Assembly Higher Education Committee

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. 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. Assemblymember Jackie Irwin will be the replacement for Assemblymember Succi for today's hearing. And when she's back, we'll give her a warm welcome. Welcome back to the committee, Assemblymember Irwin. Additionally, please note that Assemblymember Celeste Rodriguez is out on maternity leave. Congratulations again to Assemblymember Rodriguez and her family Assemblymember Steve Bennett will be the replacement for Assemblymember Celeste Rodriguez for today hearing And we give him a warm welcome when he arrives Additionally I pleased to welcome Michael Erke who is pinch for our committee secretary today Thank you so much, Mr. Erke, 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 want to 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 the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence. As you came into the hearing room today, the sergeants directed your attention to the rules for public attendance and participation which 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 engagement in conflict and conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing. Please be aware that violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement actions. Additionally, please note that while this hearing will not have phone testimony, we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on a committee's website at www.ahed.assembly.ca.gov. Bills will be taken up and signed 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 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 tweeners. If a measure has more than two entities in the tweener category, only two will be allowed to speak for two minutes each. For members of the committee, members, since our hearings are public and some travel far to be here, in respect of them and the author, please allow the author to complete their opening remarks regarding the bill before making a motion so that the public has an idea of what the bill is about. If a motion is made during the author's opening remarks, I'll simply state that the motion will be recognized at the appropriate time. Additionally, members, if you would like to respond to a roll call, ask a question, 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 T-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, I'd like to welcome Mr. Alvarez, presenting item number 14, Assembly Bill 2660. Welcome, Assemblymember Alvarez.

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

Thank you so much. Jalen Woodard on behalf of the Alameda County Office of Education and Sean's support. Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Thank you. Assembly, we'd like to close please. 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 I appreciate the support when the appropriate time comes. Thank you. Thank you so much, Assemblyman Albers, for bringing this important measure forward. I believe that your bill strengthens California's STEM workforce by creating a coordinated, intersegmental pipeline from high school through postdoctoral training. Aligning our community colleges, our CSU, and University of California to a 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. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next up, we'd like to welcome Assemblymember Mark Berman, presenting item number eight, Assembly Bill 2121. Welcome Assemblymember Berman. Thank you, Chair Fong and colleagues. I want to 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 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 student institutions with robust trio student support services programs and they are directly in the crosshairs of what has been a full 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 are 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 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 McDonald 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 Wright, Director of Government and Community Relations for Mount San Jacinto College, MSJC, rise in support. Thank you. Hi. I'm Bibi Hamidah Hashmat 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 Mock on behalf of CFT. I just wanted to note that our opposed unless amended position is to the bill in print. We want to 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 want to 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 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, FAC must respectfully oppose. Thank you. Thank you. Other tweeners 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 want to 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 Chagera on behalf of the California Teachers Association. We want to align our remarks with this California 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? Assemblyman, would you like to close, please? Just appreciate the testimony, appreciate the engagement from all the different stakeholders. As the last one mentioned we have been doing as proactive of outreach as possible to everybody who might be impacted and we absolutely keep those conversations going to see what we can do to address as many concerns as possible Respectfully I ask for your aye vote once you have a quorum Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman Burnham, 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 measured, confined approach, and is befitting to address the cuts from the federal government, while also maintaining the promises that we have made to our faculty to maintain salaries and full-time positions, and when we have quorum, we look forward to supporting the measures today. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Berman. Next up, we'd like to welcome Assemblyman Mark Gonzalez presenting item number six, Assembly Bill 1920. Welcome, Assemblyman Gonzalez. Hi. How are 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 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 promised 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 College's Chancellor's Office. And just to answer any technical questions is Justin Salnick. 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 Stacey 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 toward degree completion. These certificates are not endpoints. 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 progress. Importantly, the bill does not expand 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 19-20. Thank you. Thank you so much. Welcome. Thank you. Are there witnesses in support in the hearing room? Cristal Padilla with the Chief Executive Officers of the California Community Colleges in support. Thank you. Tiffany Mock 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 Worson 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 at Cerritos College in support. Thank you. Are there witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? in the hearing room? Are there tweeners in the hearing room? Alicia Lopez, San Joaquin Delta College. We came with a bunch of students here in support. Thank you. Thank you. Colleagues, any questions or comments? As we'd like 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 makes 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, Assemblymember Gonzalez, for bringing this measure forward. And thank you for your advocacy with the community colleges for many years. When you were district director, Tosteo Santiago, and when I was a trustee at the L.A. Community Colleges, we partnered with many events, including events at Trade Tech, East L.A. College, and 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 to spell alliance 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 the measure today. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Next up we like to welcome Assemblymember Salace presenting item number two Assembly Bill 1636 Welcome Asomar Salache 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 Maito Cayo from Cerritos College, and of course our student from Cerritos College who happens to be from my district in Southgate. So very proud to have them here, both me. With that, I'm grateful to the chair and committee staff for to work in engagement with my office. I will gladly accept the committee's amendments and again, thank you to the committee for working with my team. AB 1636 would allow Cerritos Community College 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 all front 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 also will allow them to enroll at a 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 amendment will be accepting, will be helpful to ensure Cerritos College works collaboratively with the California Community College Chancellor's Office on an 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 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 in support and to answer questions again is Dr. Fierro and Gustavo Sanchez. Dr. 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 and 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 time-confusing applications, 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 a 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 96%. AB 1636 states the success 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 K-12 districts, it provides high school seniors the immediate support they need to onboard including assistance in applying for financial aid 1636 does 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. They can enroll at any college. It 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. 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 8 Regional Affairs Director for the Student Senates for California Community Colleges. 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. And it made the transition from high school to college extremely overwhelming. Many students, including myself, are unaware of or late to join programs that are crucial to our success, such as the Scholars 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 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 AB 1636. Thank you. Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in support in the hearing room? Hello, Rachel Shacluna 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, Hassan, I would like to close please. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and again, thank you to Dr. Fierro and our trustee 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 wants to make sure that access is available to all our students, what a better opportunity to explore this pilot program for our high school students to go to community college. And again, working with the system and again, the committee amendments, we look forward to move this forward and get it approved and ultimately get it signed by the governor. Thank you so much, Asomar Salache, 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, look forward to supporting the measure today. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we'd like to welcome Assemblymember Krell, presenting item number four, Assembly Bill 1845. Welcome Assemblymember Krell Thank you so much Good afternoon Good afternoon I excited to tell you about Assembly Bill 1845 today I have two witnesses with me today, Megan Escoto with the Survivor Coalition and Dr. Leanne Jurada from San Diego State University. I want to say first that I'm so grateful to both of these witnesses for their lifelong 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 Title IX, 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 IX 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 reasons that people are vulnerable to trafficking 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 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 strengthens the Title IX 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 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. Urata from San Diego State University. Thank you so much. Welcome.

Hi, I'm Dr. Liane Arada, 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 U.S. 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 18 percent said they were trafficked as a college student, defined as forced 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 U.S.-Mexico border. Exchanges led to 43% experiencing psychological harm, 30% physical abuse, 25% sexual violence, 16% being told or asked to recruit others to sell sex. Shame, stigma, and fear stopped 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 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, stalked 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, Assembly Member Crowell, and others sponsoring this bill. Thank you.

Summer Corral, we'd like to close, please. Thanks so much. Just want to thank the coalition for showing up today and expressing their support. Also, thank Megan 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 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.

How are you? You should get a picture.

Yes. We go way back. All right, here we go. Got it. You know I'm a dork. Okay, all right. Thank you, Mr. Chair and 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 IX 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 existing Sex Equity and Education Act extends numerous protections to pregnancy graduate students and their partners It does not extend those protections to undergraduate students In 2021, the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights found that a California community college had likely violated Title IX 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 IX, as evidenced by numerous OCR complaints. For a state that has done so much for reproductive care, this is just not acceptable. AB 1784 prohibits any post-secondary educational institution from discriminating against a 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 Kathy Van Austin on behalf of the American Association of University Women and Martin Radosevich.

On behalf of Reproductive Freedom for All California.

Kathy Van Austin, American Association of AAUW of California. Let's just keep it easy. Definitely appreciate Assemblymember Pellerin's leadership on this. as you also had a bill last year that we supported that extended some of these privileges. California has done a pretty good job about addressing the needs of graduate students experiencing pregnancy or pregnancy-related conditions. Undergraduates, we've got a little catching up to do here. it is time to course correct and ensure that a student's pregnancy, their family building, does not come at the cost of their education or their economic security in the future. I do want to note that with the Biden administration, they had updated their rules, which would have provided 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 students in their classrooms, but that guidance is not consistent What counts is 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.

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 in their pregnancy, we don't consider that a free choice. We consider it a failure of our system to support them. This bill is especially important right now, as the Assemblymember brought up, that at the federal level, the Title IX 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 to the author for common sense, right? Someone trips, falls, goes to the hospital. let's figure that out so they can get a pass on their test and do it some other time. When it comes to pregnancy, common sense. Like, come on, we should be doing that and affording that. 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? Reproductive Freedom for All California. You stated that Title IX is being attacked by the federal government with respect to pregnancies. Can you elaborate on that? Because I don't know where that's at, and I'd like to get your thoughts.

Oh, thank you.

So total Title IX was pulled back? The entirety of Title IX?

Okay. I think I need more clarity on what that—I'm not expecting you to know that right now, by the way. And maybe we can email through my office. I'm looking at my expert back. But I know 2020, 2024, and then some other things happen. 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'd like to know more about. Because if it's impacting this common sense piece, then obviously there's something I have to say about that. But I need more information. So if we can work with LDLD, just so I can understand it more. Thank you.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

We'd love that. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and members. California is home to 6.6 million 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. AB 2229 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 Students or EARNS program For students who have stopped out of the CSU it can be difficult to navigate the re process and access supports once they have re-enrolled. 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 re-enrollment process and once they have actually re-enrolled. AB 2229 addresses this gap by requiring that each campus designate at least one non-continuous student advisor 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-wide policy for transcript evaluation. In practice, this can mean that students are required to repeat coursework because the class they took 10 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 re-enroll. In recognition of the fact that many non-continuous students are older, may have family or employment 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 EARNS 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 re-enrolled at the campus, the demographics of re-enrolling students, the financial aid statuses of re-enrolling students, and the time to degree and completion rates for returning students. So my office has been in conversation with the 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.

Thank you so much.

Hi, good afternoon. Jesse Hernandez on behalf of the Campaign for College Opportunity and Support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and 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.

I went to the Marine Corps, so on and so forth. Eventually 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 years 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 way, shape or form. They're not giving me credit. Is that correct on that piece?

So it happened to me 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's what it will be for most of the courses, I believe. So they're going to evaluate. I mean, if it's a math course that you took and math hasn't changed that much in 15 years, then yes, it should transfer over and be held toward your degree. That's what we're trying to say. But if it's some 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 advisor 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. OK. And and in that the the school is 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?

Gotcha. 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 going to get priority enrollment so you can get those courses taken care of quickly. Where were you at 30 years ago? Where was I? I know. I would have needed that. I know. Yeah. I wish I was there. I had to double my college courses. Yeah. So what do you need? A hundred and something to graduate? A hundred and twenty for, uh, I had 250. Yeah, exactly. We have an example of somebody with 160 credits and no degree. Yeah. That's, that's kind of where I was at. Yeah. We feel your pain. Yeah. So I, I appreciate, I appreciate this and this is actually speaks directly to me. Um, so with that, I, I, I kindly request to be a coauthor on this You got it.

I, too, have a similar situation with Selma Gonzalez. I was doing grad school at Cal State University of Los Angeles in 2000, 2001, 2002, and then many, with different opportunities down the road, I subsequently re-enrolled in graduate school in 2015, or 2013, and in that time, that's when I learned that my classes that I'd have finished more than half the program. We're 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 critical to help with retention and completion for programs I know this is a focus on the undergrad level, but I want to put it out there. This is something that could be for graduate programs as well. 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.

Thank you.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Presenting item number five, assembly bill 1852. Welcome Dr. Baines. 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'm proposing to do so this year. I'll start with a date, which is March 5th, 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 50 years, this problem has become an escalating crisis. Former Governor Jerry Brown once said 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 the 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 157. The state average for primary care physicians is 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

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Very briefly, Chris Morales with the CSU 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.

Listener Bernard Bernard. Move the bill.

Someone Gonzalez Thank you to the author specifically highlighting rural California You know the system in itself right I get that 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 are communities in Kern County, in Imperial County, in Riverside County, San Bernardino County, and we're lucky if we have something. Sometimes we get the support, and in some places there is very little. There's a shortage of health care providers. We know that. But the point that I really want to hone in on is the need, 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 laptop in their room where they can go online, right? Not everyone has that type of access. So I would take this message back to the halls of the chancellor and to everyone, is that we need to relook at California and how we do higher education. And that might mean 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 something that we really have to look at because I know on this committee, we're always looking 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.

I too just want to thank the author. I think what a lot of people fail to realize is 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 look at Fresno County has a county and a population of 1.1 million people. You add in a county like Kern County, which is just about 1 million 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 that 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 it in numbers like that, people really do 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 wanted to make sure that I made it back support the bill 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 Rhea 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 this 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 U.S. 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 40 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 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 this same reality, carrying a deeply personal, internalized pain as they navigate a complicated Title IX 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 IX process. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in support? Kel O'Hara with co-sponsor Equal Rights Advocates in support. Jessica Duong with the University of California in support. Chris Morales, CSU Office of the Chancellor in support. Seeing no others, any witnesses in opposition? Seeing no witnesses in opposition, any tweeners in the room? Okay, seeing none to the committee. Any members? We should close. Thank you so much I respectfully ask for an aye vote Thank you We keep it under consideration Thank you Thank you Thank you so much I respectfully ask for an aye vote Thank you We keep it under consideration Thank you Thank you You can start your next one when you're ready. Okay. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Last August, our committee partnered with the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Affairs to review the CSU's AI-empowered initiative. The expansion of AI's capabilities are being felt broadly throughout all sectors of higher education and workforce. It was important for us to better understand how CSU, in taking a leadership role 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 segment 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 a disclosure of privacy policies for the product. I understand that the current language might intentionally 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 currently has no opposition, and with me today to testify in support is Bryant Miramontes from the California Teachers Association. 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 a good bill and for me I love

Thank you so much. I look forward to future conversations as well. Thank you. Would you like to close? Yes. I would strictly ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. All right, thank you so much, colleagues. At this time, we're going to have Mr. Secretary Estelvis, if you could call the roll, please. Mr. Secretary. Fong. Here. DeMaio. Berner. Here. Jeff Gonzalez. Here. Corey Jackson. Patel. Irwin. Bennett, Sharp Collins, Tangipa. Thank you so much, colleagues. We'll do the consent calendar at this time. Before that, we have three bills on consent. They are as follows. File item number one, Assembly Bill 1591 by Assembly Rodriguez. File item number nine, Assembly Bill 2203 by Assembly Tangipa. And File item 13, Assembly Bill 2572 by Assembly Fong. We have a motion and a second? Move. Moved by Senator Berner, and we have a second by Senator Tangipa. Any questions or comments? Seeing none, roll call, please. Fong? Aye. Fong, aye. DeMaio? Aye. DeMaio, aye. Berner? Aye. Berner, aye. Jeff Gonzalez? Aye. Jeff Gonzalez, aye. Jackson, Irwin, Patel, Bennett, Sharp-Collins? Sharp-Collins, aye. Tangipa? Aye. Tangipa, aye. Thank you so much, colleagues. The consent calendar is out, and we'll keep the roll open for additional members to add on. Actually, Assemblyman Irwin, we just did the consent calendar. Would you like to add on to the consent calendar? On consent, Irwin. Irwin, aye. Thank you. Now we'll do item number two, Assembly Bill 1636 by Assemblyman Salace. Roll call, please, Mr. Secretary. I'm sorry. Motion. Motion and second. Motion by Berner and second by Assemblyman Gonzalez. File item number two, do pass as amended and re-refer to the Committee on Education. Fong? Aye. Fong, aye. DeMaio? Aye. DeMaio, aye. Berner? Aye. Berner, aye. Jeff Gonzalez? Aye. Jeff Gonzalez, aye. Jackson? Irwin? Aye. Irwin, aye. Patel? Aye. Patel, aye. Bennett? Sharp-Collins? Aye. Sharp-Collins, aye. Tangipa? Aye. Tangipa, aye. Thanks so much, colleagues. That measure is out. We'll keep the rope in for additional members to add on. Next up is item number three, Assembly 1784 by Senator Pellerman. Mr. Secretary roll call. Do we have a motion? By Senator Berner and a second by Senator Dr. Sharp-Collins. Any comments? See none. Roll call please. File item number three, do pass as amended and re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary. Fong? Aye. Fong, aye. DeMaio? Berner? Aye. Berner, aye. Jeff Gonzalez? Aye. Jeff Gonzalez, aye. Jackson? Irwin? Aye. Aye. Patel, aye. Bennett? Sharp-Collins? Aye. Sharp-Collins, aye. Tangipa? Aye. Tangipa, aye. Aye. DeMaio, aye. That measure is out, and we'll keep the roll open for additional members. Next up is item number four, Assembly Bill 1845 by Assemblyman Corral. Mr. Secretary, do we have a motion? We have a motion to second. Motion by Assemblyman Berner, second by Assemblyman Dr. Sharp-Collins. Any questions or comments? Seeing none, roll call, please. File item number four, do pass as amended and re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary. Fong? Aye. Fong, aye. DeMaio? DeMaio, aye. Berner? Aye. Berner, aye. Jeff Gonzalez? Aye. Jeff Gonzalez, aye. Jackson? Irwin? Aye. Irwin, aye. Patel? Aye. Patel, aye. Bennett? Sharp-Collins? Aye. Sharp-Collins, aye. Tanky-Pa? Aye. Tanky-Pa, aye. Thank you so much. That measure is out. Next up is item number five, assembly bill 1852 by Assemblyman Dr. Baines. Do we have a motion? No. Do we have a motion? Do we have a second? Yep. A second? Mr. Secretary, roll call, please. File item number five, the motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Public Employment and Retirement. Fong? Not voting. Fong, not voting. DeMaio? Not voting. DeMaio, not voting. Berner? Aye. Berner, aye. Jeff Gonzalez? Jeff Gonzalez not voting. Jackson? Irwin? Irwin not voting. Patel? Patel not voting. Bennett? Sharp Collins? Sharp Collins not voting. Tankipa? Aye. Tankipa, aye. That measure currently has two ayes and five not voting, so we'll keep the roll open for additional members. Next up is item number six, Assembly Bill 1920 by Assemblyman Gonzalez and Assemblyman Arons. Motion by Assemblyman Berner. Do we have a second? Dr. Sharp-Collins has seconded the motion. Mr. Secretary, roll call, please. File item number six, do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Fong? Aye. Fong, aye. DeMaio? Aye. DeMaio, aye. Berner? Aye. Berner, aye. Jeff Gonzalez? Aye. Jeff Gonzalez, aye. Jackson? Irwin? Aye. Irwin, aye. Patel? Aye. Patel, aye. Bennett? Sharp Collins? Sharp Collins, aye. Tankepa? Aye. The item is out. We'll keep the roll open for additional members. Next up is item number seven, Assembly Bill 1928 by Assemblyman Fong. We have a motion. We have a motion and a second. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, roll call please. File item number seven, do pass as amended and re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary. Fong? Aye. Fong, aye. DeMaio? 1928. 1928. Yes. DeMaio, aye. Berner? Aye. Berner, aye. Jeff Gonzalez? Jeff Gonzalez, aye. Jackson? Irwin? Aye. Irwin, aye. Patel? Aye. Patel, aye. Bennett? Sharp-Collins? Sharp-Collins, aye. Tangipa? Aye Tangipa aye Thank you colleagues That motion is out We keep the roll open for additional members Next up is item number eight assembly Bill 2121 Do we have a motion That by you That by Mr Berman Berman I move that All right, we have a motion by Assemblymember Berner, second by Assemblymember Dr. Sharp-Collins. Mr. Secretary, roll call, please. File number eight, do pass as amended and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Fong? Aye. Fong, aye. DeMaio? No. DeMaio, no. Berner? Aye. Berner, aye. Jeff Gonzalez? Aye. Jeff Gonzalez, aye. Jackson, Irwin? Aye. Irwin, aye. Patel? Aye. Patel, aye. Bennett, Sharp-Collins? Aye. Sharp-Collins, aye. Tangipa? Aye. Tangipa, aye. That measure has seven ayes, one no, and we'll keep that open for additional members. That measure's out. Next up is item number 10, Assembly Bill 2229 by Summer Pellerin. Do we have a motion? Motion. Motion by Assembly Burner, seconded by Dr. Sharp-Collins. Mr. Secretary, roll call, please. File item number 10, do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Fong? Aye. Fong, aye. DeMaio? Aye. DeMaio, aye. Berner? Aye. Berner, aye. Jeff Gonzalez? Aye. Jeff Gonzalez, aye. Jackson? Irwin? Aye. Irwin, aye. Patel? Aye. Patel, aye. Bennett? Sharp-Collins? Sharp-Collins, aye. Tangipa? Aye. Tangipa, aye. Thank you so much. Next up is item number 11, Assembly Bill 2392 by Summer Fong. Do we have a motion? Second. We have a motion by Assemblyman Dr. Sharp-Collins, seconded by Assemblyman Berner. Mr. Secretary, roll call, please. File item number 11, do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. Fong? Aye. Fong, aye. DeMaio? Aye. DeMaio, aye. Berner? Aye. Berner, aye. Jeff Gonzalez? Aye. Jeff Gonzalez, aye. Jackson, Irwin? Aye. Irwin, aye. Patel? Aye. Patel, aye. Bennett? Sharp-Collins? Sharp-Collins, aye. Tangipa? Aye. Tangipa, aye. Thank you so much. We'll keep the roll open for the additional members that item is out. And our final item is item number 14, Assembly Bill 2660 by Assemblymember Alvarez. Do we have a motion? Second. We have a motion by Assemblymember Dr. Sharp-Collins, seconded by Assemblymember Berner. Mr. Secretary, roll call, please. File item number 14, do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Education. Fong? Aye. Fong, aye. DeMaio? Aye. DeMaio, aye. Berner? Aye. Berner, aye. Jeff Gonzalez? Aye. Jeff Gonzalez, aye. Jackson? Irwin? Aye. Irwin, aye. Patel? Aye. Patel, aye. Bennett? Sharp Collins? Aye. Sharp Collins, aye. Tangipa? Aye. Tangipa, aye. All right. Thank you so much, colleagues. We'll keep the rope in for additional members to add on. Thank you so much, colleagues, for your participation. Appreciate you. And we'll keep the rope in for a few more minutes, for five more minutes, for members to add on. Oh, yes. We have add-ons right now. We can go through an add-on. Thank you so much. Maybe you do it. On the consent calendar, Patel? Aye. Patel, aye. Did I miss anything else? We're checking right now. She's good. She's good? Yeah. You're good. You make it so easy. For members that would like to add on, we'll keep the row open for a few more minutes. Thank you so much. Thank you colleagues. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. We're going to entertain add-ons to the various items. Mr. Secretary, roll call, please. On the consent calendar, Bennett? Aye. Bennett, aye. File item number two, AB 1636. Bennett? Aye. Bennett, aye. File item number three, AB 1784 Pellerin. Bennett? Aye. Bennett, aye. File item number four, AB 1845 Vice Assemblymember Krell. Bennett? Aye. Bennett, aye. File item number five, AB 1852 Baines. Bennett? Not voting. Bennett not voting. Aye. File item number 6, AB 1920 by Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez. Bennett? Aye. Bennett, aye. File item number 7, AB 1928 by Assemblymember Fong. Bennett? Aye. Bennett, aye. File item number 8, AB 2121 by Assemblymember Berman. Bennett? Aye. Bennett, aye. File item number 10, AB 2229 by Assemblymember Pellerin. Bennett? Aye. Bennett, aye. File item number 11, AB 2392 by Assemblymember Fong. Bennett? Did you say Fong? Okay, aye. Bennett, aye. All right, file item number 14, AB 2660 by Assembly Member Alvarez. Bennett? Aye. Bennett, aye. Thank you so much. Thank you so much I will entertain add at this time On the consent calendar Assembly Jackson Aye Jackson aye Our consent calendar is out Thank you so much File item number two, AB 1636. Jackson. Aye. Jackson, aye. Item number two is out. Thank you. File item number three, AB 1784. Jackson. Aye. Jackson, aye. Item three is out. Thank you. File item number four, AB 1845, Jackson? Aye. Jackson, aye. That measure is out. Thank you. File item number five, AB 1852 by Assemblymember Baines. Jackson? Aye. Jackson, aye. That measure has three votes and seven not voting. That measure fails. Thank you. File item number six, AB 1920 by Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez, Jackson. Aye. Jackson, aye. File item number six is out. Thank you. File item number seven, AB 1928 by Assemblymember Fong, Jackson. Aye. Jackson, aye. That measure is out. Thank you. File item number eight, AB 2121 by Assemblymember Berman, Jackson. Aye. Jackson, aye. That measure is out. File item number 10, AB 2229 by Assemblymember Pellerin, Jackson. Aye. Jackson, aye. That measures out. Thank you. File item number 11, AB 2392 by Assemblymember Fong, Jackson. Aye. Jackson, aye. That measures out. File item number 14, AB 2660 by Assemblymember Alvarez, Jackson. Aye. Jackson, aye. Thank you so much. Thank you so much, colleagues, for a robust hearing, and thank you so much to everyone involved with today's hearing, especially our Assembly of Higher Education Committee staff and everyone involved with today's hearing. Our next hearing is on Tuesday, April 14th at 1.30 p.m. in State Capitol Room 127. Please note that we are going to 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 of Higher Education Committee meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.