentionally designated with stackable credentials,

not as the end goal, but as steps along the way. For example, our future firefighters, veterinarians, EMTs, mechanics, IT workers, early care providers, teachers, and even film students can earn a certificate as they achieve their AA degree.

But right now, those steps can knock students out of the program entirely and out of this opportunity. This was not the intent of the initial legislation.

This bill is a technical fix, but one with real consequences for student success. AB 1920 simply clarifies that if a certificate is earned as part of the journey towards an associate degree, it does not make a student ineligible for that community college promise.

The promise program for many students is the difference between finishing and dropping out. This bill is fundamentally about equity. The California College Promise primarily serves first time college students, disproportionately Latino, low income, and first generation students.

We should not be creating bureaucratic barriers that penalize them for their accomplishments, and AB 1920 is a savior to that. It removes that barrier. It supports completion, protects student momentum, and aligns our policies with how community colleges operate today.

Here with me this afternoon to testify in support is Dr. Stacy Shears, the Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs for California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office, and just to answer any technical questions is Dustin excuse me, Justin Selnick.

I was making sure I didn't mess up your last name. Senior legislative analyst for the California Community College Chancellor's Office. Take it away.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Thank you, Chair Fong and Members of the assembly higher ed committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Stacy Shears, and I'm here on behalf of the Chancellor's Office for the California Community Colleges. We're in strong support of AB 1920.

AB 1920 provides a narrow but important clarification to the California College Promise program. Under current law, students who have previously earned a degree or certificate may be deemed ineligible for a promise fee waiver.

In practice, this has created confusion where students earn certificates during enrollment that are intentionally embedded within a course sequence leading to an associate degree.

Across our system, colleges have designed programs around stackable credentials, pathways that allow students to build skills, earn meaningful milestones, and stay on track for degree completion. These certificates are not endpoints.

They're the broader they're part of a broader educational journey aligned with workforce needs and student success.

Without clarification, students risk being penalized for making progress. A student who earns a certificate on the way to an associate degree could unintentionally jeopardize their financial aid, and colleges may hesitate to award these credentials despite their value.

AB 1920 resolves this issue by making clear that a certificate awarded as part of a course sequence leading to an associate degree does not make a student ineligible for the promise fee waiver.

This ensures the program operates as intended, supporting students through completion, not discouraging their their progress. Importantly, the bill does not expand its, eligibility or increase costs.

It simply aligns statutory language with how programs are designed and how students move through them. For these reasons, the chancellor's office respectfully urges your Aye vote on AB 1920. Thank you.

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

Crystal Padilla with the Chief Executive Officers of the California Community Colleges in support.

Thank you.

Tiffany Mok with CFT, a Union of Educators and Classified Professionals, thank you so much to the author and the testifying witness to illustrate this important measure. I apologize we didn't get a letter in, so it is in process.

We'll take that.

Jack Werson on behalf of Citrus College in support.

Thank you.

Jason Henderson on behalf of the Faculty Association for California Community Colleges in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Andrea Wittig, Director for the Office of the President, Cerritos College in support.

Thank you. Are there witnesses in opposition in there? Oh, sorry. What did you? Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room?

Are there twinners in the hearing room?

Alicia Lopez, San Joaquin Delta College. We came with a bunch of students here in support. Thank you.

Oh, thank you. Take it. Thank you. Colleagues, any questions or comments? Assembly Member Gonzales, we got it to close, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As a product of community college, myself, at one point even going to three at the same time. When a student hits a milestone, we should not be pulling the rug out from under them.

Earning a certificate, should open doors, not close them. AB 1920, make sure that progress is recognized and rewarded, not punished. With that, I respectfully ask for your Aye vote. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much, Assembly Member Gonzalez, for bringing this measure forward, and thank you for your advocacy with the community colleges for many years when you're a district director to Assembly Member Santiago and when I was a trustee at the LA Community Colleges,

we partner in many events, including events at Trade Tech, East LA College at LACCD. And I believe that this bill makes an important clarification to California's college promise program by ensuring that students are not penalized for earning certificates along the path to an

associate degree as community colleges increasingly use stackable credential models. This bill aligns financial aid policy with student success pathways, helping more students persist and complete their degrees without expanding the program beyond its original intent.

And with that, I look forward to supporting and measure today. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Next up, we'd like to welcome Assemblyman Salace presenting item number two, Assembly Bill 1636. Welcome, Assembly Member Salace.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, to committee Members. Happy to be here today. I'm here joined by our awesome President and Superintendent, Dr. Jose Fierro, my Tokayo from Cerritos College. And, of course, our student, from Cerritos College, who happens to be from our my district in Southgate.

So very proud to have him here, both me. With that, I'm grateful to the Chair and committee staff for to work engagement with my office. I will gladly accept the committees amendments. And again, thank you the committee for working with my team.

AB 1636 would allow Cerritos Community College district to enter into data sharing agreements with local k 12 education agencies for the purpose of creating a ready to enroll student record for the California Community College System.

The goal of this program is to remove, off run, and administrative barrier between high school students and community college enrollment.

Importantly, this bill does not mandate enrollment. It simply, utilizes data sharing agreements to allow students who consent to their college journey with an active record to easily enroll. It is also will allow them to enroll at Community College, not just Cerritos College.

All data sharing is voluntary, limited, and protected. It will require explicit consent and compliance with the state and federal privacy laws. The amendments will be accepting, will be helped to ensure Cerritos College works collaboratively with the California Community College Chancellor's

Office on a approved method utilized in this pilot. AB 1636 builds off a quote college bound mini pilot Cerritos College conducted with Bellflower High School in my district and where I was actually born.

At this core, the bill is about provide, improving access and outcomes, by removing an administrative hurdle, that the students can focus on less applications and more on financial aid, advising, and the support service that are current to our student success.

And when I give our students that awesome experience to get excited about attending our community college throughout California. With me today to testify and support and to answer questions again is Dr. Fierro and Gustavo Sanchez. Doctor Fierro?

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, members and staff. Thank you, Assemblymember Solache, for working with us in this bill. My name is Jose Fierro, president superintendent of Cerritos College, and I'm in support of this bill.

For too many students, the journey from high school to college is a maze of paperwork and deadlines. While our systems are busy collecting data, students are struggling with completing lengthy and at time confusing applications,

including assistance in applying for financial aid. 1636 does not always not only create access, but it does not do away with existing data collection system, and it doesn't mandate students to enroll in college or at Cerritos College.

especially those that are the first in their families to attend college. This is a barrier that together we can eliminate. In 2024, we led that college bound partnership between Cerritos College and Bellflower High School.

By embedding the college onboarding process into senior year classes, we saw an increase on admission rates, an increase in financial aid rate completion, and an increase on enrollment rates of over ninety six percent.

AB 1636 says and authorizes Cerritos College to create a ready to enroll student record for every graduating high school senior in our geographical area. By creating a student record in partnership with our K12 districts, it provides high school seniors the immediate support they need to onboard,

They can to they can enroll at any college. He ensures higher education is within reach should they choose to attend.

AB 1636 is a common sense approach. It makes college a natural step, not a complicated one. We have the responsibility to remove barriers to education, and with your help, we will be one step closer to achieving that goal. Thank you for your support. Gustavo.

Thank you. Welcome.

When I applied to Cerritos College through the community college application, the process was long and confusing. As a first generation student, I didn't have anyone at home who could help guide me through the application process or the financial aid process,

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Fong and committee Members. My name is Gustavo Sanchez, the student trustee at Cerritos College, and I also serve as the region eight regional affairs director for the student senate for California community colleges.

and it made the transition from high school to college extremely overwhelming.

Many students, including myself, are unaware or late to join programs that are crucial to our success, such as the scholars honor honors program, EOPS, CARE, Umoja, and Puente. AB 1636 would help by giving high school students a head start with an active college record.

So they can access counseling, financial aid support, and these vital pro support programs before they graduate. Connecting students to support early helps them start college on the right foot and increase the chances that they will enroll, persist, and complete their goals.

I respectfully ask for your support of AB1636. Thank you.

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

Hello. Rachel Chacon on behalf of the Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District in support.

Thank you. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments? Seeing none. Assembly Member would like to close, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, again, thank you to Dr. Figero and our trustee, a student, for being here today with me. And again, thank you to the committee and staff members for, your time and consideration. Again, as, someone that loves higher education and then wants to,

and make sure that access is, available to all our students, what better opportunity than to, explore this pilot program for our high school students to go to community college?

And again, not working with the with the system and again the committee amendments, we're gonna look forward to move this forward and get it approved and ultimately get it signed by the governor.

Thank you so much, so much, Solache, for your leadership and efforts on this and for accepting the committee's amendments and for working with our committee staff to resolve the concerns as outlined in the analysis.

The chancellor's office has made a valiant effort to reduce the number of data points in the community college application, and yet students still find the application arduous.

I commend the Cerritos Community College District for being innovative and spearheading a pilot program to find a seamless pathway for students to transition from high school to enrollment at our community colleges.

And with the appropriate time, we look forward to supporting the measure today. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we'd like to welcome Assembly Member Krell presenting item number four, Assembly Bill 1845. Welcome, Assembly Member Krell.

Thank you so much. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

I'm excited to tell you about Assembly Bill 1845 today. I have two witnesses with me today. Megan Escoto with the Survivor Coalition and Dr. Lianne Jurada from San Diego State University. Wanna say first that I'm so grateful to both of these witnesses for their, lifelong commitment to this issue, for their work on this bill, and for their work on this issue. I also really appreciate the committee's work on this bill.

Thank you so much. We accept the amendments and really appreciate, the committee's work, working with us to make sure this bill is as effective as possible. You're probably all familiar with, a title nine, which ensures, that sex discrimination doesn't happen on our college campuses. But there is no law that ensures that students and faculty are trained about human trafficking. So what this bill does is it inserts human trafficking training into the title nine framework.

This is something that's really important. You might be thinking, does human trafficking really happen on college campuses? Are college students really vulnerable to this? The answer is yes. I remember prosecuting a case actually where one of the victims, her financial aid check was stolen by her trafficker which led to her being trafficked.

The reason why college students are sometimes vulnerable to trafficking is because they face financial hardship, financial insecurity, housing insecurity. They might be in a new and unfamiliar place. They might lack familial support. So all the all the reasons that people are vulnerable to trafficking to trafficking, you know, in in the world exist within the college campus framework. So this bill is really about making students safe, helping students be able to thrive and get their education.

Traffickers are manipulative. They prey on on victims and they look for vulnerabilities, and it's not super hard for them to do that within the context of college campus, online recruitment, college parties, all of it. So, just to be clear about what Assembly Bill 1845 does, it strength it strengthens the title nine framework by updating sexual harassment training for employees to include human trafficking and require employees to receive this training annually.

It ensures that campus officials include human trafficking related crimes when they're compiling records of crimes on campus. It's requires them to construct written agreements with law enforcement that clarifies trafficking investigation responsibilities.

And then it adopts policies concerning incidents of human trafficking, a statement that trafficking is a state and federal crime, and then physical signs that may indicate human trafficking, which will help people who are in positions to actually identify and intercede and prevent human trafficking to do so. So with me today to testify is Megan Escoto with the Survivor Coalition and Dr. Jurata from San Diego State University.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

I'll go I'll go first.

Okay. Good afternoon. My name is Megan Escoto, and I am a survivor of labor trafficking. In 2008, I left home at 18 years old without much knowledge of the real world in the middle of a recession, and I was in my first semester at American River College. The term human trafficking was not in my vocabulary.

Words like grooming, love bombing, and exploitation were not in my vocabulary. So when my trafficker found me, I was none the wiser. When I started opening up to this man about my past as a former foster youth, how I didn't get along with my parents and I was living on my own, I did not know that I was really just telling him I was the perfect victim.

He was already starting to exploit me and coerce me into unlawful activity, and I was showing up to campus exhausted and sometimes under the influence. After just one semester, he pulled me away from school with false promises, telling me that I would make so much money where I was going, I could just go to school up there.

That never happened. He took me two hours away from Sacramento with no car, no phone, no service, no family, and labor trafficked me for five and a half years on a cannabis farm. I didn't understand what happened to me until I was 28 years old, sitting in a criminal justice course, and finally had language for what I lived through. This legislation would have meant that trained employees could have recognized the science.

Resources that reach students at the moment they're most vulnerable because they are newly independent, still finding their footing, and hungry for someone to believe them.

Our college campuses have no requirement right now to prepare anyone to recognize what this looks like. This legislation changes that with education for the employees plus signage on campus for students. Had I entered adulthood and college with knowledge of what trafficking looked like or seen with that sign, this may have never happened. I am asking you to pass this bill not just for survivors like me, but for the students that are sitting in classrooms right now who don't know yet that they're being groomed.

Education is what traffickers take away from us, and this bill will make sure that it's also what stops them.

Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome.

Hi. I'm doctor Liana Rada, a San Diego State and UC San Diego professor testifying in support of AB 1845. So we completed a study across 12 college campuses in San Diego and Imperial Valley to explore the nature and extent of human trafficking and sexual exploitation occurring at US colleges. Some students surveyed also previously attended 35 other universities across California and Arizona.

So of 971 students who completed the surveys from seeing flyers posted on their campuses related to sexual exploitation research, nearly one in five or eighteen percent said they were trafficked as a college student, defined as force, coercion, or fraud into selling sex. Trafficked students were more likely to be BIPOC, LGBTQ, foster youth, fraternity, sorority members, to use substances, transport and sell drugs, and exchange sex for grades and schoolwork. They were more likely to exchange sex as a college student across the US Mexico border.

Exchanges led to forty three percent experiencing psychological harm, thirty percent physical abuse, twenty five percent sexual violence, sixteen percent being told or asked to recruit others to sell sex. Shame, stigma, and fear stops them from seeking campus services, especially academic counseling, but also police, mental health, health, food, and housing services.

Yet, they were twice as likely to require a sexually transmitted infection and to wonder how they would afford the their next meal. A college student was lured into an online dating service, seeking.com, falsely hearing that she could make money without having sex just by meeting older men who would act like mentors for career advice. She only saw positive things about it on social media. A man coerced her into his house, gave her alcohol and drugs, stopped her at her dorm, and she never told anyone.

I support this bill because training campus personnel could stop these Epstein like cases from happening in the first place.

Thank you, higher education committee, Assemblymember Krell, and others sponsoring this bill.

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

Kathy Van Osten on behalf of the American Association of University Women California, cosponsor and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Vanessa Russell, founder and executive director of Love Never Fails and strong support.

Thank you.

Toria Foley, proud cosponsor with 3Strands Global and Community Against Sexual Harm in strong support.

Thank you.

Emerald Baverby with California Survivors Coalition and Set Free Medicine Family Therapy in strong support.

Thank you.

Heidi Gurkier with Love and Other Fails and strong support, and then also with the Survivor Coalition.

Thank you.

Brianna Price with 3Strands Global, the coauthor of the bill and strong support, also on behalf of the California Survivors Coalition.

Thank you.

Sienna Hornback, community member and mother of two community college graduates, in strong support.

Thank you. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments? Assemblymember Krell, we'd like to close, please.

Thanks so much. Just wanna thank the coalition for showing up today and expressing their support. Also, thank Meghan for sharing her personal story. Really appreciate all the collaboration that went into this bill. Clearly, this is an issue.

You heard a little bit about its prevalence, and hopefully, you have a a handout about that. But this bill is an opportunity to prevent that, to prevent human trafficking on college campuses, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much, Assemblymember Krell, for accepting the committee's amendments and for continue to be a staunch advocate and for your leadership in preventing incidents of human trafficking. And thank you to all our, testimony here as well from the witnesses. This measure is a reasonable approach to fill some of the reporting gaps, existing law that may preventing institutions from reporting incidents of human trafficking to law enforcement. Thank you again to Assemblymember Krell.

You're working with our committee staff, and I look forward to supporting this measure today when we have quorum. Thank you.

Next up, we'd like to welcome Assemblymember Pellerin, presenting two items.

Yes.

First item we'll be presenting is item number three, Assembly Bill 1784.

1784. Let's start with that. Yes.

We'll start with that.

Thank you.

Welcome.

'Kay. How are you? You should get a picture. Can you get a picture?

Yes.

We go way back.

Alright. Here we go. Got it.

You know I'm a dork. Okay. Alright. Thank you, mister chair members. I would first like to accept the committee's amendments and thank committee staff for, her hard work.

Higher education is one of the most powerful factors for upward economic and social mobility, and California has long been a leader in ensuring educational equity for our students. Both title nine and the California Sex Equity and Education Act provide procedures for how a campus is to provide academic and structural accommodations for pregnant or pregnancy impacted students in order to preserve their right to equal access to their chosen educational program.

Although California's existing sex equity and education act extends numerous protections to pregnancy impacted graduate students and their partners, it does not extend those protections to undergraduate students. In 2021, the US Department of Education Office of Civil Rights found that a California community college had likely violated title nine by not allowing a student to make up a quiz she missed while she was giving birth.

This is not the only instance in recent years where Californian institutions have fallen short of the expectations of title nine as evidenced by numerous OCR complaints.

For a state that has sent so much for reproductive care, this is just not acceptable. AB 1784 prohibits any post secondary educational institution from discriminating against the student or applicant based on the student's current potential or past pregnancy or pregnancy related conditions. Furthermore, in order to ensure that pregnancy impacted students maintain access to their educational program, AB 1784 prohibits an institution of higher education from requiring a student to take a leave of absence or withdraw due to pregnancy.

According to federal data, there are 300,000 undergraduates who are student parents in California. Under California law, a birth parent is only guaranteed a leave of absence and a return in good academic standing because of the birth of their child if they are a graduate student.

So partners who are not the birth parent are also not guaranteed these protections if they are not a graduate student. So state law currently does not require that undergraduates be provided with these protections and AB 1784 closes this loophole and extends these protections to all students. These additional protections come at a crucial time for pregnant and parenting students given the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the constitutional right to abortion and ongoing attacks to the constitutional right to birth control.

This is a straightforward bill with support from reproductive justice and religious groups alike. And with me to testify in support are Cathy Van Austin on behalf of the American Association of University Women and Martin Radosevich. Is that close? On behalf of Reproductive Freedom for All California.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Thank you. Kathy Van Austin, American AAUW of California. Let's just keep it easy. Definitely appreciate Assemblymember Paloren's leadership on this as you also had a bill last year that we supported that extended some of these some some of these privileges. California has done a pretty good job about addressing the needs of graduate students experiencing pregnancy or pregnancy pregnancy related conditions, undergraduates, we've got a little catching up to do here.

It is time to course correct and ensure that their student's pregnancy, their family building does not come at the cost of their education or their economic security in the future. I do wanna note that with the Biden administration, they had updated their rules, which would have provided more more security and more benefits for pregnant students. However, the current administration did roll back those benefits And so we're back to the 2020 rules that were in place.

Instructors and professors do have some latitude in terms of negotiating what they consider reasonable accommodations for their for their students in their classrooms, but that guidance is not consistent. What counts as reasonable?

What is required for pregnant and parenting students? If we have that in statute, it will offer that consistency throughout the state. There's no second guessing. There's no going from professor to professor and having different roles even at the same school. So we do think that this bill will provide that consistency, and we must ensure that these students do not face bias, whether they're pregnant or have a partner who is pregnant, whether they're married or unmarried.

This bill seeks to protect the needs of the pregnant or parenting student and, most importantly, their infant. So we appreciate the bill. We're very happy to support it and encourage your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Martin Radosevich with Lighthouse Public Affairs representing Reproductive Freedom for All California, formerly NARAL Pro Choice America. We are one of the nation's leading reproductive rights advocacy organizations, and we're proud to express our strong support for this bill. Reproductive freedom extends to the classroom, the campus, and every space where people are building their futures. When a student is forced to choose between their education and their pregnancy, we don't consider that a free choice.

We consider it a failure of failure of our system to support them. This bill is especially important right now as as the assembly member brought up that at the federal level with title nine protections for pregnant students are under attack. California must play a leadership role, and this bill does that. Under AB 1784, no student can be pushed out of the class, forced to withdraw, or penalized academically simply because they are pregnant.

Institutions will be required to designate a coordinator, inform students of their rights, and provide accommodations tailored to individual needs. We consider this a common sense approach, and for these reasons, we support this bill. Thank you.

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

Molly Sheehan with the California Catholic Conference in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Kalo Hara, senior attorney with Equal Rights Advocates, also in support.

Thank you.

Aaron Azevedo, UC Davis student, 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? Mister Gonzales.

Thank you to the author for it's common sense. Right? Someone trips, falls, goes to the hospital, let's, you know, let's figure that that out and so they can get it, you know, a pass on their test and Do it some other time. When it comes to pregnancy, common sense. Like, we come on.

We we should be doing that in a forty minutes. So that's I'm not sure why we have to present a bill like this sometimes. But unfortunately, it's needed because we see these gaps, and I appreciate the author doing that To try and figure out this gap. I do have a question on a statement that was just made, and I just want some clarity. Reproductive freedom organization?

I'm sorry.

Reproductive freedom for all California.

You stated that, the title nine is being attacked by the Federal Government with respect to pregnancies. Can you can you elaborate on that? Because I don't know where that that's at, and I'd like to get your thoughts.

I can get back to you on that with the specifics. Okay.

Oh, thank you.

So the title line federal regs, they they were some regs put in place in 2020. In 2024, the Biden administration had broadened those regs to provide guidelines that provided some of afforded some of these steps for pregnant and parenting students. Under the current administration, those guidelines were pulled back. And now that all that stands are those 2020 regs, which do not afford these pregnant students. Some of the flexibility that we're trying to encourage here statewide.

We've got some.

So that that's what happened. It was kind of a stutter step. We had the regs in place. There was flexibility put in, and then ultimately, they were those those guidelines were pulled back.

Yeah. And I've got some specific specifics on that. On 01/09/2025, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky issued a decision that vacated the entirety of the 2024 title nine regulations nationwide. So as a result, California's undergraduate students have fewer pregnancy related protections than the graduate students do.

So total title nine was was pulled back? The entirety of

The 2024 title nine regulations. Yes.

Okay. I I just I think I need more clarity on what that I'm not expecting you to know that right now, by the way. And maybe my my we we can email through my I'm

looking at my expert back.

But but I know 2020, 2024, and then some other things happened. So I think there's some missing pieces to this puzzle, and I'm just I'm in support of your bill. But that statement, I I'd like to know more about because if if it's impacting this common sense piece, then obviously, there's something I have to say about that. But I I need more information. So if we can

Sure.

Work with LDLD just so I can understand it more. Thank you.

Thank you so much. So I would like to close, please.

I respectfully ask for your eye vote.

Thank you so much to someone of Pellerin for accepting the committee's amendments and for bringing this important piece of legislation forward. Ensuring equal access to higher education programs and activities is a more imperative that each higher education segment should endeavor to uphold. I'm grateful to the segments who have worked with our committee staff to address the concerns from last year, and I look forward to supporting the measure today. That's only Pellerin with your permission. I would like to be added as a co author.

Would love that. Thank you.

Thank you. And when we have quorum, I look forward to supporting and measure. Thank you so much.

Okay.

Except we'll have a summary of Pellerin presenting item number 10, a summer bill two two two nine. Welcome.

Thank you so much, mister chair and members. California is home to 6,600,000 adults who have earned some college credit, but no degree. Many of these students who represent almost 25% of our working age Californians stop out of school with the intention to return at a later date. Compared to the typical undergraduate student, those returning after stopping out are more likely to be older, to be employed, to have exhausted their financial aid, and to be parents.

Given California's generous in state financial aid and our future workforce goals, the state has a vested interest in ensuring that these stopped out students graduate with a degree.

A B 2 229 answers the challenges that these students face in returning to our California State University system through the establishment of the CSU enrollment, access, and retention of non continuous students or EARNS program. For students that stopped out of the CSU, it can be difficult to navigate the reentry process and access supports once they have reenrolled.

While some CSU campuses have taken proactive steps to support their returning students, there is currently no requirement the students be offered specialized advising during the reenrollment process and once they have actually reenrolled. AB 2229 addresses this gap by requiring that each campus designate at least one non continuous student adviser to provide support and to the extent possible, a course map to graduation. Another barrier returning students can face is that there is currently no standardized system system wide policy for transcript evaluation.

In practice, this can mean that students are required to repeat coursework because the class they took ten years ago is no longer offered and the campus won't count it toward their degree requirements or believing that they need to repeat the coursework because they are not advised otherwise and or cannot find a cohesive policy to reference. AB 2229 would require the trustees of the CSU in collaboration with the academic Senate, approve a transcript adoption policy for students who wish to return to the CSU.

In addition to clarifying conditions for the campuses, a standardized transcript evaluation policy will make it easier for stopped out students to determine their time to earn their degree should they reenroll. In recognition of the fact that many non continuous students are older, may have family or obligations, and more constraints on their time, AB 2229 requires that these returning students be offered access to priority course registration.

This ensures that a student who stopped out due to becoming a parent or needing to work can register for night classes without the added stress of the class being full.

In order to ensure that the IRNSS program is working as intended, AB 2229 requires the CSU to maintain an online data dashboard reporting, among other things, the number of non continuous students have reenrolled at the campus, the demographics of reenrolling students, the financial aid statuses of reenrolling students, and the time to degree and completion rates for returning students.

So my office has been in conversation with the c CSU office of the chancellor since before we introduced this bill, and I'm grateful for their engagement and hopeful that we can find a path forward that centers the students. So and I don't have a witness. I have my expert here, Rhiannon.

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

Good. We have Okay. Come on up.

Hey. Hi. Good afternoon. Jessie Hernandez Reyes on behalf of the campaign for college opportunity and support.

Thank you. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeters in the hearing room? Colleagues, any questions?

was miss Tweener.

Alright, Jess. Thank you, mister chair members. Chris Morales with the CSU office of the chancellor. We do not have a position on the bill at this time. We have shared with the author's office our concerns with the current language.

However, we are committed to working closely with our office on an approach that is implementable and will provide the best support for this population. Providing support and resources for these students is absolutely a priority of the CSU and a key focus of our strategic enrollment framework. Thank you.

Fabulous.

Thank you. Colleagues, any questions or comments? Osorno Gonzales.

Hi. Hi.

If I understand this correctly, it's so it took me fifteen years to get my associates out of high school. I went to the Marine Corps, so on and so forth. Eventually, got got my degrees. So what your bill aims to do is I took a bill at, you know, year I took a bill. I took a class at year one.

Right? You know, whatever that class is. 15 later, I go to, you know, continue on in my degree field, but that class, I have to take over because they've changed it or some some way, shape, or form. They're not giving me credit. Is that correct on that piece?

That that's that's what we're seeing happening. Yes.

So in but it happened to me Yeah. Many times over. And then what this does, it says, it gives you credit for that class. You don't have to take this over again. So that way, it can continue going forward.

That that's what it will be for most of the courses, I believe. You know, so they're gonna evaluate. I mean, if it's a a math course that you took and math hasn't changed that much in fifteen years. One plus one equals two. Then, yes, it should transfer over and be held to toward your degree.

That's what we're trying to say. But if it's some, you know, major specific that's in computer science and that's changed a lot since then, then you might need to have a new course. So that's where the adviser comes in handy because they will be assigned to you to set up your your map toward a degree and what courses you need to take to get there. And if I'm wrong, let me know. Okay.

And and in that, the the school is are are you saying that they're required to reach out to, let's say, this list of whatever number just for the sake of numbers. Right? These 10 students who are who never graduated and reach out to them and say, hey. Come back and take your classes and these count. Is that also part of this?

Yeah. Yeah. There yeah. I mean, that's not the requirements. More the case that you coming back from serving your country want to go back and earn your degree, so you reenroll.

And in that process of reenrolling, you're gonna be assigned a specific advisor who knows how to tell you and to to direct you what courses you need to take to get to the end goal of getting that degree.

Gotcha. And then And

then you also get priority enrollment. So if you are this person who's working during the day and you've got kids and you're also gonna get priority enrollment so you can get those courses taken care of quickly.

Where were you at thirty years ago?

Where was I? I know.

I would have needed that.

I know. Yeah. I wish I was there.

I had to I had to double my college courses. Yeah. So would you need a 100 and something to graduate? A 120 for Yeah. I had 250.

Yeah. Exactly. We have an example of somebody with a 160 credits and no degree.

Yeah. That's that's kind of where I was at.

Yeah. We feel your pain.

Yep. So I I I appreciate I appreciate this, and this is actually speaks directly to me. So with that, I I I kindly request to be coauthor on this bill.

You got it. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much, Pilar. And I do have a similar situation with us. Omar Gonzalez, I was doing grad school at Chelsea University Los Angeles in 2000, 2001, 2002, and and then many and then with different opportunities down the road, I subsequently reenrolled in graduate school in 2015 and or 2013. And in that time frame, that's when I learned that my classes that had taken it finished more than half of the program were no longer available. And so I had to pretty much start all over.

I got it done, but it was just more taking those classes all over again. And so I think this is a very compelling case, and I think this is something that's critical to help with retention and completion for programs. I know this is a focus on undergrad level, but I wanna put out there if this is something that could be for graduate programs as well. Yeah. But I really appreciate your leadership and efforts on this and yeah.

So I would love to be out of this co author as well.

We'd love to have you.

Thank you. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much, Colin, for bringing this measure forward again. I strongly believe we must do everything possible to support our students who seek to reenroll in the California State University, and your our bill goes a long way to help support our students in a very thoughtful and comprehensive way. I think this is a excellent foundation. And with that, I look so I look forward to supporting the measure today. Thank

you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Next up, we'd like to welcome Asomar Banes presenting item number five, assembly bill one eight five two. Welcome, doctor Banes.

Oh, this is the second time I banged it today. That same me. We're getting old, guys. Awesome. Thank you to the chair and committee for engagement on AB 1852.

I do not propose revising the higher education master plan lightly. So let me explain why I am proposing to do so this year. I'll start with a date, which is 03/05/1978. That is the day that the Federal Government first officially declared a severe doctor shortage in Kern County, and it has never been solved. We have been waiting for a solution since the Carter administration.

And over the last fifty years, this problem has become an escalating crisis. Former governor Jerry Brown once said that if he that if the Federal Government wouldn't act, California would launch our own damn satellite. After half a century of asking for the University of California's help and being ignored, that is the spirit that we have in Kern County today. If the UC won't build a medical school that we desperately need, we'll build it ourselves.

The Central Valley is one of California's fastest growing and most impoverished regions where half of all residents are on Medi Cal.

In my district in the South Valley, that number is closer to a staggering 70% of people that rely on Medicaid. In the Bay Area, there are 411 medical doctors per 100,000 people. In the Valley, just a 157. The state average for primary care physicians is a 156 per 100,000 people. In the Valley, it's fewer than 45.

That's one of the reasons I became a family doctor myself. When there are not enough doctors, wait times become impossible, and families simply don't get preventative care. That means treatable conditions become chronic lifelong illnesses, and most of that care happens in the emergency room when it's too late. Combined with the region's geographic isolation, lack of transportation, under equipped, understaffed facilities, the result is that the Valley is the sickest region in the state. To fix this shortage, we must look at the physician pipeline.

The current medical education system systematically excludes students from rural communities. Students from rural backgrounds now represent less than 5% of an all incoming medical students. Black and brown students from rural backgrounds make up less than half of 1% of all new medical students. If we wanted rural student representation to match the general population, those numbers have to quadruple.

Research proves that doctors who grew up in rural areas and who get trained in rural areas are significantly more likely to practice medicine in those same communities, and I sit in front of you as an example of that.

California already retains over seventy seven percent of physicians who complete their training here. That's the best retention rate in the country. But right now, our teaching hospitals, residency slots, and medical education infrastructure are overwhelmingly concentrated in herbal and coastal communities. For example, the average medical school in California is less than 25 miles from the beach. That's not a coincidence.

It's a direct result of the UC's monopoly on medical degrees. The UC's prioritization of high margin specialty care and biomedical research does not encourage operating a community based primary care preventative focused medical school in a medical dependent region. That is why they have publicly opposed efforts to expand medical education into the valley while simultaneously making multibillion dollar investments in their existing facilities. The master plan was created in 1960. The doctor shortage in Kern County was declared in 1978.

And still to this day, the UC will not address the problem. AB 1852 does not repeal the master plan. It creates an additional exemption with a hard deadline. If the UC continues to default on its mandate to serve Kern County, this bill empowers a coalition of local institutions to confer medical degrees. These institutions already have highly successful pipelines for nursing and pre med.

By empowering them, we can create a seamless, localized pathway from community college to an MD, specifically designed to capture the talented, low income, and rural students who are currently slipping through the cracks. I myself almost slipped through. AB 1852 avoids cannibalizing the limited resources available to the UCCSU and community college.

Instead, it authorizes the creation of a medical education authority which can independently finance, construct, and operate the school using revenue bonds and public private partnerships, much like how UC Merced successfully completed its campus when state funding dried up during the great recession. My constituents should not have to travel hours or wait months just to see their doctor.

We have amazing students in the Valley. We have amazing talent in the Valley. We have lack of access to higher educational opportunities in the Valley. And we have the local educational partnerships that are capable of doing this work. All we need is the legal authority to act in our own best interest.

Please help me save the valley. Thank you, and I respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in support in the hearing room? Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Kern County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you. Thank you.

Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room?

Thank you, mister chair and and members. Very briefly, Chris Morales with the CSU office of the chancellor in respectful opposition. This bill, along with several others that will be heard by this committee in the days to come, will significantly expand or change the authority of our higher education institutions. We absolutely recognize the need for additional medical professionals in Kern County. It is why just recently in November, we launched a partnership in Kern County with Bakersfield College and others to address this critical shortage.

And I'm not here to defend the master plan. Our concern is that this bill, all of these bills, does not fully account for the operational, financial, and administrative implications it may impose across all our institutions and on the state as a whole.

We fully believe that changes in intersegmental responsibilities of this scale warrant a comprehensive evaluation involving all parties, and we would welcome that conversation to ensure we are moving in the direction that is student centered and preserves the values and sustainability of California's higher education system. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Colleagues, any questions or comments? Usim or partner. Move the bill.

Thank you. We'll take that up when we have a quorum. Thank you.

We don't have a quorum yet?

No. Oh, man.

Thank you. Any questions or comments?

Thanks to the author, specifically highlighting rural California. You know, I so the the the system in itself. Right? I I get that we we we initially had to put a higher education in a big city because that's where everyone can go to, so on and so forth, a long time ago. But we really need to rethink the way in which we do higher education access across California.

There there are communities in Kern County, in Imperial County, in Riverside County, San Bernardino County, and we're we're lucky if we have something. Sometimes we we get the support, and in some places, there there is very little. There's a shortage of health care providers. We know that.

But the the point that I I I I really wanna hone in on is the need and and to the chancellor's office is the need that we have to really rethink the way in which we're doing things because people are not everyone has that, you know, laptop in their in in their room where they can go online.

Right? Not everyone has that type of access. So I I I would take this message back to to the halls of the chancellor and to to everyone is that we need to relook at California and how we do higher education, and that might mean thrown throwing some things out. That might mean being innovative. That might mean putting flags where we never thought we'd put flags.

But that's that's something that we we really have to look at because I know on this committee, we're always looking at at things from a whole bunch of different lenses. But ultimately, what I believe we all want is for everyone to have access to good quality education from wherever they live across California. Thank you.

Someone to talk to Paul.

I too just wanna thank the author. I think what a lot of people fail to realize is, you know, the biggest differences in California is not necessarily red versus blue. It's often urban versus rural. And I always like to quantify it in numbers. You know, you look at Fresno County as a county and a population of 1,100,000 people.

You add in a county like Kern County, which is just about 1,000,000 people. And if you think about it, the state of Alaska has less people than the county of Kern. North Dakota, Wyoming, and South Dakota have less people in those states than the county of Kern. Would you ever tell those areas they shouldn't have a medical facility and an authority? I think it would be very weird if you were to tell the state of Alaska, no.

We don't think that there should be an authority there so you could have a medical school for doctors. You wouldn't say that to North Dakota, South Dakota, or Wyoming. The county of Kern has just as many people in those areas. Fresno County has just as many people in those areas. And I think when we quantify the numbers like that, people really do get start to see, you know, one, just how different California is.

Two, obviously, you know, the members that represent these rural portions, like, we understand that part. So, you know, one, thank the author.

make sure that I made it back to support the bill. Thank you.

Wanted to

Thank you so much. Any further questions or comments? Seeing on Summer Banes, we'd like to close, please.

I want to thank all of my colleagues for all of support on this bill. Thank you. Kern County definitely thanks you. This is a very, very critical time period. And and let me make this clear.

This bill offers an option, not a requirement. So the opposition's argument does not work here. This is not mandating that all CSUs will create medical institutions with community colleges. This is creating the option. And, yes, there are things that we have to do to be trailblazers, especially in an area that needs access to higher educational opportunities and to access to health care.

And I think my colleagues, support on voicing those needs when it comes to higher educational opportunities in rural areas. People look down on rural areas and say, you're not smart enough. You guys have some of the highest illiteracy rates in the entire state. Doctor Banes, how are you gonna make your kids into doctors? Somebody said that to me one time, guys.

I almost fell through the cracks. I didn't get x. I grew up in rural Delano, California. I didn't grow up seeing women physicians. I didn't see women politicians that looked like me, but I made it.

I'm sitting here in front of you elected by my community because I'm that doctor that stayed, that was trained in the area. I know how important it is to train our kids. I believe in my kids. I believe in the talent of the Valley children. They are smart.

They are so amazing. Please help me give my children the opportunity to bring the gift of health care to a community that desperately needs it. And I'll end with this story. This past October, I ran outside to my neighbor's son being shot and killed on my front lawn. And I ran out to resuscitate him, and I could not save him.

It was a gang related homicide. My children are falling through the cracks when it comes to not having access to higher educational opportunities and you're falling to gain violence and drugs. Please, Aye, again, plead with you. Help me save my community. Help this doctor bring the gift of health care to her community, especially in a community that desperately needs it.

Please do not oppose these efforts. We will find a way, but please do not oppose giving the gift of health care to the valley. Thank you very much. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much, doctor Banes. And Kern County is designated as a medically underserved area, and research shows that physicians are more likely to practice in regions where they train. Establishing a local medical school can improve physician retention and address longstanding access disparities.

However, I'm also very concerned that this process could usurp the authority of the University of California, which has jurisdiction over a graduate medical education as noted in the analysis It continues to increase its medical education and partnerships in the San Joaquin Valley and encourage you to continue working with the University of California. Thank you.

Thank you, mister chair. Begin when when you're ready.

Good afternoon, mister chair and members. This is for Assembly Bill one nine two eight. Thank you so much. I would first like to accept the committee's amendments. Assembly Bill one nine two eight clarifies existing law ensure that students involved in campus sexual misconduct proceedings can be fully supported both procedurally and emotionally throughout the process.

Specifically, Assembly bill one nine two eight requires higher education institutions to allow each party to a sexual misconduct complaint to be accompanied by both an adviser and a separate support person at all stages of the campus grievance process. This is a simple common sense clarification. Under current law, students are entitled to have an adviser or a support person throughout these proceedings. In practice, some institutional policies require students to choose between legal guidance and emotional support during an already difficult and high stakes process.

These roles are distinct and equally important.

Advisors help students navigate complex procedures and in some cases, conduct cross examinations. Support persons provide emotional stability during what can be a lengthy and traumatizing retraumatizing experience. Ensuring access to both helps create a more trauma informed, fair, and accessible process for everyone involved, both complainants and respondents. With the committee's amendments, these protections will be expanded to include all campus community members who are involved in the sexual misconduct complaint, not just students.

And here to speak in support of a B1928, Riya Ranjan, and David Whit Millman on behalf of survivors pro bono.

Thank you.

Thank you, chair Fong, for your support, and good afternoon, members of the committee. Thank you for your time today. My name is Riya Ranjan, and I'm a senior at Stanford University here in California. Alongside David Millman, who's here with me today, I help lead the survivors pro bono, a nonprofit legal organization that provides representation for students in campus sexual violence proceedings across California. I'm here to explain a bit about why this bill is so important for student survivors across the state.

So I helped start the Survivors pro bono three years ago when I was a freshman at Stanford. And at the same time that I discovered, while reading an article in my dorm room that was published at my very own university, that over 25 of women at universities across The US face sexual assault while in college, but most don't actually report what's happened to them.

Survey data from 27 universities from 2019 tells us that reporting rates to university title nine offices can be as low as five percent. And at my university, forty percent of the students who did not report stated that they felt embarrassed, ashamed, or that it would be too emotionally difficult for them to come forward. And now in our experience at the pro bono, many of our clients have come to us questioning whether or not they should report to their Title IX office for the very same reasons.

Worried about dealing with one of the most painful and experiences of their lives through a cold formal institutional process that Title IX gives them, without anyone in their corner who understands it or them. After her assault at Stanford University, Chanel Miller wrote, my damage is internal. I carry it with me. Student survivors across California are dealing with the same reality, carrying a deeply personal, internalized pain as they navigate a complicated title nine process.

By ensuring that students can be accompanied by both a support person and an advisor, this bill helps ensure that students have the emotional and legal support system that they need to come forward and seek resolution through the title nine process.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair Fong and and

members of the committee. Thank you for your time today. My name is David Millman, and I'm a second year law student at Stanford as well as the co director of the Survivors Pro Bono. Alongside Ria, I help lead our work providing free representation for students across the state going through the Title IX process. For over six years, I have worked in the anti sexual violence space, starting as an undergraduate advocate and peer counselor, and now as a law student.

Working with campus survivors, I have seen firsthand just how resilient, strong, and inspiring students are and have to be to get justice through the Title nine process. But I've also seen how draining and emotionally isolating these proceedings can be, sometimes taking a year or more to resolve. That is why we believe this straightforward change, allowing students to have access to both an adviser and support person during all proceedings, can have such an impact.

It makes sense why the University of California system already has these measures in place. They are common sense.

The uneven distribution of the of this policy means that students across the state lack these protections. This change would apply to all students, those making complaints, and those responding to them. As such, AB 1928 benefits all students, even those facing accusations of misconduct. I got involved in anti sexual violence work during college because I saw friends who had to suffer in silence, unsupported by the systems meant to keep them safe.

Today, through our pro bono work, I see just how much of a difference it makes when survivors have a team behind them.

Partial support just isn't enough. Student survivors deserve the right to an adviser who can fight for them and a support person to stand behind them. That is why we respectfully ask for your aye vote on this bill. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in support?

Kell O'Hara with cosponsor Equal Rights Advocates in support.

Jessica Duong with the University of California in support.

Chris Morales, CSU office of the chancellor in support.

See no others. Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing no witnesses in opposition, any tweeners in the room? K. Seeing none to the committee.

Any members? Wish to close.

Thank you so much. I respectfully ask for a no vote.

Thank you. We'll keep it under consideration. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

You can start your next one when you're ready.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and Members. Last August, our committee partnered with the committee on privacy and consumer affairs to review the CSU's AI empowered initiative. Expansion of AI's capabilities are felt being felt broadly throughout all sectors of higher education and workforce. And it was important for us to better understand how CSU had taken a leadership role in AI use in AI use in higher education was proceeding with their work.

A key finding from a joint oversight hearing and truly something that we heard again and again from our students, faculty, and staff was that AI tools like chat, GPT, EDU were being deployed without any training being conducted.

AB 2932 is quite simple. It requires a public segments of higher education to conduct training before AI products are provided to students, faculty, and staff. This bill also requires that the training include relevant institutional policies concerning the use of AI and the disclosure of privacy policies for the product. I understand that the current language might unintentionally capture AI tools used in common products such as grammar, checkers, and word processing.

I am open to amendments and especially look forward to leveraging the expertise of our partners in a committee on privacy and consumer protection who can help us refine this language in a way that meets our intent without being overly broad in scope.

This bill who currently has no opposition, and with me today to testify is in support is Bryant Miramontes from the California Teachers Association. Thank you.

Good afternoon, vice chair, committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Bryant Miramontes, legislative advocate with California Teachers Association, representing community college faculty throughout California. We proudly support AB 2392. As public education employers eagerly deploy AI on their campuses, faculty are navigating this AI moment in real time, often without a consistent policy framework and without guaranteed disclosure of what happens to their data or their students' data once those tools are deployed.

This bill strikes a better balance. It requires that before an AI tool is placed in the hands of students, faculty, or staff, institutions ensure people understand how to use it, what policies apply, and what the privacy implications are, which we believe to be moderate modest and reasonable asks. This especially matters in the community college context. The chancellor's office reports that sixty two percent of our students are economically disadvantaged and thirty five percent are the first in their families to attend college.

These are students who can least afford to have their data mishandled or their trust broken by an institution that deployed a tool before anyone ever explained what it does or who it shares their information with.

Proper training is a predicate to inform used. We cannot expect reasonable a AI integration without it. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your aye vote and appreciate the author's leadership on this issue. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any, witnesses in support?

Anna Matthews on behalf of the California Community College Independence Union in strong support. Thank you.

Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any Tweeners? Committee members? This bill is it's a it's a good bill.

And for me, I I love the fact that you're tackling AI and innovation. I'd love to sit down with you. There's a couple things that I'm I'm looking at. And with respect to the training side of things, I'm a fan of AI. So I I wanna make sure that some of these things are maybe you're thinking about them or we could help shore them up.

The other piece is I wanna make sure that we don't chill innovation across this, and I know that's not your intent. But just to have a open dialogue as you've always had with respect to these with that, I'll be in support of this bill.

Thank you so much. I look forward to future conversations as well. Thank you.

Would you like to close?

Yes. I'll certainly ask for your vote.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you so much, colleagues. At this time, we're gonna have mister secretary, miss Elvis. If you could call the roll, please? Mister secretary.

[Roll Call]

Thank you so much, colleagues. We'll do the consent calendar at this time. We have before that, we have three bills on consent. They are as follows. File item number one, assembly bill 1591 by Assemblyman Rodriguez, file item number nine, assembly bill 2203 by Asimara Tongepa, and file item 13, assembly bill 2572 by Asimara Fong.

We have a motion and a second. Moved by, Summer Burner, and we have a second by Asimara Tongepa. Any questions or comments? Seeing none, roll call, please.

[Roll Call]

Thank you so much, colleagues. The consent calendar is out, and we'll keep the roll open for additional members to add on. Actually, Assurant, Erwin, would you like we just did the consent calendar. Would you like to add on to consent calendar?

[Roll Call]

Thank you so much. Thank you so much, colleagues, for a ... hearing, and thank you so much to everyone involved with today's hearing, especially our semi hard education committee staff and everyone involved with today's hearing. Our next hearing is on Tuesday, April 14 at 01:30PM in State Capitol Room 127. Please note that we are gonna be in a different room next week, Room 127. Authors and stakeholders, please make sure that you're engaging early with our committee staff on your measures. And with that, the Assembly Higher Education Committee meeting is adjourned.