Senate Education Committee

I believe we have Assemblymember Alanis here to present. Thank you, Madam Chair. First, I want to say that I will be accepting committee amendments and want to thank the chair and the committee staff, thank you, for taking the time to work with me and my office on this bill. I also want to thank the education stakeholders who have come to the table. Their willingness to engage has resulted in meaningful improvements to the measure. AB 387 builds upon the Nevaeh Youth Sports Safety Act that continues our efforts to ensure that when children participate in organized sports, life-saving equipment is available when seconds matter most. law already requires youth sports organizations to ensure AED access during practices and games. AB 387 does not change that responsibility. Instead, it clarifies how youth sports organizations and the facilities where they play can work together to improve access to existing AEDs and better coordinate emergency preparedness. Over the past several months, my office has worked extensively with the youth sports organizations, the cities, counties, park districts, and risk management organizations also to include educational stakeholders. Those discussions have resulted in meaningful changes to the bill, which further clarifies responsibilities of schools and other facility operators while preserving the bill's core public safety objectives. But our work is not finished. I remain committed to continuing these conversations as the bill moves forward to address remaining concerns, and I hope all stakeholders, whether they support or oppose the bill today, will remain engaged so that together we can reach a solution that protects children and provides a practical path to implementation. For those reasons, when the time is right, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Good morning, man. Is it on? MR. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Chris McKaley here on behalf of AYSO, the American Youth Sports Organization. We are in support, as the Assemblymember noted, with this committee, with the Health Committee and counterparts in the Assembly. We continue to work on refining these provisions. Youth organizations, sports organizations are trying to work cooperatively with the public facilities to ensure that AED devices are available and accessible for youth sporting events So thank you Thank you Sarah Bridges on behalf of the Eric Perez Save a Life Foundation

Okay. Are there any opposition witnesses? If there are major oppositions, then you will have two minutes each.

Thank you. Next one.

Okay. In the audience, any opposition statements to be made? Identify your name and organization, your position only.

Good morning Eric Lurie on behalf of the California State Association counties opposed unless amended appreciate efforts by the author and sponsor. Thank you

real vice chair showed up oh that's too funny okay so that was the was that the public speaking in opposition okay so we see no other witnesses in opposition we bring it back to the dais Questions comments I have a question I hear the youth sports facilities have AED but I don know whether every sports facilities will have any place that can be stored in there. Is it portable? And that's my question. And if not, do they have to carry in every time when the field is used for practice purposes? And the second question would be, I don't know much about the difference AED versus CPR. the CPRs among the many crowds, I'm sure they are trained, some of them trained, or be much quicker than carrying the machine and opening, setting up, because we are fighting against the time. So do you have opinions on that, the two differences of why that is necessary? I do, and your first question, an AED if you

So very valid questions. Do you know the effectiveness of two different kinds, methods? CPR versus AED? Yeah. They work together. They go together. Side by side? Side by side. So it'll tell you, don't touch the patient. It's going to do its thing. And then after a while, if it doesn't get anything, it's going to tell you to continue CPR. It's I don't say dummy proof, but it's almost dummy proof. It tells you what to do My my old job is as a in law enforcement. We used them and they're effective Okay, thank you. Thank you Okay, so the amendments were accepted I wasn't here for the opening So I'm not sure if you had affirmed that or not just wanted to make sure that we had a I'll do it again Yeah, see and then the other concern I had On the liability, I understand you're still working with the opposition with regards to the liability concerns? Correct. And everybody at the table has been great. I mean, the ladies here and those that even came up to the microphone. It's not that every bill is supposed to be the best bill, but this has been a really good bill to be working with both people on both sides. Okay. And then my follow-up question is, do we see possible language to neutralize the opposition moving forward? 100%. Not only the language here today, but also the commitment from the author, should this bill move forward, to continue to work on the liability so we can address access to care or access to the device and not just rendering of care that's currently protected for Good Samaritan protection. So 100% feel comfortable and we're committed to the solutions here. Okay. I guess I do have a couple more. Sorry. on the the cost that's a you know one of the biggest concerns that we have on behalf of the the school districts is always the the mandates that we face on them without any funding has there been a budget request to help alleviate the cost for this particular A specific budget request Yes for this Like from my office for this? Yes. Yeah, no, no. And if it was, I wouldn't think they would. I haven't had a budget request approved for anything and everything. Well, for personal budget requests, no. But usually we can do statewide budget requests. And if this is going to impact all of our schools in the district, all our school districts in our state, it wouldn't be unusual. It wouldn't hurt. Correct. So, yes, ma'am. And we're pleased to see that there is a cost-sharing agreement. Under current education code, schools do have cost recovery under the Civic Center Act. So while there could be additional costs incurred, there is a requirement to meet with the YSO to find a cost-sharing agreement to limit the possible impacts to school budgets. Okay. I don't have no idea what the systems cost. Do we have any idea? You can go on the Internet. You can find some for $600. You can find some up to like $1,400. So what fancy one you want or how it looks or what brand it is, it just depends on a lot of things on there. Okay. And how many do we think approximately with – is it per sport? How would you – So I take it you've been to a soccer tournament before with your kids, and you probably have like 10 or 15 fields? Yes. Well, you probably only have like one snack bar for that entire tournament. right? There's not like a bunch of them everywhere. So same thing with the AED. There'll be one AED there available for everybody. Just like as if you had an ambulance that was there on scene. You're not going to have an ambulance on every field. You're just going to have one available for the whole tournament. So probably for per sport then. If a school, I'm referring to if a school will be investing in this. I'm assuming it's a school. So schools already have to have this even before we even did Nevaehs. Schools already had to have one on campus for student activities and after school activities for the students. So some schools are playing baseball, maybe doing track and maybe doing soccer at the same time and they still only just had to have one on the facility. Correct me if I'm wrong, opposition on that for your schools. The provision is not for YSOs for youth sport organizations, it's for interscholastic sports. So different purpose but yes they do have to be provided during those matches. Okay alrighty so someone has them already on campus so we relatively easy to facilitate. Okay so with that obviously don't have a quorum but we'll place this bill on hold until we establish a quorum and I look forward to supporting the bill today with the condition that you folks will continue conversations with the opposition and hopefully find language that will neutralize the opposition. I'm hoping for that too. Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you so much for presenting the bill and bringing this forward. Thank you. Okay, we'll continue with file item number two I B 467 by member fong Good morning, Member Fong. Good morning, Member Fong. You may proceed when you're ready. Good morning, Madam Chair and Senators. Assembly Bill 467 establishes the California Center for Climate Change Education Center at West Los Angeles College. In 2022, the legislature appropriated $5 million to support the creation and development of the Center. The Center provides professional development training, environmentally focused curriculum, and paid internships for our students interested in climate-related fields. But without a permanent source of funding, future operations are vulnerable to potential funding shortfalls. By codifying the mission and responsibilities of the Center, the Center will be able to seek multi-year grants, donations, and other external funding opportunities. The center contributes to California's leadership in response to climate change and prepares our community college students for important work in this field. And here to testify in support is Matt Jordan, president of West Los Angeles College. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you. Good morning, vice chair, committee member, and staffers. As mentioned, I'm Matthew Jordan, the interim president at West Los Angeles College. I'm here today in support of AB 467 by Assemblymember Fong, which seeks to codify the California Center for Climate Change Education at West LA College. Since its creation, the center has trained faculty to contextualize climate change education, provided paid internships and fellowships for students, and hosted climate-themed public events for over 2,500 Californians throughout the state. We believe codification will support the center's long-term stability and strengthen our ability to secure grants and philanthropic investments. Our initial state appropriation sunsets next June. Over the last three years, we've been able to bring in an additional $2.5 million in other funds. We're committed to ongoing resource development for the center, and we believe that codification will support us in these efforts of bringing in additional funds to do this good work. West LA College is the ideal home for a statewide climate center because environmental responsibility is a key component of our official mission. This work is a moral imperative for us, and we want to serve the entire state. The California Community College Chancellor's Office has recognized West LA as a leader in this space. Last year, they tapped us to run their student climate fellows program, and they're currently working on an agreement for the center to provide professional development and resources system-wide. For all of these reasons, and on behalf of the Los Angeles Community College District, I respectfully request your support of AB 467, and I sincerely thank you for your consideration. Thank you very much for your testimony. We'll now continue with any members of the public who would like to express their support for AB 467. Seeing none, do we have any lead opposition? Seeing none, do we have any members of the public who would like to express their opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais. Any questions, comments? Thank you for the introduction of the important, appears to be very important education program. Is that unique at the West, what's the name of that, the West Los Angeles College, this program? Is there any other universities or colleges offering the same course? Thank you so much, Senator Choi, for that question. West L.A. College is the lead on the climate change programs for the California Community College system. And as mentioned by President Jordan, the California Community College Chancellor's Office has designated as a specific center to focus on climate change issues, to really be the leader on these issues. They've also the first community college in the state to implement a climate change and environmental studies associate degree. Starting in 2018, this climate center is next to one of the largest oil fields in the state at the Inglewood oil field. So the work and efforts around West Los Angeles College to be a pioneer and leader in climate change studies So my question was among the community colleges is West LA College is the unique program It's the first one in the state of California. Yeah, I was wondering whether, regardless of whether other campuses offer that education on climate change, I wonder if you can tell me briefly the curriculum makeup of that, what exactly are being taught in the classrooms? Certainly. It's made up of a variety of environmental science classes, and in addition to contextualized classes in other disciplines, contextualized for climate change. You know, so, for example, an economics class with a climate-themed pedagogy. and curriculum. I see. So this was a setup for 2018. That's what you said, right? The… So that means you had a number of graduates of that program. Yes. Do they get a degree in climate change? They do. Correct. What typical area do they get a job after the program? There are a variety of jobs, both in the blue economy, which are related to anything related to water preservation, our aquatic systems, and also the green economy. So solar, you know, anything to do with decarbonization. Those jobs range from, you know, engineering, planning, project management in those fields. Okay. Does the four-year colleges have the same track if one is interested in and dedicated to pursue their career in that field? Can they continue on to four-year, such as Cal State or UC system in the same subject field? Yeah, and that's one of our goals for this upcoming 26, 27 year is to work on specific articulations with UCs and CSUs. There are programs in both systems, and we hope in the next year to be able to articulate. Currently, there's no such a major. There are majors. We don't have the specific articulation agreements with the four years yet, but we hope to establish those in the next year. But the majors do exist. Thank you. Thank you. So I have a question. According to the Budget Act of 2022, it required the district to prepare a report on the center by January 1st, 2027. And I appreciate the amount of information that was provided with regards to since 2023, 87 faculty throughout LACCD have created new courses, 40 workshops and training opportunities. we had 1,500 students just in 2024-25. So I'm just kind of curious, is it a little premature to be doing, to be codifying before, and obviously there's a lot of success on it, but why so early before the report has been completed? Is there a reason why that was actually, why you're pursuing this so early and before that report is being presented on the success of the program? Yeah I be happy to speak to that We very much looking forward to submitting the report The initial data is excellent We're hitting all of our outcomes. The urgency in moving forward with codification is really to support the fundraising efforts for the center. It is a program that, by its nature, does not generate much revenue and has a significant amount of expense related to the professional development, to putting students into paid internships and fellowships. So that is the basis for the urgency is to support our fundraising work. Okay. I think that's always important just because the precedents that we set for future programs and the impact that they may or may not have on successful or unsuccessful programs. But obviously you folks are on the right track. You folks have that. Obviously you're hitting your marks. I was just kind of curious as to, I do, I'm hesitant about that component of just coming before, especially with a brand spanking new program without having the formal report. And with that, good morning, Senator Cabaldon. We have – we're on file item number two. Do you have any comments or questions on that? Nope. Okay. We don't have quite a quorum yet. So we will place – I don't have any other questions. Thank you for bringing this measure forward, and thank you for the explanation for being here. I appreciate that. Would you like to close? Member Fong. Thank you so much, Madam Chair and Senators. Really appreciate the robust dialogue on this bill. And as mentioned by our president, this center has accomplished a lot so far, provided over 200 students with climate-related workforce development opportunities, paid internships, nonprofit certificates, and climate change for climate-focused careers, and really building out the articulation agreements going forward. And also hosting the Climate Action Palooza with industry leaders, students, educators. So this is a win-win opportunity. And January 1st is just literally around the corner. And I know the president of West Valley College and the team is ready to present that report soon. And so with that, I really appreciate the context there. And this would really just provide the center an opportunity to secure sustainable funding opportunities without additional state appropriation. We know that we're in challenging budget times now. And it promotes a blueprint for climate change education for our community college students. And at the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you, Member Fong. Thank you. Have a great day. You too. Thank you. Okay, we'll now continue with file item number 3, AB664, by Member Alvarez. Welcome. Thank you. I'm here to respectfully ask your support of Assembly Bill 664 which addresses a unique higher education access issue and workforce issue in my district the needs of South San Diego County. Southwestern College serves more than half a million residents yet South County the area that I represent and that they serve is the largest population center in California without a nearby by public university offering bachelor's degree opportunities for their families, the students that they serve. For too many students including working adults parents veterans and first generation students earning a bachelor degree means having to leave their community their jobs oftentimes their families That reality has limited educational opportunities while making it more difficult for regional employers to fill critical workforce needs. Southwestern College has spent years working collaboratively with our local UC, UC San Diego, our local CSU, San Diego State University, and even CSU San Marcos in northern San Diego County. and other local partners to expand pathways and educational opportunities. Those partnerships remain essential. They're a key part of what the college does, and Assembly Bill 664 builds on that collaborative approach. However, despite those efforts of which I've been a part of and in the middle of in the last few years in particular, significant unmet workforce and educational needs continue to exist in this part of California and this part of San Diego. Extensive workforce analysis conducted through the University Now initiative identified 147 high-demand occupations that require a bachelor's degree. 147 occupations requiring a bachelor's degree in the healthcare space, in education, in public safety, technology, and in our very unique binational economy. AB 664 responds to those documented needs by authorizing Southwestern College to seek approval for up to four carefully targeted bachelor's degree programs in Allied Health Education and Leadership, Forensic Sciences, Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages, and Interaction Design. These programs were selected because they addressed documented regional workforce needs while complementing and not competing with existing other university offerings. The bill also includes strong accountability measures, including the Chancellor's Review, documented workforce demand, continued collaboration with regional university partners, independent legislative analyst office evaluations, and this authority with Sunset. I also want to thank the committee and stakeholders for their continued engagement of this measure. Moving forward, we will be proposing amendments to clarify that AB 664 is intended as a bridge to a broader statewide solution. If the statewide framework established by other bills that this committee has heard and will hear, if those are enacted, then this district-specific authorization will not be necessary for our community. In the meantime, this pilot will provide valuable information about how regional partnerships are carefully targeted in each one of our communities and in our community colleges themselves. Community college bachelor's degree programs can work together to expand opportunity for place-bound students. Ultimately, 664 is about ensuring that South County students, the families and the communities that I represent, have opportunities to earn an affordable bachelor's degree close to home while helping employers, our employers, build the skilled workforce that they need for our region's economy. Respectfully ask for your aye vote and we'll turn it over to Dr. Mark Sanchez, Superintendent and President of Southwestern College to testify and then also we'll hear from student Orlando Vicente Lasso. Thank you, Assembly Member Alvarez and good morning to the committee. Thank you for having us this morning. My name is Mark Sanchez and I'm the Superintendent President at Southwestern College in Chula Vista, California. While state systems negotiate how to collaborate. Students in the South County of San Diego, our college's service area, and many in your districts wait. Some of our students relocate, many stop out, and in that process as their communities lose their talent. I invite you to visit us at Southwestern College and see regional collaboration and practice. The University of California, San Diego, San Diego State University, and the California State University at San Marcos are co-located on our campus and will begin delivering bachelor degree pathway programs beginning this fall. Assembly Bill 664 authorizes four additional programs not available regionally today. a narrow, accountable, research-based pilot that tests what works before scaling policy. I'd like to provide clarity on what this bill does and does not do. It does prioritize collaboration built on existing partnerships, removing regional duplication, and evaluating whether this model improves student success outcomes. It does not bypass accountability. It is grounded in years of regional workforce and academic research identifying unmet need. It does meet Prop 98 mandates. Prop 98 funds a segment, not a degree level, and community college is earning outcomes under the student-centered funding formula which prioritizes student completion, equity, and workforce goals, and we are squarely operating within that mission. Southwestern College in Chila Vista, California is the right place for this pilot. It builds on three decades of regional work. Both Assembly Bill 664 and Assembly Bill 662, which was signed by the governor, which is the task force for the South County University Initiative, are grounded in the same research foundation. You're just over two minutes. Okay, making this a part of a larger regional strategy. So I'd just like to ask the committee for your support, please. our students want to have these access to these degree programs in their home communities. Thank you. Thank you. And just as a reminder for our witnesses here, we do have a time limit for testimony, and it's two minutes. Got it. Thank you. Hi, my name is... All right, I should have... No worries. I'm used to having a timer, but no problem. No problem. My name is Orlando Vicente Lazo, student trustee at Southwestern College. And I grew up in Irvine, and there were universities everywhere, so I never had to worry about commute time and travel costs. So that is something I did take for granted. After high school, I moved to Tijuana, and now I cross the border every single day to come to Southwestern College, where I'm majoring in economics, accounting, and business administration. My plan is to transfer to UC San Diego, but this comes at an incredible time cost that will be difficult for me and impossible for many others. In fact, one of my classmates was supposed to be here today, a single mom studying forensic science, but the only program in California is 400 miles away from us. For students like her, those programs don't exist in a way they can actually access. She had challenges with child care, so she couldn't be here today. How can she be expected to leave her kids or her support system to finish her degree? Students in my region and yours shouldn't have to choose between their education and support systems that hold their lives together. These are the everyday experiences of so many community college students, and we are not statistics, we are real people making impossible decisions. Students in rural areas without universities, single parents who can't relocate, people who work full and can commute Assembly Bill 664 tests weather the collaboration with UCSD STSU and Cal State San Marcos on our campus and a limited number of regionally non workforce aligned bachelor programs help more students complete degrees that lead to family sustaining wage jobs. This isn't about expanding bachelor's degrees everywhere at community colleges everywhere. It's about evaluating what works before the state makes bigger decisions. Students shouldn't need to wait for state-level solutions when local communities alike mine are already working together to help their students. Please support Assembly Bill 664 so what we learn from the pilot can benefit all students and all communities. Thank you. Thank you very much. We'll now continue with any witnesses in from the public please come to the microphone state your name your organization and your support for the bill thank you Mark McDonald on behalf of the San Diego Community College District and on behalf of National University part of the University Now project in support Hello, my name is Gianmarco Zuno, and I am the ASO president of Southwestern College Student Government, and I fully support AB664. It is something students have been waiting for 30 years plus, and it is a partnership, a collaboration. It is not competition. Everything we've done for this bill, yes. Thank you. Just as a reminder, name, organization, and your position on the bill at this time. Yeah, hi. I'm Ned Garcia, first-generation student at Southwestern College, also a binational student in full support of AB664. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Francia Moreno, student government vice president, and I came here to support AB664. Good morning, Jeff Neal representing the City of Chula Vista also in support. Good morning, Pati Moreno-Gonzalez on behalf of the Student Senate for California Community Colleges. In support. Don Dumas, San Diego County Teacher of the Year and Southwestern College Trustee in support. Congratulations. Thank you. Good morning, Imran Majid on behalf of the California Community College Chancellor's Office in support. Thank you. Zanita Encarnacion, Chief of Staff at Southwestern College overseeing all of our university partnerships in support. Michael Speyer, Professor of Southwestern College for Criminal Justice, also retired law enforcement. We want to support. Good morning, Dr. Jason Humms, Director of EMT and Paramedic Programs at Southwestern College in full support. Thank you. All right, seeing no other witnesses in support, we'll now continue with any lead witnesses in opposition to AB664. That must have been a hard walk for you. Welcome. There we are. All right, good morning, Chair and members. Chris Morales with the CSU Office of the Chancellor and respectful opposition. I know we'll be hearing two other bills and on this similar subject, so I will try not to jump ahead in that discussion but the CSU has heard loud and clear from the author and members of the committee on this issue The problem of students wanting to take a program that is not offered in their area or is offered in their area but is realistically unaccessible to students in that region. As we've heard in previous hearings, existing law does not allow for that kind of flexibility especially for rural and place-bound students. And as you'll hear later, in the last few months we've spoken with the author, the chair of the committee, and members of this Committee and have worked on amendments to address this issue, to address existing law. We have since presented our proposal to the author to allow for that flexibility while prioritizing the partnerships and pathways that already work so well and ensuring that we are being accountable to our objectives on transfer and efficiently using state resources. It is our hope that this statewide proposal will accomplish the intent and spirit of both AB-664 and the following bill we'll hear, AB-2301, as it pertains to nursing. We believe that a statewide solution between all parties will provide the best benefit to the state and its students. However, we feel that the district-specific and program-specific exception to the statewide process would hinder those efforts because of the differing requirements on accountability, reporting, and meeting workforce need, among other parameters. For that reason, we remain opposed to AB664, but we remain committed to working with the author and this committee on finding a statewide solution to this issue. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Jessica Dondin, University of California, also here in respectful opposition to AB664. This year, the legislature has engaged in an important and necessary conversation about the future of California's higher education system and whether the state's master plan continues to meet the needs of today's students, workforce, and economy. Our state's demographics, labor market demands, student population, and educational pathways have evolved in profound ways since the Master Plan was adopted more than six decades ago, raising legitimate questions about how California's higher education systems can best serve future generations. At the same time, while the legislature has enacted several targeted measures that effectively carve out exceptions to the Master Plan, California has not undertaken the comprehensive collaborative review that a transformation of this magnitude deserves. incremental changes to one component of the system without evaluating the broader implications for all four higher education segments, risks creating unintended consequences, shifting responsibilities without adequate planning, and undermining the coordinated framework that has long guided California's investment in higher education. UC believes that if California is prepared to reconsider the master plan, it should do so through a deliberate, data-driven, and inclusive process that examines the system as a whole. UC stands ready to be a constructive partner on a thoughtful modernization of the master plan that strengthens student success, preserves institutional excellence, and ensures California public higher education system remains the nation's model for generations to come. Thank you. Thank you very much. We'll now continue with any witnesses from the public who would like to express our opposition to AB664. Please approach the microphone. Mario Guerrero with the California Faculty Association. Align our comments actually with the UC rep. Thank you. Thank you very much. Seeing no other comments from the public, we'll come back to the dais. Senator Cobaldin? I'm chairing, so courtesy first. All right. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And we do have several bills on this topic today, and I want to thank the folks coming up from the community to lay out the rationale the profound need that students and employers in the community is facing in terms of the lack of access to the kinds of programs that will lead to high road great jobs and careers and to a community full of civic life and opportunity. That's exactly what higher education has meant for places all throughout California and for the state as a whole. I'm of many minds on this issue. You know, both UC and CSU have referenced, I think, repeatedly in this conversation, both about this bill and the others, the importance of our fidelity to the master plan and all of that. But I'm reminded that in 1955, there was a bill to establish a new campus of, I think, UC, maybe it was CSU. No, it had to be UC. There was no CSU at the time to establish a new UC campus. And there were many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many other bills to do something similar. And at the time, it was described as almost uncontrolled aspirations and proposals of local communities for new higher ed campuses. That 1955 Senate bill that initially proposed one new university, by the time it got to the end of the legislative process, right around this month of 1955, it had grown to include 19 new campuses in communities throughout the state. Because everyone said, well, what about my area? What about this area that's also dramatically lacking in higher education? And that is why the master plan was created in the first place. And it wasn't created by us. Definitely not by any of us, but not us as an institution. The master plan was created because UC and the rest of higher ed, which was entirely in the superintendent of public instruction at the time, knew that that was an untenable and sustainable course. that if they didn't do something about it, then we would continue to have 19 new four-year universities proposed every legislative session. Everybody knew this was not going to work. And so, to their credit, and the reason why we still celebrate the master plan today, or at least some folks do repeatedly, is that they didn't say, you know what we need is more collaboration. We need more partnerships. We need to think about this a little longer. they took bold action, very bold action, and rewrote the world model for higher education in the entire country. That's what the president of UC and the emerging chancellor of what would become CSU did at that time. And CSU itself was created from that process. The community colleges, which were just grade 13 and 14 of adult ed before that, became the community colleges as a result of that. And so I think we're called upon to do more than just encourage people to do partnerships. We're called upon to do more than just encourage people to pay attention to what the impacts are in the institutions. The student has to be at the center. And as all the witnesses testified, the opportunities that students need to have need to be real. And so I'm skeptical about this bill because it fits to me in that 1955 bill that was 19 campuses. but at the same time if we don't do anything and by we I mostly mean the institutions don't step and say hey we're going to solve this problem meaningfully boldly for real at the scale that it demands we're going to be here every year doing this and so I'm going to about like just picking this one I have several in my own in my own district that could they could that have similar stories to tell and the issue is their stories like this all over California so I'm looking forward to the discussion and the debate on the upcoming bills we need a master plan level commitment to solving this this opportunity not the challenge the opportunity to make a demonstrable difference in the lives of students but also the local communities that are just trying to take advantage of opportunities for economic development, for workforce development, and for growth. And the University of California, the California State University, and of course the California Community Colleges have always been at the center of that. We need a new compact. We need a new master plan level approach to accomplish this. Otherwise we're going to drown in these kind of proposals every single year. So I thank the author for bringing this forward to give voice to one example in the state where This is absolutely essential and we continue to appreciate the partnership and the collaboration with UC and CSU. But really, this is the time for us to to take effective action. That's really going to deliver on this commitment, putting students and communities at the center with the institutions as the support for that, not as the center of the conversation. Thanks, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Cabaldon. I, too, we've been seeing it's not a unique scenario where we have. I have the same issues in my district with regards to proposals on meeting the bachelor's degree challenges in areas that are not currently offered in my rural area. So I represent the Inland Empire, San Bernardino Riverside County. 55% of those communities are in the desert, and they're rural. And so it's very, very difficult for them to be able to have access to four-year degrees, especially in the high desert. So I completely understand on that end. I am always very cognizant and very eager to hear Senator Cabaldon's perspective on many of these issues, especially when it comes to higher ed, because of his background and his experience. And I really respect his feedback. And I listen intently to what he has to say on many of these issues because he does have the history and not many of us do. So thank you for sharing that, Senator Cabaldon. With that, would you like to close? Thank you. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair, Senator. Appreciate the comments and the thoughts. I do think this is an issue that is not going away, first and foremost. And it certainly won't go away if we don't figure out how to meet the needs of Californians and students. And in my case, I think just like you would do, we have been desperately seeking solutions to a very real problem in our district, in our community, which is the lack of access to higher education. We have the two segments, as we refer to, the University of California and the CSU. We have two of the top, in each of their segments, the top schools in terms of demand, applications, CSU, San Diego, San Diego State, in this case, almost 100,000 applicants per year, which means a large number of Californians just get rejected. and that includes people who live in our own community in San Diego who are looking to transfer from from Southwestern College or San Diego City College or other college district and in the case of UCSD again a top institution they I think we're over 130,000 applicants I think it's the most applied to UC those are our two nearest institutions that could serve our students as you might imagine as a result of those numbers it very difficult to serve students at those two campuses and to get into those two campuses. We just had an audit hearing on Monday, and I know some of you may have made it after I left, but we heard some pretty, what I thought were really important, admissions or testimony from UC and CSU, and that's the fact that they agree that our community college students are place-bound students. They're not students that get up, uproot, and move somewhere else. In fact, I'll probably say this now a couple times today in my other presentation. I was very fascinated to learn from CSU that we have this 1% problem. We have a 1% problem where I think from Southwestern College, I believe their number is only 1% of their students who ever transfer leave San Diego County. Is that correct, President? The other 1% problem we learned about on Monday at the audit is that CSU attempts to redirect students who don't get into their local institution to go somewhere else in the state. At the end of the day, there's 20 other campuses where our students can go. And yet only 1% of those students who they proactively seek to go somewhere else end up doing so. Both of those 1% statistics should tell you what are the needs of these students. The needs of these students are to stay close to home. And if our local institutions aren't offering the degrees that are focused on getting them the jobs after they graduate from college in workforce industries that are prepared to receive them in their own communities, then why do we have a system of higher education if that's not the intent? And so I'm here asking your support of Assembly Bill 664 because I am seeking and working collaboratively, thank you to Senator Kabaldon, to the chair of this committee, to the chair of our assembly committee, to try to figure out if there's another way to do this. and I am 100% devoted to that and committed to that. But if that doesn't get resolved, I cannot continue another year and another year of not allowing access to my students in this bill for very specific degrees that will offer them jobs the minute they finish in a way that is measured, that is evaluated. We don't ask that of the same of our UCs and CSUs. they are also statistics there where our students are not graduating and entering the workforce we're expecting more of this community college access degree that we're offering and it's okay to do that we probably should do that everywhere but this is really about the community that I represent which has been waiting for a long long time we are working on many fronts to get higher education I have personally worked to create these partnerships with UC and with CSU which were not there before just a few years ago it has been hard hard work the collaboration is not easy to do I'm committed to continuing to do that so is Southwestern College this is just asking us asking you for an opportunity of just four new doors being open for many students who today cannot graduate from Southwestern College and go to a local university to pursue pursue that career and just four fields that's all we're asking for but you would be changing a lot of lives in South San Diego County. For that reason, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you very much, Member Alvarez, for your testimony and your passion, your dedication to your district. It's commendable. Thank you to the witnesses for being here and sharing your life stories. We don have a quorum yet so we can take a vote so we place this on until we are able to we place it on call until we able to yeah get a quorum We'll now continue with file item number 4, AB 2694 by Member Alvarez. You may proceed when you're ready, sir. Thank you very much. That could not have been a more appropriate way to lead into this conversation. this is the statewide conversation that we've been referencing. You've heard testimony from, I think, mainly the opposition. I think Senator Cabaldon spoke to this conversation, and I will tell you I got to this bill as a result of that previous bill because I heard everything that you just heard in testimony primarily from opposition about how we should do this better. And I do think that my bill for my district helped really inform me of what could be a good approach, a good approach to solving this issue of ensuring that kids all over California, not just the ones that I represent, but all over the state, may have an opportunity of access to higher education at times when those opportunities are not available in our current four-year institutions, of which we are tremendously, I want to make sure we say this, proud of and and and we we are the California that we are thanks to our segments and the UC and CSU so 2694 is a statewide policy now a bill that would modernize how California approves community college bachelor's degree programs to better respond specifically to regional workforce needs California continues to face significant shortages and professions require bachelor's degrees. The data is very well published on that. I don't need to get into it, but current law applies a rigid application standard that can prevent community colleges from responding to those demonstrated workforce needs in a timely fashion, even though employers are asking for this workforce. And we have seen evidence of that as well in the last couple of years as community college districts have attempted to bring online community bachelor's degrees and have faced significant delays in approval process as a result of other segments saying that it was unnecessary. So I do intend to pursue language as part of this requiring that community college districts demonstrate that existing CSU partnerships avenues are not viable. That's a really important point. I think it was brought up thanks again to your committee consultant. It was brought up in your analysis. Mr. Ramirez talks about how we should may want to consider that we ask our districts to try to create those partnerships I think we should you heard what we've done at Southwestern College at the earlier earlier bill we work with our locals UC our local CSU they are both now on the community college campus they are offering degrees starting this fall that all takes resources it takes collaboration it takes I have found a lot of pulling in the direction of doing this and I think we should incentivize UC, CSU, and community college districts to do so. And I think that this bill can can lead to that. I already talked about redirection earlier with a 1% problem is very real. Those who are going through our community college system, I am assuming up and down the state the problem is similar to Southwestern College, whether it's they don't leave their county or in the case of when you attempt to move them from one campus to another once they get accepted into the CSU system a student may say no thank you for the offer but I can go live in San Francisco I staying in San Bernardino or I staying in anywhere else part of the state That is a very real problem. The current incentives to move students from one place to another is not working. So this really requires us to think about what it costs a student to relocate or to commute long distances. And those are real impossible barriers, I would say, impossible barriers for place-bound students that this bill is designed to serve. We have seen some models that do work, and we should incentivize those and encourage those. Under this bill, new bachelor's degree programs may be approved only when, and I think this is important for me to highlight, only when there is documented unmet regional workforce needs and when programs are not substantially similar to existing CSU or UC offerings within the geographic region, unless there are statutory conditions that are met to do so. The bill strengthens, not weakens, the review process by requiring objective labor market analysis, which is in the analysis by this committee. It's an amendment that's being requested, which we are accepting. but the review process of requiring objective labor market analysis, employer consultation, workforce board input, and continued coordination is really how we should be focused on developing new degrees in this state. This bill also preserves guardrails. Participating districts must demonstrate success in serving students through their existing associate degrees and certificated programs or adopt board-approved improvement plans. So if you're not doing your job as a community college district, then you have to demonstrate how you're going to do that job better to be able to have access and opportunity to offer bachelor's degrees. So that we're not adding a new workload or just a brand new program without having accountability for our local community college districts. The bill also reduces the percentage of bachelor's degree programs that may offer. So today in state law and statute, 25%. this reduces it to 15% of the offerings at our community college district. When concerns are raised about substantial similarity, the Chancellor's Office must bring, when concerns are raised, excuse me, through the process, about substantial similarity, the Chancellor's Office must bring the parties together so that we can talk and resolve those concerns before a program can move forward. And that has to be documented. It has to be proven that those conversations and that consultation actually occurred. This is about coordination, not about competition. We're not creating many universities in California. I want to thank, again, the committee chair and staff and the many stakeholders who have worked collaboratively on this measure. I appreciate the thoughtful amendments reflecting the committee analysis, which further strengthen accountability, reinforce workforce-based decision-making, and preserve appropriate safeguards. I'm pleased to accept, like I said, those committee amendments and remain open to work that I think needs to continue as I work with our colleagues, Senator Cabaldon, with the CSU system, with the UC system, which I think we still to this day have not heard any specific feedback on. But CSU we have up until yesterday. I know I was reviewing some of their amendments that they're suggesting. I think there's something there that could be worked. But that work probably will require more time throughout the summer, which we are committed to doing. So with that, I'd like to turn it over now to Dr. Larry Galiza, who's President and CEO of the Community College League California. So before we... Just for clarification purposes, are you accepting all of the committee amendments? Yes. All of them? Yes. Okay. There's one amendment. Just one, sorry. Yes, okay, yes. Sorry, one. Sorry. They had amends, so I was like, like the multiple amends, so I just wanted to make sure. Thank you. Vice Chair Ochoa Bogue, members, Larry Galizio, I'm the President and CEO of the Community College League of California. We represent the leadership of all 73 districts and 116 community colleges, and we're here in support of the bill. We want to thank Assemblymember Alvarez for his commitment to economic and social mobility, not just for its constituents, but for all Californians. You know, it's clear that the status quo is not adequately meeting employer demands for a skilled and educated workforce. It's also clear the urgent needs of individuals and families seeking accessible, affordable, quality, workforce-aligned baccalaureate degrees are also not being met. As policymakers, you know this is true. It's just an empirical fact. The state auditor's report that was recently discussed at JLAC and the 2025 PPIC report confirm this truth and analysis. So pardon the pun, but this is not merely an academic exercise or debate. A skilled and educated workforce is essential for the economic vitality of California. Students and families, and especially low-income and underrepresented students and place-bound students and Californians deserve opportunities for advancement. The League believes that AB 2694 responds directly and effectively and elegantly to these challenges. It strengthens our ability to respond by expanding access to in-demand workforce baccalaureate degree programs. And it helps ensure students are not pushed toward higher cost, predatory for profit institutions. I think everybody here probably remembers the disaster of Corinthian, where over 500,000 Californians were defrauded. The public university and community colleges should be supporting and working to enhance this opportunity. It addresses structural barriers. It has guardrails. and it's about expanding capacity. It's not about competition. So Californians also strongly support this. FM3 did a research survey, and they found that 8 in 10 Californians, of all political stripes, support the expansion of community college workforce degree, baccalaureates. So with that, we're in strong support, and we urge your aye vote. Thank you very much. Thank you, Vice Chair and members. Mark McDonald, on behalf of a number of local community college districts, including the Los Angeles, San Bernardino, San Diego, Foothill, De Anza, and Southwestern Community College districts, as well as the California Community College Baccalaureate Association. And I want to echo Larry's sentiments to Assemblymember Alvarez on carrying this bill, also to you, Senator Cabaldon, for your leadership on this issue. But just want to highlight that AB 2694 would establish two important exceptions to the current process. Number one it would change the definition of prohibited duplication from statewide to a community college district service area This is an important distinction to current law particularly because a community college student living in San Diego Los Angeles Riverside or another Southern California community college may be precluded from accessing a baccalaureate degree program simply because it's offered only in Northern California. Community colleges serve a large number of parent students and other low-income students that are place-bound and simply cannot move to access those four-year degree programs. Further, this bill would authorize community college districts to offer baccalaureate degree that duplicates if it meets a regional workforce need. And I think there are very specific provisions of the bill that a community college district would need to demonstrate in order to do that within this bill. These are two very important student center workforce demand amendments that will ensure access to affordable community college. So with that, appreciate your support and happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you, sir. We're limited to two witnesses. Oh, I know. Iran Majid on behalf of the California Community College of Chats Office. She's here to answer any technical questions regarding the bill and the proposed amendments that the Assemblymember referenced. Thank you. Perfect. Thank you. All right. We'll now continue with any witnesses from the public who would like to express their support. please state your name, your organization, and your position on the bill. Good morning. Patty Moreno-Gonzalez on behalf of the Student Senate for California Community Colleges, in support. Anna Matthews on behalf of the California Community College Independence Union, in strong support. Thank you. Mara Jimenez on behalf of California Community Colleges, in support. Chair and members, Austin Webster with W Strategies on behalf of the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges and the California Community College Association for Occupational Education in support. Jack Worson from Nausman on behalf of the North Orange County Community College District, Mount San Antonio College, and Citrus College. Thank you. Good morning. Sabrina Means on behalf of Pasadena City College in support. Thank you. Gianmarcos Uno, Southwestern College, in strong support. Harold Tolerop, on behalf of El Camino Community College District, in support. Hi Anet Garcia, Southwestern College student, also in support of this bill. Hi, Francia Moreno, from Southwestern College, also in support of this bill. Orlando Vicente Lasso, Southwestern College Student Trustee, in support. Hi, Chris Galicia Brown, Southwestern College Governing Board President. In addition to our pilot, AB664, I'm also in support of this bill. Thank you. Good morning. I'm Dr. Annette Morton, Vice President of the Board of Trustees for Long Beach City College District, and I'm here in support of the bill. Nego Zamayo, here on behalf of Gabilan Community College District in support. Sanita Encarnacion from Southwestern College In addition to the pilot and learning we in support of the full access now as well Jason Humms Director of the EMT and Paramedic Programs at Southwestern College in full support of both of these bills. Michael Speyer, Professor of Southwestern College Criminal Justice, and we also support this. Good morning, Kyle Hyland on behalf of the Association of California Community College Administrators in support. Thank you. Good morning. David Nebin on behalf of Santa Monica College and Cerritos College in support. Jason Henderson on behalf of the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges in support. Thank you. Thank you very much. Seeing no other witnesses in support, we'll continue with any lead witnesses in opposition to AB 2694. Good morning. Good morning, Chair and members. I'm Dr. Junius Gonzalez, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs for the CSU Office of the Chancellor, and we have respectfully taken an Opposed Unless Amended position on AB 2694. The CSU recognizes that access, affordability, and workforce needs are real issues that must be solved, and that our institutions must be nimble enough to meet these needs, especially for students who are place-bound, working adults, and others looking to continue their education. Since this bill was last heard in the Assembly, the CSU, along with leadership from the California Community Colleges and the University of California, together met with legislators here and staff, the author and chair of this committee on this important issue. It's clear that we share a common objective of expanding opportunity for students responding to critical workforce needs and preserving our commitment to the transfer process, including the Associate Degree for Transfer and Transfer Success Pathway programs, which remain the most effective and affordable way to attain a bachelor's degree in California. Ninety-one percent of transfer applicants are currently admitted to the CSU and we expect that number to grow next year. We have the third highest rates of transfer completion followed following the University of California and the University of Washington but exceeding them by tens of thousands of degrees completed including to thousands of students from under resourced backgrounds. I want to reiterate from that meeting Chancellor Garcia's desire to get to yes on this issue and to find a path forward that allows these programs to grow in reasonable and responsible ways. To that end, we recently shared our proposed amendments with the author and committee staff that we believe provide a constructive path to a shared agenda and moving forward. The amendments that we have suggested prioritize CSU Community College partnerships while allowing for flexibility when regional needs require it. We're willing to consider the duplication of programs that are not realistically available or accessible in a community college's region and that support students where they are and ensure that regional workforce needs are met. Our proposal also allows for proper consideration of the existing programs, academic infrastructure, and partnerships at the CSU that can serve students throughout the state and maximize our state resources to best serve our students rather than operate in silos It addresses critical issues of transparency and accountability with particular focus on completion outcomes and time to degree including a clear demonstration of workforce need, limitations on the use of Prop 98 funding, and a commitment to pursue partnerships from the outset. What we have suggested are reasonable limitations that will help ensure that the CSU, UC, and community colleges are effectively serving students, meeting workforce needs, and preserving the core missions of each segment. I am so sorry. We're going to just realize in talking to the consultant, you're at 3 minutes, 14 minutes, and we're maxed out at 2. So I am done. Thank you. Good. Thank you. And I apologize. I just wanted some clarification and I lost track of time. proceed. Very briefly, Chair. Chris Morales again with the CSU Office of the Chancellor here for any technical questions. As mentioned earlier in the previous bill, the CSU, we have a shared interest in increasing access to our institutions, addressing these gaps in existing law to allow for access these programs that are not available in the region. But I think the spirit that we approach this conversation and in this bill is how do we strengthen what we know already works. We talked about the partnerships and of course partnerships This won't be possible for every situation. It won't be simply tenable. But we know that these partnerships work, and they allow for timely and, frankly, an affordable bachelor's degree pathway, as we see at Southwestern, as we see throughout the state. And at the same time, how do we allow for this expansion of state law without diminishing the transfer process that is working? We talked a little bit briefly earlier about Southwestern College and the transfer to San Diego State and UCSD. And the reality is that for Southwestern College to San Diego State, nearly 80% of all applicants from Southwestern College are accepted to San Diego State. And that has been increasing year over year over year. And in fact, at San Diego State, more students are accepted from Southwestern College than any other community college in the state that applies to San Diego. And so it's how do we ensure that we, of course, provide the flexibility to offer these programs that are not available in the region while ensuring that we are committed to the transfer process and our core objectives of meeting students where they are and providing the greatest accessibility. Thank you very much. We'll now continue with any members of the public who would like to express their opposition. Please approach the microphone, state your name, your organization, your position please. Mario Guerrero with the California Faculty Association, also opposed. Look forward to future amendments to reevaluate. Thank you. Jessica Duong with the University of California in opposition for the reasons stated previously in my testimony. Thank you. Thank you very much. Seeing no other witnesses in opposition, we will bring it back to the dais. Comments, questions? Senator Rios? Thank you, Madam Chair. These bills that we're hearing on getting bachelor's degrees from community colleges are extremely important. I sincerely appreciate the comments from Chancellor Garcia's office. Partnerships are important. And in the end, we want the success of the students. The transfer program, as was mentioned, it's a rite of passage for many students. You go to your community college, you get your AA, and then you go on to a four-year university to get your bachelor's degree. But we also recognize that we do have to have some flexibility. There are some bachelor's degrees that aren't available, and we need to be able to make them available to the students, especially in those areas where... There is a vacuum where it isn't being offered. There has been mention here on prior bills and in discussions how we need to revisit the master plan. It's long overdue. We need to figure out where our community colleges are, where our CSUs are, where our UCs are, our private universities, our Native American universities now, which are becoming another part of the big picture for us that we need to take into account. But as we do this piecemeal, I am a little concerned. I am a little concerned that we're doing a piecemeal rather than looking at the big picture and figuring out where do we need those baccalaureate or bachelor's degrees at the community college level. where should they remain at the CSU or the UC so that we do have a master plan that works. Right now, it's been a long time since anything has been done, 50 years since anything has been done with that master plan. But I think our students deserve to have this flexibility also. They deserve to know that if it's not being offered anywhere nearby, they can stay at their community college and avail themselves of a bachelor's degree. We know that income often depends on whether or not you have a high school diploma, the associates, bachelors, masters, and many of our students don't get access to that. So this is very important, and finding that balance, I think, for this and for every proposal for a bachelor's degree at a community college, I've supported many of these. I just feel that this partnership is extremely important and finding that balance, access to education, which you've talked about, supporting our students and making sure that our students succeed. That's what we want more than anything else. But this balance, very important. And I know, Assemblymember, you have been a leader in this area trying to find that balance. and I appreciate that very much. I don't have any questions for any of you because your statements have been very thorough about your positions, but I think that taking what you have said about finding this partnership and finding this balance is extremely important as we move forward through this. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Reyes. Senator Cabaldon? Thank you, Madam Chair. It just happens to be at the moment that all the members of this committee also serve on the Senate committee that is responsible for digital technologies and artificial intelligence. And one of the greatest challenges that we're facing as a state, as a society, as a globe, as a species, is the very real potential. I don't want to put it or even say that, but it's the very likely impacts on the work itself and what we do as human beings and as Californians. And we're all committed to trying to figure out how to do, to marshal all the resources that California can do in order to meet that imperative And the speed that that is occurring the universality of where that can affect jobs and communities in the smallest most rural parts of my district just as it can in Chula Vista or San Diego or anywhere else. And it's coming without warning, and we don't have the frameworks. And, of course, none of this existed in 1966, sorry, 66 years ago when the master plan was done. And the last time we went through anything like this was the Industrial Revolution, which this whole system of higher education emerged in part as a response to grapple with that challenge. Which is why I continue to be skeptical that collaboration alone and thinking of this as a battle between institutions is at all useful. It really is about meeting that and so many other economic challenges. Now, in addition to being a former professor and vice chancellor, I was a mayor for 20 years. And I actually think the law is too restrictive already. That when at the time Genentech opened up its headquarters facility, production facility in Vacaville in my district, and then a cluster of other companies came, There was no five years of workforce data that was being held by the Labor and Workforce Development Agency. There was no long-run plans. Either they're going to come or they're not going to come. And you have to act at the moment. As a mayor, you're immediately calling up the chancellor of the three community college districts that are within spitting distance of Vacaville to say, hey, what can we do? Hey, Sac State president, what can we do? Because this is not a forecast. if we win this, if we win this battle to bring real economic opportunity to our community, it will only work if you're committed to, like, ASAP, to launch the programs that are necessary to make our local workforce, which has zero biotechnology background, none before this, that you're going to make it work. And so these notions that, well, you know, it should take five years and people should be able to think about it for a while and let's wait till the state has identified, there's no biotech workforce needs in Solano County until there is. Until there is. And then there's a lot all at once. Unless we don't meet it. And then there will be zero. Because those opportunities will not arrive. So 2030 implementation dates, an opportunity for two years of partnership conversations. These don't work when you're talking about actually delivering economic opportunity on the ground. So I really appreciate the bill because we do need an overarching system that it seeks to achieve balance, but that ultimately places the center of this conversation is in what are we doing for real people who see a career path opening up at Genentech and want to pursue a bachelor's degree in bioengineering. And Sac State's not ready to offer it or doesn't want to, but Solano College will. how do we say to that person that, well, you know, let's, how about three years from now? How about four years from now? Have you thought about doing a 2 plus 2 plus 2 program, which will require you to go to Cal State East Bay, which isn't anywhere nearby you? Like, how about that? That does not work. We have to put the student at the center. We have to put the community at the center. We have to put our economy and our commitment to meeting the really intense workforce demands that we cannot forecast that we're going to have from artificial intelligence and other technologies. The one thing I absolutely certain of as the chair of that AI and technology committee is that the timeframes that we are used to in the master plan and in higher education coordination and planning will absolutely not work They will not work And the community colleges have proven themselves over the last two decades through contract ed and a lot more, a lot, that they've used the flexibility in order to meet the needs of their communities and the state. And remember, we're not talking about citing a new nuclear power plant in the delta, right? harm of getting this slightly wrong, you know, the harm that maybe Woodland Community Colleges offers a bachelor's degree that is slightly off or maybe, you know, it caused Sac State not to offer, like, that's not the end of the world. Like, we should be encouraging our colleges and CSU to be stepping forward and taking some chances and doing things in order to try to meet these demands and not, and unleash them. And just, I mean, one last thing just to note on this. We did not do this. And we collectively, CSU, Arizona faculty, did not do this. And we said, you know, we're just going to do our thing. And then suddenly we're shocked when Arizona State University opens an actual campus in our state where we have another state's public university opening shop here because we weren't meeting the needs. Let's not do that again. And let's certainly not do that with the threat of AI disrupting our entire economy and our workforce opportunities. So I'm very glad to see the bill. Obviously, I have a companion bill that's pending in the assembly as well. We have lots to work out, and we've had very good discussions and conversations. I know both authors with both chancellors as well and appreciate their continued work in that regard. But I just want to urge us to continue to put the student and the communities absolutely front and center, and the institutions, like anxieties and structural and competition and other stuff. It's real because we have to implement, but that's not the point. That's the instrument to accomplish what we're trying to do for economic opportunity, for workforce development, for meeting the challenge of AI, and for opening up opportunities that PlaceFound and other students ought to have a right to access. So with that, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your thoughtful comments, Senator Cabaldon. I just want to add, I will be supporting the bill. Thank you for bringing it forward. I think we do need to have some novelty. I do hear the concerns and I have expressed the concerns about Having bachelor's degrees at community colleges with which is a it's a double-edged sword because on one hand We're helping and putting the students first But in the second time and the second on the other side of the core of the sword I guess We have my fear is that when we have many bachelor's degrees at the community colleges, it will dissuade students from attending a state university because why would they attend a school that is more costly than a community college? And so the financial factor on there, especially if you have competing bachelor's degrees, one that is much at a fraction of a cost versus one that costs a little bit more, you have to consider that and the impact that it will have on our CSU system as a whole moving forward. That's my biggest concern. But by the same token, in addition to, as stated very eloquently by Senator Kamaldon with regards to Arizona State coming into our state and providing programs, we also have online programs that are also being available to our students from out of state. And so this is where I also want to just challenge our systems to ensure that we have competitive online programs for our students so that they can have access to more programs available and hopefully helping the integrity of all three systems in our state So with that, would you like to close? Thank you. I want to say thank you to all of you for speaking and sharing your thoughts on this. I would say this is sort of a, we've created this problem, but it's not really a problem. There is enough to go around. There are the demand is so high. Look at the applications into our CSU's and UC students want to go to higher education. Look at the rebounding that's happened at our community college now serving over 2 million students, not yet at historic levels, but getting really, really close to definitely pre pandemic levels. Our students are looking for those opportunities and when we don't provide those opportunities to both of your points as senators, students are looking elsewhere. They're finding online programs that are being offered by institutions in other states or there are institutions from other states coming into California. And as someone who represents a college desert, which I do, how can any one of us go back to our communities and our constituents and say, well, we're not going to try to figure out how to offer what you need as a family, what your students need. I'm going to start to seek for other options. I'm going to start to seek for other online options. I'm going to start to seek the AACUs of the world if we cannot find a different way to meet the needs of our students. through our existing exemplary and incredibly talented and world-leading, I would say, UC and CSU segments when it comes to bachelor's degrees. And there is plenty for everybody to do everything. And we should have high expectations for everybody. The community college, which is much more nimble, as was alluded to, if not stated directly by Senator Cabaldon, they know how to be nimble and reflect to workforce needs. It happens every time that we have a recession and we have unemployment rates. They adapt. They create programs that can reskill workers and make sure that they have an opportunity to have a job and not continue to be unemployed and impacted by the economy. We should have the same expectations of anybody who offers a bachelor's degree, that they reflect the needs of the workforce and that the degrees being offered by anyone who wants to offer a bachelor's degree in the state of California are degrees that could put someone to work right afterwards in the fields that California's economy and industries need. Because there is a workforce shortage in California of people who need bachelor's degrees to fill those jobs. So we're clearly not doing enough to fill those needs. This is one possible solution that addresses that problem, but more importantly addresses, as I think we always should remember, first and foremost the students who are the customers of this line of business that we are in government which is public education. There's a demand, there are place-bound students, all these things have come together. We just have laws that are barriers to actually address this very real problem that can be addressed if it weren't for things that are currently I think inhibitors or barriers to people accomplishing that. So I'm looking forward, I actually have really enjoyed this discussion today but also leading up to it with opposition and with people who are proponents who have ideas because we have to do things differently. I think you all said that. We need to address the demands of today and be prepared to address the demands of tomorrow. And we can do that by giving opportunities for community colleges who are closest to serving one of our constituents much closer than a UC or a CSU in a way that that could work. And absolutely, partnerships sign me up, and I don't need to just say it, I've actually demonstrated in doing it locally. We have those partnerships. They are time-consuming. They are expensive. They are challenging to figure out between two very different segments and academic senates and all sorts of things which we want to respect. but they are challenging and we we want to be able to be more nimble to respond to the needs of Californians and the needs of industry in our economy we have to find a different way and this is a part of that conversation that I am pleased to be a part of it is student-centered but it's also workforce centered as well which is what higher education should be about and we should have every hold everybody accountable to those standards no matter what the segment is to make sure that they are producing students who are prepared to to enter our workforce. That is what this bill intends to do. We look forward to the continued conversations, along with the great work that's being done in SB 960 by Senator Cabaldon, which is essentially trying to get to the same problem here. We'll continue to work with anyone who's interested in really actually resolving. I will say this, prior to these bills, there wasn't a lot of interest in having a conversation about the master plan for higher education. That is a new phenomenon from our segments. I welcome it, and I'm glad it exists, But it was really hard over the last three years that I've been here to get UC and CSU to talk about doing things differently. It wasn't until bills started to come forward more and more that now this conversation is a welcome conversation, and I'm glad it is. I welcome it as well. And I'm a willing participant to help address it, and I'm looking forward to those conversations with leaders in our institutions. And thank all of you for your leadership and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much, Al. We do not have a quorum, so we cannot take a vote, but we will as soon as we have a quorum. Thank you very much for your presentation. Thank you to our witnesses. We'll now continue with file item number 5, AB 917, by Member Avila Farias. Welcome, Member Avila Farias. You may proceed when ready. Okay, thank you, Madam Chair and members. AB 917 is back for reconsideration and conversations with committee members. I'd like to start by accepting the committee's proposed amendments and thank the chair and the staff for their work on this bill. AB 917 will ensure that deserving educators and school employees in all school districts and county offices of education have an opportunity to achieve permanent employment status. This bill will require local education agencies to grant permanent status to certified employees in school districts and counties with an average daily attendance of less than 250 or a regional occupational centers and programs operated by County Office of Education or joint powers of authority. This is already a requirement for schools with an average daily attendance of more than 250. Due to process for teachers play in critical roles in protecting against racial discriminating by requiring fair and impartial procedures for employment decisions. AB 117 will help attract and retain potential educators, provide them with career stability and diversity in California's education workforce. Testifying with me today on AB 117 is Bryant Miramontes legislative advocate with the California Teachers Association Good morning and welcome Good morning Bryant Montez of the California Teachers Association Good morning and welcome Good morning Bryant Maramontes the California Teachers Association We here speaking as sponsors of AB 917 Consider a teacher who has spent three years in the same classroom, re-elected each year, meeting every expectation placed on her, and who still has no job security. Not because of her performance, but because of her district's enrollment. That is the reality for educators in many of California's smallest school districts today. Teachers in districts of 250 students or more earn permanent status after two years of service. Teachers in smaller, often rural districts can wait three years or never reach permanent status at all if the district simply declines to classify them. Although they have the same credential, same classroom, and same commitment to students, They live by different rules, and weaker due process protections to go with them. AB 917 establishes one standard for every certificated employee in California, regardless of district size. It also ensures that years spent teaching at a regional occupational center or program operated by a JPA or county office of education count toward permanent status, just as classroom service does anywhere else. We have heard this bill described as removing flexibility that small districts and ROCPs need. That said, California law already gives districts a process to manage staffing levels. Permanent employees can be laid off for legitimate budget and enrollment reasons under existing seniority rules. Districts don't need to hold people in extended probationary status to manage their workforce. They already have a lawful tool for that. What AB 917 removes is the ability to withhold core job protections from educators based on nothing more than where they happen to teach. CTA believes that every educator who shows up for students year after year deserves the same basic fairness under the law. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Any witnesses in support of AB 917, please approach the microphone, state your name, your organization, and your position on the bill. Good morning Madam Chair and members, Tristan Brown with CFT, Union of Educators and Classified Professionals here in support. Thank you Madam Chair. Sandra Barrero on behalf of SEIU California in support. Good morning, Cassie Mancini on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support. Charlie Jones from the Hayward Education Association and the Pleasanton Unified School District School Board standing in support as an individual. Hello, Andy Schrock, U.S. History and Ethnic Studies teacher at Simi Valley High School, here in support. Hello, Vandal Chansey from Teachers Association of Long Beach, here in support. Alex Orozco, teacher at LAUSD, member of CTA and UTLA, here in support. Jean-Paul Whittle, physics teacher in Davis, here in support. Vicki Montez, college advisor at Bravo Medical Magnet, LUSD, also board of director for DTLA and CTA in support of the bill. Good morning, Melinda Daly, middle school teacher in San Ramon Valley, here in support. Good morning Jacqueline Gardner middle school science teacher in San Jacinto here in support Amy Louie LUSD music teacher and also member of CTA and UTLA in support Dr Melissa Urban middle school teacher in San Jose California and parent here in support Hello, Victoria Casas, 29-year third grade teacher from LAUSD, also on UTLA's executive support board in support. Thank you. Devin Jackson, middle school science teacher from the San Francisco Bay Area, Moraga, California, in support. Sorry. Seeing no other witnesses in opposition, we're now continuing, sorry, in support. We'll now continue with any lead witnesses in opposition. Good morning and welcome. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. I am Rich DuVarney. I'm the state-appointed administrator for the Plumas Unified School District, and I'm here on behalf of the Small School District Association. respectfully in opposition to Assembly Bill 917. A current law regarding school districts and county offices with an ADA of 250 or less was negotiated between education management and labor in 1983 as part of the Hughes-Heart Educational Reform Act of 1983. This flexibility has been allowed to address the changing needs of a student population that creates unique staffing challenges. The legislature has repeatedly recognized that super small districts and county offices of education need flexibility to appropriately address the needs of their students within their limited capacity and resources. We have districts in California with as few as five students. AB 917 will force small LEAs to not only pink slip every teacher every year, not so good for morale, but it will limit the courses and programs available for students. Given budget restraints and limited resources, a small LEA can't risk hiring a teacher who may not be serving any students in three years due to the changes in the population or needs. With respect to small COEs, AB 917 would drastically limit their ability to adjust staffing for for the unique special needs, transitory and high-risk populations that they serve. There is precedent through Education Code to treat small LEAs differently. Small LEAs are exempt from the budget reserve cap, rural districts are exempt from the late start time, and necessary small school districts receive additional state funding to support their operations. This is an appropriate acknowledgment of the operational personnel and budgetary circumstances that small LEAs face in our adept... You're right at two minutes. Okay. So AB 917 will force small LEAs to limit options and services for students and families and break an agreement that has stood for several years. So we ask that you oppose the measure, and thank you for your consideration. Thank you. And just as a reminder, it's a two-minute time limit on our witnesses. Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Suzanne Smith. I president of KROP and the director of college and career readiness for Tri ROP serving Dublin Valley Joint and Pleasanton Unified School Districts While I believe this bill intent is to solve a real and understandable problem a perceived stress of lack of job security felt by ROP or RCP instructors, I believe that AB 917 as written will do the opposite of what it intends. Students enroll in ROP courses because they want to learn from people who bring current firsthand expertise from industry, not only credential but relevance. That relevance is what makes a lesson land. It's what makes a student believe a career is within their reach. If a JPA like TVROP must extend permanent status to instructors across multi-district region, we lose the flexibility to match instructor expertise to where student interest and labor market demand actually are in any given year. AB 917 puts that flexibility and relevance at risk. Our OP instructors made a deliberate choice to step out of industry, often leaving higher paying jobs because they're passionate about their field and genuinely invested in inspiring the next generation of workers. They actively collaborate with us, the administration, as we build a master schedule which has to balance student interest with multiple bell schedules and instructor availability since many of our instructors work across regional traveling from site to site on any given day. Leveraging resources and instructor expertise regionally provides pathway options for students and instructors that individual districts could not afford on their own. Our regional structure is exactly what makes the statutory deadlines and current layoff law incompatible with how ROPs actually operate. We don't have reliable enrollment numbers by March 15th and in most years not even by May 15th because registration data from outside districts come in well after those dates. This challenge is compounded by the the uncertain ROP funding streams we operate under annually, like Steve's Tick and Strong Workforce. Without the ability to adjust staffing to match year-to-year funding and enrollment, JPAs take on a level of financial and operational risk that single-district programs simply do not face in the same way. The existing Ed Code flexibility for regional programs was designed with good reason. I ask this committee to consider the full picture for our students and our ROP instructors and to vote to oppose AB 917. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you for your testimony. Now we'll continue with any witnesses from the public who would like to express their opposition. Please approach the microphone, state your name, your organization, and your position. Good morning. Dorothy Johnson with the Association of California School Administrators, respectfully opposed. Thank you. Good morning. Michelle on behalf of the California Association of School Business Officials, in respectful opposition. Thank you. Good morning, Kyle High on behalf of the Career Technical Education Joint Powers Authority Coalition and the California County Superintendents in respectful opposition. Thank you. Good morning, Dan Merwin on behalf of the California School Boards Association in respectful opposition. Thank you. De Aguera Bautista Zaval on behalf of the California Association Suburban School Districts Association in opposition. Cristina Serrazar with the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools in opposition. Xavier Bertrild on behalf of the School Employers Association of California, in respectful opposition. Good morning. LeAngela Reid on behalf of the San Bernardino County District Advocates for Better Schools, in strong opposition. Okay. So having had all witnesses in opposition speak, we'll now bring it back to the dais. Questions and comments? Thank you. I appreciate the comments from our small COEs. Um, You're right, nobody wants to get a pink slip, but they also don't want the instability of not knowing that they have permit status. I think finding the best way to do that, and I will tell you that having both CTA and CSCA, CFT, having them all come in, talking about classified, saying this is good for, it's not just for the teachers, it's for everybody. And I appreciate that solidarity, trying to uplift all employees. Very important. I think this lack of stability is something that, without a doubt, needs to be addressed. And I think your bill does just that. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Reyes. So I have concerns about the bill, the implications, especially when we need the flexibility in many of our programs, especially ROP programs. I have visited the campuses, met with the teachers throughout my district, and realized it's a very unique niche that has to be, you know, in our previous bill we were talking about community colleges being flexible and be able to change pretty quickly on the offer of degrees that match the workforce, and they need to be really, really quick. I think with regards to the ROP, it's the same premise. They have to be quick. They have to be relevant. And there's high turnover. And I think many of these teachers that come in or industry experts that come in to teach, as I've met with them in these programs, they're coming in knowing that it's relevant, it's now. and they know coming in that that is not necessarily going to be a guaranteed ongoing for 10, 15 years because of the industry and what it may call. So I haven't been supportive of the bill in the past. I won't be able to support it again this time around because of that nature. We need to have that flexibility for school districts to be able to change really quickly, And I think that is a difference between someone who is working in ROP and something technical coming in from the industry directly versus someone who this is their life. This is a subject matter that they're going to be teaching for a very long time. And in our rural communities where there's barely any students, and I say barely compared to other areas, not in that demeaning way, but just under 250. That's not a lot of students, four or five students, not a lot. In an ongoing changing environment, it's very difficult to guarantee. And I think many of our professors are aware of that. And my biggest concern is that we won't have a need that we'll get rid of the program rather than keeping it, especially in consideration where many of these school districts do not have direct funding for that. many of the school districts are combining. In my district, for instance, in Senate District 19, we have three different cities coming in, providing money towards one program for the region. So it's very, very difficult to get funding for it. It's not guaranteed, and the flexibility of the industry are the reasons why I can't support the bill today. But I appreciate the efforts and your tenacity in working in it and bringing it up now in your in your second year. With that, would you like to close? Yes and I just really if you may just respond to your comments in regards to this I think a different perspective on this as someone who has a formal education in information and technology in the science field it an ever industry And we're really looking at these rural areas. You're not going to have the workforce, as my colleague in a previous presentation said. So the likelihood that these individuals who are in a temporary status, they are continually being rehired. And so they are not being afforded the opportunity and equitability that other colleagues have. And so we're simply trying to tighten up that loophole. The state law already protects, you know, in the event that there isn't funding for it, that they are able to issue pink slips. But if we actually analyze the data throughout the state of California, we are going to see that it is the consistent same workforce being reemployed to do these programs because they're not importing the workforce from other areas, especially. I mean, we see it in all segments from the medical profession. We have trouble recruiting people into rural California. And so we're simply advocating that they deserve to have the permanent status, because if we look at the data, I'm sure it will tell us that they are there. Thank you very much, Member Avila Farias. We don't have members who established a quorum, so we can't take a vote at the time. But I want to thank you for bringing this measure forward and bringing the discussion to light. Thank you to our witnesses for being here this morning. I appreciate the consideration and the rehearing of this. as well. Thank you. Thank you. So we're going to do a little bit, we're going to continue with Assemblymember Solache with file item number 6, AB 1093. Now, Member Solache has four bills, but he has agreed out of courtesy and kindness of his heart to present one bill, and then he's going to allow Assemblymember Ramos. He's been here patiently waiting for the past, I think, three bills. So he's going to be kindly allowing him to present one of his bills and then we'll continue with the remaining three bills. Thank you, Member Salashian. Welcome. Thank you. You're only allowed to be kind to Mr. Ramos, so that is not a problem ever. With that, thank you, Madam Vice Chair, and to committee members. Today we're presenting AB 1093. I'm grateful to you and the committee for the work on this bill. I appreciate the committee's collaboration on this measure. We will be accepting the committee amendments that rework the program to focus on California State University and the University of California, while providing its structure for more efficient implementation. AB 1093 would expand academic partnerships and increases participation in student exchange programs between the CSU and the UC with the public universities of Mexico. California and Mexico share deep cultural, economic, and educational ties. Yet despite our close relationship, California has not realized the full potential of academic exchange with our closest international and top trade partner. While individual exchange programs already exist, other countries have more robust and subscribed study abroad programs. AB 1093 formalizes academic engagement, giving more students the opportunity to study abroad, engage in cross-cultural learning, and enhance our mutual economic prosperity. These exchanges will promote educational collaboration and will help prepare the next generation of leaders to meet the workforce and economic challenges shared by California and Mexico. This bill was directly inspired by discussions held by the Assembly Select Committee on California and Mexico Binational Affairs. This legislation invests in our students while building one of California most important international partnerships I would like to thank our partners for their continued collaboration on this effort Testifying in support today I joined by Nora Preciado Co-Executive Director of the Mexican-American Policy Alliance. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Good morning and welcome. Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Nora Preciado. I'm Co-Executive Director of the Mexican-American Policy Alliance, or MAPA. MAPA is a U.S.-based organization that brings together binational leaders from across multiple sectors and states. Our mission is to strengthen the U.S.-Mexico relationship by creating opportunities for collaboration, by strengthening our economic and cultural ties, and advancing a shared narrative that reflects the strength and mutual benefits of this, the most important partnership between our countries. MAPA has emerged as a leading binational organization dedicated to strengthening this relationship between the U.S. and Mexico, including by organizing our annual binational summit, which brings together more than 150 leaders from both the U.S. and Mexico and over 10 U.S. states. AB 1093 would strengthen our binational cooperation between California and Mexico. It's building on a binational higher education summit that was held in San Diego last fall, which Assemblymember Solache attended. This bill would work towards making sure that every student, regardless of what Cal State University campus they attend, has the opportunity to participate in a student exchange program with Mexican universities. And I'm here to tell you that there is great interest from our Mexican university leaders to establish and expand this type of exchange programs and partnerships. In fact, nine university rectors or university presidents from Mexico attended that higher education summit last fall in San Diego in person. These exchanges foster not just cross-cultural academic research, but they build professional skills and prepare the next generation of leaders to build on one of California's most important international relationships and partnerships. Thank you to Assemblymember Solace for leading on this. We respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 1093. Thank you for your presentation. Do we have anybody else here in support to offer me to use? Madam Chair and Senators, Adam Keglin on behalf of California LULAC in support. Excellent. Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing no one rising, we'll turn it over to opposition. Do we have any members here in opposition? Seeing no one rising, I will turn it back to the committee. Do we have any questions from the committee? Senator Chobok? Thank you. So it was interesting because I assumed my kids did a study abroad program with Mexico. As a matter of fact, they're in Utah. They both went to school in Utah, but they both were able to do an exchange program in Mexico, in Yucatan. And interesting enough, they were actually housed about not even two blocks, two or three blocks from my mom's house in Mexico. So it was really, really neat. And the opportunity is great. I think the exchange of ideas is great. I think the only question I have is why do we need legislation to do that? Don our universities already have through their board of trustees and conversations at that level be able to expand and do the work Why do we need to have legislation And then the other component is the financial responsibilities for each It my understanding that the finances are not equally matched to fund the program. It's not equally required within this bill to be matched by both countries. Thank you, Senator. And I'll have no additional technical aspects of it. But definitely, I think, as an alum of the CSU myself, there's definitely opportunities, as you mentioned, your own children attending these partnerships. Every university, every college has different partnerships. This is just more formalized, that moment from the angle of the state of California, specifically, and with the universities directly, as the partnership continues. under the leadership of Assemblymember David Alvarez and the partnership of the select committee, we've really found some areas of work, and specifically as our biggest trade partner, Mexico, that is, and being the state that's closest to, I think this is a great opportunity to really just emphasize higher education and how do we meet the moment to ensure that these young folks are the ones that are going to be part of those partnerships. But I'll have Nora add some additional technical. I think that right now this legislation would incentivize sort of a system-wide Right, right. Participation, it is right now very much driven by individual relationships and individual efforts, and this could really incentivize seeking those opportunities with Mexican universities, those agreements. Many exist, but there are many opportunities to create even more. On the funding, if it's a dollar-to-dollar, there is a difference, but I think that the benefits that are being accrued to U.S.-based students from participating in those exchanges, given just the relationship, right, a crucial relationship with Mexico, the economic ties, the cultural ties, the economic integration that is happening, every issue is touching both sides of the border. And so having the ability to learn from academics in Mexico, to be immersed and see those issues from that binational lens could really benefit policymaking here back in the U.S. and create, as we were mentioning, this next cadre of leaders who are thinking along those lines. So it is an investment into that leadership for many, many years to come, and it's really what's needed. California is leading the way in that binational relationship. It is really far and above any other state in what we're trying to do in terms of economic ties, economic prosperity, cultural ties, and then addressing issues like environmental challenges that touch both sides of the border, energy policy, just every issue that you can think of. So it is an investment in creating leaders that are able to understand the context of that relationship, those issues, and come up with creative binational solutions that benefit not just California, but the entire region. And for the record, I don't question the merit of the effort. I think the concern I have is just, I would say concern. It's more of a just an observation as to why we need legislation to be due to formalizes if the universities and the colleges already have that opportunity to do so and usually you know the leadership in our in our both in the community colleges our CSU's and our UC's they have conversations as to what is needed and enact programs that they feel are important or relevant to their student population in their geographical area. So it concerns me a little bit that we are kind of imposing and requiring them to do that. where and imposing our perspective on the universities and taking away from that local control saying okay this is what we need and this is what you're going to be required to do that's where I'm coming from as far as you know requiring them especially because they already can do that and we already have programs and so that's that's the one concern that I have as to you know imposing on the university something that they already have the ability to do and should evaluate whether or not it's a need within their campuses and a desire to have that program. That's the one concern that I have. But other than that, thank you for bringing this forward and highlighting and elevating the conversation on these partnerships because they are important. And I would say the same thing goes to our northern countries with Canada as well. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation, Assemblymember Salache. I'm supportive of your bill. My recommendation is an aye vote, so I'll turn it over to you to close. Thank you for the opportunity to have the dialogue. I think some of the questions that were asked are fair ones, things that we have gone through ourselves. I think one of the moments that we had an aha moment when I was in Mexico, myself, visiting, we were meeting with the USA Chamber of Commerce, the USA-Mexico Chamber of Commerce, seeing the large trade that we do with that, with the country and ourselves, just really focuses on how do we collaborate that with and join with our, you know, higher institutions and putting that workforce together. And California has such a rich, you know, systems in our CSU, UC system, and Mexico equally. And to your point, Senator, obviously other partnerships are obviously welcomed with other border countries like Canada, to your point. I'm excited for this. You know I take pride being a champion in the higher education space And so for me this is important and I think our universities from San Bernardino region to Southern California Northern California and all our institutions are going to benefit from a system-wide approach And how do we incentivize and encourage more students to to learn more about our abroad countries as well? With that I ask for an I vote. Thank you Thank you assembly member, and we will take a vote when we do go to quorum. We're still waiting to get a quorum so So we will go ahead and hear from our next presenter. I think you're going to have Assemblymember Ramos go next, and then we'll hear from you a little later today. Thank you, Assemblymember Salache. Assemblymember Ramos, you can begin whenever you're ready. Well, thank you so much, and thank you to Assemblymember Salache for giving me this opportunity to present our bill here today. I would like to begin by accepting the committee's amendments, and thank you and the committee for working with us on this very important issue. Today I am presenting AB 1769, which establishes the first formal transfer and articulation pathways between California's tribal colleges and universities and our post-secondary institutions. TCUs aim to provide culturally relevant education and serve Native students who have historically been underrepresented in higher education. Despite California's significant progress in creating transfer pathways across our higher educational system, TCUs remain largely excluded from those processes. Without a formal articulation process, students can be forced to duplicate coursework, spend additional time earning credits and incur unnecessary tuition costs before completing their degrees AB 1769 addresses this gap by requiring the development of transfer agreements and articulation programs that support Native students. The bill also encourages concurrent enrollment opportunities and leverages existing transfer infrastructure to ensure tribal college students have access to the same pathways available to students across California's public higher education system. Research demonstrates that Native American students who attend a tribal college university before transferring to a traditional four-year institution are four times more likely to earn a bachelor's degree than their peers who enroll directly in a mainstream institution. California is home to the largest American Indian and Alaska Native population in the nation. Ensuring that TCU students can transfer efficiently is both an educational equity issue and an investment in California's future workforce. For too long, Native students have been expected to fit into systems that were not built for them, rather than institutions evolving to recognize and support Native pathways to higher education with a focus on tribal culture. AB 769 begins to change that by ensuring that Native American students are no longer left navigating a transfer system that was never designed with tribal colleges in mind. By formally integrating tribal colleges into California's transfer infrastructure, this bill advances educational equity, strengthens degree attainment, and honors our commitment to supporting Native students in the state of California. With me to testify today is Sean Reagan, Executive Vice President for the California Indian Nations College. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Perez and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today in support of AB 1769. My name is Sean Reagan. I'm here on behalf of California Nations College, an accredited public tribal college chartered by the 29 Palms Band of Mission Indians. And we're proud to be a sponsor of this important bill. I also want to thank Assemblymember Ramos for his leadership and his long-standing commitment to tribal colleges and universities. At its core AB 1769 is about ensuring that tribal college students have the same opportunity to transfer as other California students. California has built an effective transfer system that provides community college students with greater certainty about which courses will transfer and how those courses will apply towards a bachelor's degree. For students attending a two-year tribal college, however, that certainty does not always exist. campuses, limited articulation agreements to California community colleges. When that happens, a tribal college student may have to petition individual academic departments for course equivalencies, bringing syllabi to department chairs and waiting for decisions before knowing whether their coursework will count towards their degree. Imagine being admitted to a university and still not knowing whether the work you've already completed will move you closer to graduation. In the worst case, a student could transfer and discover that none of those courses satisfy their bachelor's degree requirements. That uncertainty creates barriers that no student should have to overcome. Many of our students are the first in their families to attend college. They balance work, family responsibilities, and commitments to their tribal communities while pursuing their education. They have already demonstrated determination and resilience. They should not face additional obstacles simply because they chose to begin their education at a tribal college. We know that these students succeed when clear pathways exist, but those pathways only work when students can transfer with confidence that their academic work will be recognized. AB 1769 provides clear guidance that tribal college students should have meaningful transfer pathways into California public colleges and universities For these reasons I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 1769 and thank you for your time and consideration Thank you for your presentation We now hear from anyone else in support of the bills who would like to offer a me too Please use the mic at the railing. Good afternoon, Senators. Mike Velines on behalf of Table Mountain Rancheria in strong support. Hello, Cammie Pierre with NextGen California in support. Charlie Jones from the Hayward Education Association and the Pleasanton Unified School Board on Ohlone-Muekmaland in support as well as an individual. Good morning, Jason Henderson on behalf of the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges in support. Thank you. Hello, Andy Schrock, Ethnic Studies U.S. History teacher from Simi Valley in support. Thank you. Hello, Chris Lindstrom, Executive Officer of the California Tribal Business Alliance in support, and also Wilton Rancheria is in support. Thank you. Cesar Gonzalez with the California Rewindian Health Board representing 70 Fidelity recognized tribes in support. Thank you. Thank you to all those who expressed their support. We'll now hear from those in opposition. Do we have anyone here in opposition? Saying no and rising. I will turn it back to the committee. Do we have any committee questions or comments? We don't have a quorum yet. We haven't been able to establish one. But with everybody jumping in and out, we could have had a quorum. I just want to thank the member almost for bringing this bill forward. I think it's incredibly important. I've been working with the California Indians Nations College, which serves a large portion of my district. They've been great partners, and I've directly interacted with many of the students who have been just empowered by this institution. And so I am grateful for it. Thank you for it. I'm grateful, and I think it also used to answer that there was an allocation for funding for the community colleges. and moving forward an ongoing type of funding for the community college that for SYNC. So grateful for that effort and I also want to note that when we're looking at transfer and the ability to articulate from one community college to CSU's or the UC's to higher education it's incredibly important that there is an alignment of some sort so that we are not duplicating and extending the time to graduate. And so especially because you folks are leading the way in this particular space, the first in our state to be nationally accredited, I think it's incredibly important to have those conversations moving forward so that we can expedite that process and be able to ensure that we have our bachelor's degree graduates in place. And I also want to note, it's also important for those students who are taking AP courses that when transferring can actually take advantage of that coursework as well. So thank you for bringing this measure forward. I look forward to supporting it when the time is appropriate. Thank you so much. Thank you for your presentation, Assemblymember Ramos, and for bringing this bill forward. I very supportive of this bill I worked on a number of legislation before I came here to the legislature around transfer pathways ensuring that we have seamless transfer pathways for our students I know the committee analysis notes you know Cal Getzee as an example and looking at how to create just that kind of single transfer pathway for students I know the associate degree for transfer has also been established here for the state, but whatever is making that process easy for students and seamless is most critical. So I appreciate you bringing this and look forward to the implementation. I'll turn it over to you to close. Well, thank you so much, Senators, and thank you for your comments. I just really thank you for the opportunity to be here to start to bridge that gap for this nation's first people, California's first people, to attain higher education. I ask for your aye vote. Thank you so much, Assemblymember Ramos. And lucky for you, we just got a quorum. Madam Secretary, can you call the roll? Senators Perez. Here. Perez here. Ochoa Bogh. Here. Ochoa Bogh here. Cabaldon. Choi Cortese Cortese here at Gonzales Gonzales here Reyes excellent and I do believe that we have a motion from Senator Gonzales for your bill Assembly member Ramos and I just do pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee Secretary can you call the roll Senator Perez I press I Ochoa book Ochoa book I Cabaldon Choi Cortese Cortese I I, Gonzalez. Gonzalez, I, Reyes. Great. And we will put that bill on call. Thank you so much, Assemblymember. Thank you. Excellent. All right. And Assemblymember Solachy will continue making his presentations. It's not a competition, but he does have the most number of bills on today's agenda. He's working a little hard for our communities. With that, thank you Madam Chair and committee members. Thank you again. I am here to present AB 1636, establishing the Cerritos College Seamless Enrollment Pilot Program. I am grateful to the committee chair and committee staff for their work and engagement in my office. I will accept committee amendments. AB 1636 would allow Cerritos Community College District to enter into a data sharing agreement with local K-12 education agencies to create a ready-to-enroll student record for the California Community College System. This legislation builds off the, quote, college-bound mini pilot Cerritos College program conducted with Bellflower High School in my district. The goal of this pilot is to remove a front-end administrative barrier between the high school students and the community college enrollment. This bill does not mandate enrollment, and it will allow students to enroll at any community college, not just Cerritos. All data sharing is voluntary, limited, and protected. It will require explicit consent and compliance with the state and federal privacy laws. The amendments we will be accepting will help ensure that Cerritos College works collaboratively with the California Community College Chancellor's Office on an improved method to utilize in this pilot. At its core, AB 1636 is about improving access and outcomes by removing the administrative hurdle so that students can focus less on applications and more support services and critical for student success. With me today to satisfy and support and answer any questions are Dr. Mixon, Vice President of Academic Affairs and Assistant Superintendent of Cerritos College, and Carmela Fabian, Student Trustee. Hello. Good morning. Good morning, Chair Perez and members of the committee. My name is Carmela Fabian and I'm a student trustee at Serious College speaking in support of AB 1636. As an immigrant from the Philippines and the first in my family to navigate the U.S. college system, I had to figure out everything on my The application, financial aid, and enrollment process was confusing and overwhelming. I've also seen firsthand the struggles my fellow students face to complete their college applications simply because they do not know where to start early enough. After gathering feedbacks from both high school and college students, I heard a consistent message. Students want earlier access to college information to better prepare them for transition while also ensuring their privacy and consent are protected. AB 1636 helps create a smoother, more student-centered pathway from high school to community college by reducing barriers and helping students connect with resources faster. Students deserve a clearer path to higher education. I respectfully ask for your support on AB 1636. Thank you. Good morning, committee members. I'm Dr. Robin Brammer, filling in for Dr. Mixon, who wasn't available. I'm an assistant superintendent and vice president of student services at Cerritos College in support of AB 1636. Cerritos College has seen what happens when we simplify the enrollment transition. Through our college-bound partnerships with local high schools, embedding onboarding in the senior year resulted in a 46% increase in admissions, a 29% increase in financial aid completion, and a whopping 125% increase in enrollment. The AB 1636 builds on this success by allowing Cerritos College, in consultation with the Chancellor's Office, to develop a prototype for the simplest possible pathway for high school students to become college students. By reducing unnecessary steps, aligning systems earlier, and supporting informed consent and strong privacy protections, This approach will remove barriers that stop students before their college journey even begins, and barriers that are especially significant for first-generation college students. With their help, AB 1636 will help more students reach new heights, continue their education without delay, and more confidently move toward becoming college graduates. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. We'll now hear from any other support witnesses who want to offer Me Too's. if you'd like to use the mic at the railing. Hello, Justin Selmick from the California Community College Chancellor's Office. We don't have an official position on the bill, but we did want to thank the sponsors and the committee staff for their hard work on the amendments that are outlined in the committee analysis, and those amendments should resolve our previous concerns. Thank you. Xavier Bertschild on behalf of Norwalk La Mirada Unified School District in support. Good morning. LeAngela Reid on behalf of the Western Association of College Admission Counseling in support. Thank you. We'll now hear from anyone here in opposition. Do we have any opposition witnesses? Saying no in rising, I'll turn it back to the committee. Do we have any committee questions or comments? We have a motion from Senator Gonzalez. Senator Choboke. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick question that I think this is going to be a great program to really encourage and really help assist the transition. And I just want to just highlight Senator Cabaldon had a bill. I'm not sure if it was a bill, but he had mentioned. I don't know if it was a bill or not when we were together here. but it had to do with writing a letter of acceptance to all high school graduate students That was a bill right that we had here And just how that actually encourages our high school students to actually think and look and basically project the idea of, like, oh, I can go to college. So I think this is just another component that could add to the incentive to continue their education. So I am really, really excited about this bill, and I look forward to supporting it. Wonderful. Thank you. I am very supportive of your bill. Assemblymember Silache, I appreciate you bringing it forward, my recommendations and aye votes. So I'll turn it over to you to close. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. I want to thank our witnesses for being here too, especially our students. One of my first things I ever did in Sacramento was a student leader, and I was a student testifying back in my CSU days as a CSSA. I know some people on this dais know that organization very well, And that was my first. I want to acknowledge our student trustee for being here. I think to your comments, Madam Vice Chair, it's exactly what we want to do. We want to add a path for students to have a much easier access to our systems. I'm very proud that Bellflower, where I was born, our school district, is partnering up with Cerritos College as its pilot program. That's going to only help our system as a whole. And hopefully, I think the amendments are going to help this process move forward. With that, I respect and I vote, please. Excellent. Excellent. Thank you. And we do have a motion from Senator Gonzales, and that motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Secretary, can you call the roll? Senators Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Ochobog? Aye. Ochobog, aye. Cabaldon? Choi? Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Reyes? Great. And we will put that bill on call. Do you want to move on to your next bill, Assemblymember? Thank you to our witnesses. I just have two more. It's a busy day. Okay, we're going to have the windows come up. Yes. Thank you Madam Chair and members again. Today I'm here to present AB 2496 as a very, very proud former school board member of Lingua Unified School District. You'll meet soon our witnesses, but I'm happy to present this bill accepting committee's amendments and appreciate the committee members and staff for their thoughtful engagement. California's school accountability system is long overdue for modernization. AB 2496 takes a common-sense step by reducing duplicative reporting requirements and streaming tools for families and educators. Currently, our schools are required to maintain two overlapping accountability systems, the California School Dashboard and the California Accountability Report Card, known as SARC. This bill establishes a process to review SARC's data requirements to identify duplicative requirements burning administrators while ensuring the data is publicly available and easily accessed to places like a dashboard. Importantly, AB 2496 maximized efficiency so that we could focus more educational resources on our students. My office remains committed to ensuring the accessibility of data will continue to engage with stakeholders. With me today, again, I am proud to call my friend. I think a special shout out to our senator, student, and committee today. She and I share the district, the Lillian Unified School District. Senator Gonzalez and Dr Patrick we call him G because I have the chair pronounce his last name if she likes but it a little complex But Dr G is also was our former superintendent of technology So what a perfect person to talk about this bill And with that also we have Sarah Kimberly Gonzalez trustee for Washington Unified School District Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Dr. Patrick Gittis-Rabungo. I'm proud to serve as superintendent of Linwood Unified School District. I'm honored to be here today on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators in support of Assemblymember Solace's AB 2496. I also want to thank Assemblymember Solace for authoring this measure. As an alumni of Linwood Schools and a former Linwood Unified School District Board member, he, and a city council member as well as a mayor, he understands our community deeply, and it is an honor to sit here alongside him. AB 2496 is not about taking information away from families. It's about aligning California's reporting requirements with the public accountability tools and data systems that already exist. In Linwood, accountability is parent and student facing. Families want clear information about how their children are doing, how schools are performing, and what supports are in place. AB 2049-6 takes a measured approach. It requires the California Department of Education to create a crosswalk showing where SARC elements live, whether that information is exact or similar, and how else the information is used. This is consistent with research calling for a formal review of overlap among the LCAP, the Local Control Accountability Plan, the Single Plan for Student Achievement, the SARC and other reporting requirements. The bill also eliminates two specific SARC elements, the physical fitness test results and the status update on the school safety plan. Importantly, the school safety plan itself is still required and remains available through the local process. This change removes a duplicative status update from the SARC. From a district like Lindwood, staff time is a student resource. Time spent reconciling redundant reports time not spent supporting schools, responding to families, helping principals use data, or improving services for students. Finally, AB 24996 gives districts flexibility to provide an update on the LCAP annual update while continuing public reporting, board engagement, and family communication. AB 24996 preserves transparency, improves alignment, and helps district focus limited resources where they belong on students, on families, educators, and school improvement. I respectfully ask for your A vote on AB 2496. Thank you for your time and consideration. Good morning. My name is Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Sarah Kirby-Gonzalez, and I am a trustee for Washington Unified School District just across the river, where I've served for 13 years. And I am also a National Board Certified Teacher with over 20 years of classroom experience, a former District Teacher of the Year, and I'm currently an instructional coach at a high-priority school. I am here today on behalf of CSBA to support AB 2496 and Assemblymember Salachi. While Proposition 98 is most known for guaranteeing school funding, it also established the School Accountability Report Card, or SARC, to ensure that those funds were spent where needed most. Decades ago, back when I used transparencies on an overhead projector, the SARC was an informative tool which serves as a source of data on student performance, climate, and class sizes. But today, the way that schools communicate with their communities and how they maintain accountability is drastically different. For example, we have the Local Control Funding Formula since 2013, which comes with the requirement to develop the Local Control Accountability Plan and the annual update. In addition, schools develop a CIPSA, the School Plan for Student Achievement, with their local site councils. And we have the California School Dashboard as a central hub for school performance and other metrics Unfortunately there has not been an attempt to evaluate all of the overlapping systems to ensure that they still contribute to accountability rather than confusion In a recent research, Getting Down to Facts 3, it explicitly highlights the SARC as an area where the state is long overdue for a deep dive on duplication. This is exactly what AB 2496 proposes. As a trustee and an educator, I know that well-designed accountability tools are critical, but adding new requirements without reevaluating the old ones creates duplicative systems that pull the focus away from what matters most, our kids. This is the situation we find ourselves in today with the SARC and other accountability tools, and this is why I ask you to pass AB 2496 today. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for your yes vote. Thank you for your presentation. We'll now hear from Me Too's in support. If you all could use the mic at the railing. Elizabeth Esquivel, president of the Yola County Board of Education, on behalf of our entire board, in support. Deborah Bautista Zavala, on behalf of the California Association Suburban School District, in support. Good morning. Denise Morgan, on behalf of California State PTA, in support. Sarah Petrowski, California Association of School Business Officials, proud co-sponsor and support. Dan Merwin on behalf of the California School Boards Association, proud co-sponsor and support. Cristina Salazar with the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools and support. Rachel Murphy with Public Advocates. We actually have a supportive amended position, but we thank the author and the sponsors for their recent amendments and outlined our proposed amendments in our letter. Thank you. Harold Tallerup on behalf of the Santa Clara County Office of Education in support. Xavier Brochfield on behalf of the Small School Districts Association in support. Ana Iokamides on behalf of Los Angeles Unified School District in support. Brandi Bruni with San Joaquin County Office of Education in support. Thank you. We'll now turn it over to any witnesses in opposition. Do we have any opposition here? Any Me Too's? Seeing no one rising, I'll turn it back to the committee. Do we have questions or comments? Yes, Senator Gonzalez? I'll move the bill when appropriate, but I just want to say thank you, and Dr. G, it's really great to see you, and I'm glad our Assemblymember is taking this on to provide some streamlining and ensuring that the overlap is not confusing and redundant, as been mentioned. And these are small fixes, but make a big, big difference in the long run. So with that, I move the bill. And I thank you for bringing this forward, Assemblymember. Thank you, Senator Gonzalez. Senator Ochoa Bogue. Just quickly. So we have in common that I actually was born in Linwood. So we actually share that with Member Solache and yourself. So that's my connection to you both. All righty. Seeing no other comments, I appreciate you bringing forward this bill. Assemblymember Solache. This is a very common sense proposal, and I know we hear from our local education agencies all the time about some of the duplicative reporting requirements that we have and asking us to clean up the requirements that we've continued to layer on top of one another. So I really appreciate you bringing this forward. I'll turn it over to you to close. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. Thank you, Senator, for moving it. I just wanted to highlight that I want to thank our representatives here today. I mean, having a star teacher in the classroom, but also service her community. And of course our superintendent who is here on behalf of all superintendents and AXA who are big boys for our ed space and K-12. Also just thankful to the me-tos today. It was a full circle for me listening to all folks supporting this situation. Because as local policy makers at the local level, we don't always see the bigger total picture. And so just seeing that their perspective and support of this common sense change is really good to see. So again, California deserves accountability, system that is effective and serves families. AB 2496 moves towards the same goal. So with that, I ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Excellent. Thank you so much. And we have a motion from Senator Gonzalez. And that motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Secretary, can you call the roll? Senators Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bog? Aye. Ochoa Bog, aye. Cabaldon? Choi? Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Reyes? And we will put that bill on call. And you have one last bill to present, Assemblymember. Thank you. With that, again, thank you, Madam Chair, committee members. committee members. I love the momentum, so hopefully our Ling Whitty and ally could help us keep moving the momentum forward as we present this last bill today. With that, I'm here to present AB 2528. I'm grateful for the committee, to you and the committee staff for your engagement. We will be accepting the committee's amendments as outlined in the analysis that will add a training requirement if the board elects to increase its compensation. AB 2528 will make a long overdue updates to the maximum monthly compensation thresholds community colleges districts trustees may receive these updates will ensure opportunities to serve and remain accessible current compensation thresholds have not adjusted in about 40 years not even to take in account inflation importantly adjusting compensation is permissive allowing boards with the required financial capacity and ability to modestly and responsibly increase the compensation we have worked with labor partners on amendment to increase public notice to at least 30 days when a board proposes to increase compensation. In many districts, outdated compensation levels make it harder for individuals who are supportive of themselves and other families to consider serving in public office. These updates help to ensure our governing boards better reflect lived experiences and diversity of our communities they serve. Last year, the legislature and the governor approved AB 1390, which updated the compensation levels for our K-12 district board members, and this bill would add parity for community college district boards. Reflective representation at governing level supports more inclusive decision-making and policies that advance equity across higher education systems. Testifying in support of me today, I am very proud to introduce Dr. Morden, Vice President of the Long Beach Community College Board of Trustees. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm Dr. Annette Morton, Vice President of the Long Beach City College's Board of Trustees, and I'm here today as a co-sponsor of AB 2528. Community college trustees play a vital role in ensuring our institutions remain accountable, responsive, and focused on student success. We oversee multi-million dollar budgets, establish policy, set institutional priorities, and make decisions that directly impact thousands of students and families Strong governance depends on boards that reflect communities they serve Trustees bring professional expertise live experiences and community perspectives that strengthen decision Serving effectively also requires a significant commitment of time through board and committee meetings, policy development, community engagement, and preparation. Yet trustees' compensation has remained largely stagnant for decades. While many serve because they believe deeply in public education, the current structure creates barriers for working professionals, young leaders, and parents and others whose voices are essential to effective governance. AB 2528 takes a measured step towards addressing that inequity. The bill is permissive, allowing each district to decide whether to adopt, increase, and it has no impact on the state budget. At Long Beach City College, our board members currently receive just $300 per month. Ultimately, this bill helps ensure that community college boards can better reflect diversity, expertise, and lived experiences of the communities they serve. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 2528. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. We'll now hear from any Me Too's in support. Please use the mic at the railing. Thank you, Madam Chair. David Nevin, on behalf of the Los Angeles Community College District, proud to be a co-sponsor of the bill. Chair and members, Austin Webster with W Strategies on behalf of the Student Senate for California Community Colleges in support. Good morning, Tatiana Torres with the Community College Trustees Board in support. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair and Members. Mark McDonald on behalf of the Foothill De Anza Community College District in support. Good morning, Sabrina Means on behalf of Pasadena City College in support. All right, do we have any witnesses here in opposition or any Me Too's in opposition? Cassie Mancini with the California School Employees Association here as a tweener. Just wanted to appreciate the author, his staff, and the sponsors for working with us on amendments to extend public notice so that the public and district employees have a chance to review these compensation increases, and we are neutral. Thank you. Thank you. Excellent. I will now turn it over to the committee if committee members have any questions or comments. Yes, Senator Cho Boak. Thank you. Just a little bit of clarity. So I have on my notes here that existing law provides reasonable flexibility for governing boards to increase their own composition beyond the current limits by up to 5%. So that's currently in place. Is that, because you said we haven't had the increase in over 40 years, how is that different than what we currently see in law right now with the 5% increase? The actual formula that we have has not been touched in over 40 years. So essentially the board's restricted to that formula for the last 40 years. And I'll give you an example. I served on the school board for 10 years, and the most that I made in those years were $400 a month as well. And so the board could not increase based on the formula. Similarly, this would be something that we're doing to address the formula, and then boards would be considered on that formula angle. So based on the formula that you have that has been touched for five years, is that the same formula that the 5% would be impacting? The formula will be updated to up to most max per board Okay So I was just doing a math because I was trying to figure out how much do and they vary. When I sat on the school board at my time, it was just, I think, $260. It was just very, very minimal. Yeah, mine was $400. Similar to $2. Yeah, similar. But I think it's based on the number of students that are being served on there. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing no other comments, I appreciate your work in the space. Assemblymember Solace, I know so many of us know community college board members who, I mean, many even school board members were not receiving even any compensation at all before this. So I used to joke when I was on the city council that, you know, the $400 stipend that I got as mayor was gas money. I appreciate that you took our amendment to add in an ethics training component to this. I thought that was really important. Just so, you know, those are the same discussions that we have as members as we're going through this process. So I'm supportive of your bill. I'll turn it over to you to close. Thank you, Madam. Thank you for the questions. Again, I think when we come to Sacramento as legislators, we bring our live experiences. And I will tell you that as a 23-year-old, first time ever to the school board, not that we run for office for any compensation, but I think it definitely helps serve. And I say that because young people, single parents, and just individuals that have limitations, financial limitations, are unable to serve public office. And sometimes some of the great individuals we have in our communities with so many talent will give them the opportunity to serve in local communities. And so we want to diversify that. So I think this brings equity. Again, we did this on the school board site last year, and it brings equity to folks that want to serve. I think folks that live in communities that look like communities that want to serve on these boards, and not just folks that maybe are retired that are, you know, that can afford to serve without, you know, compensation. So I think it just brings a balance of equity to our labor partners. I know they were concerned about the simple 72-hour rule, and so we did adjust it to 30-day so that boards have required to announce publicly that they're going to consider a compensation. So I did take that amendment and that adjustment so that folks in community for a more transparent process. And to the chair's point earlier, committee definitely added that requirement for ethics, And I think that's good to have board members engage in how to make these decisions wisely from a community perspective, from a personal ethical perspective. So I think it just brings that balanced conversation and that folks can take that approach and I think make it very responsibly. So I urge all of us to vote yes on this. And I think I look forward to having more amazing people like Dr. Morden that serves on the community college in Long Beach in many colleges. So I look forward to seeing more of our community members serve in these local offices that really bring perspective and true live experiences to these serving boards locally. Thank you. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Excellent. Thank you for your presentation, Assemblymember. And that motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Do we have a motion? We have a motion from Senator Cortese. Secretary, can you call the roll? Senators Perez Aye Perez Aye Ochoa Bog Cabaldon Choi Cortese Aye Cortese Aye Gonzalez Reyes We will put that bill on call Thank you Thank you so much All right I see we have Assemblymember Marasucci here You can begin whenever you ready Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Senators. I'm here to present Assembly Bill 1644, a joint measure with my colleagues in the Assembly, Ms. Wicks, Mr. Lowenthal, and Mr. Hoover, a bipartisan bill to enact a bell-to-bell smartphone ban for all California schools, TK through 8, and with a strong urging and recommendation to high schools to adopt a similar ban. I've been working on smartphones in schools since 2016 when I first saw an Atlantic Journal magazine article entitled, Have Smartphones Destroyed an Entire Generation? And that really caught my attention because as a parent, I've been closely watching over the years all of the growing data and evidence on the impacts of excessive smartphone use, excessive screen time, especially on our adolescents. That evidence has only grown over the years. In 2019, I introduced the first bill in the California legislature to authorize school districts to adopt policies to ban or restrict smartphone use at schools during school hours. And in 2024, I was a joint author, along with, again, my colleague, Assemblymember Hoover, that required school districts to adopt policies to ban or restrict smartphone use at schools. And so we're back again. And I know, Madam Chair, you have raised concerns about the timing of this bill, given that today, actually, coincidentally, is the deadline for California school districts to adopt policies locally to ban or restrict smartphone use after getting input from their local communities. But we felt strongly that along with the evolving research and the growing national and international movement to ban smartphones at schools, specifically a bell-to-bell ban, was not only supported strongly by the scientific evidence, But by the growing recognition in our communities that the evidence is just too clear that there is overwhelming impacts of excessive smartphone use, impacts academically, especially in low-income communities, impacts on social and emotional well-being, especially on our adolescents. And that is why we have a strong coalition of organizations supporting this measure. Here to testify in support of the bill is representatives from Common Sense Media, as well as Mothers Against Media Addiction. Chair, my name is and members, my name is Mike Hothi. I'm California Director for Common Sense Media. We're proud to sponsor AB 1644. Common Sense Media is dedicated to improving the lives of kids and families by providing the trustworthy information, education, and independent voice that they need to thrive. We support technology when it helps children learn, but for elementary and middle school students, smartphones during the school day are too often not a learning tool. They are a constant source of distraction, social pressure, and conflict. Common Sense Media's research shows this challenge begins well before high school. More than half of tweens ages 8 to 12 say they feel addicted to their mobile phones. The medical literature reinforces these concerns. A 2026 study published in JAMA Network Open found that young people use smartphones throughout every hour of the school day, spending an average of more than two hours on their phones while at school and checking them approximately 64 times each day. More frequent phone checking was associated with poor cognitive control. These are the very skills students rely on to pay attention, resist distraction, and learn. AB 1644 is a practical, age-appropriate solution. It focuses on transitional kindergarten through eighth grade while preserving exceptions for emergencies, disability accommodations, and legitimate educational purposes. This bill is not anti-technology. It's pro-learning, pro-teacher, and pro-childhood. As of 2026, at least 22 states and the District of Columbia have enacted statewide bell-to-bell cell phone bans for K-12 public schools. These strict policies require children, students, to keep personal devices turned off or put away from the start of the school day until the final dismissal bell. For these reasons, Common Sense Media respectfully asks for your aye vote on AB 1644. Thank you. My name is Cheryl Westmont with Mothers Against Media Addiction, founded in 2024. We are now in 26 states, eight chapters in California with 1,200 members. Bell-to-bell, phone-free schools are one of the most important steps we can take to improve students' mental health, learning, and social development. School is one of the last places where young people can practice the face-to-face interactions that build empathy, resilience, and belonging. In nearly every other setting, smartphones compete for their attention. Schools should protect the rare opportunity for students to be fully present with one another. Allowing students to check their phones between classes keeps them trapped in the same addictive cycle throughout the day. Instead of resetting their attention, every notification pulls them back into the digital world of social comparison, gaming, and endless scrolling, making it harder to focus when class begins. 24 states have already passed K-12 phone-free policies, with four requiring the gold standard of inaccessible storage throughout the school day. Academic performance improves without phones. The New York Governor's Office reports after implementing bell-to-bell policy, 92% of the schools reported a smooth transition to distraction-free learning. 83% reported more positive classrooms and better student engagement, and 75% reported improvement in their ability to teach effectively. Districts implementing these policies consistently report stronger school culture, more conversation, and one particularly striking change. Girls begin to eat lunch Students cannot learn while they anxious distracted and hungry Bell to Bell Phone School restores the safety attention and human connection that every child deserves. Please vote yes on Bell to Bell policy. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. We'll now hear from additional witnesses in support. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Tristan Renaud CFT here in support. Good morning. Sarah Arsenault on behalf of TechNet in support. Thank you. Good morning. Karen Cove, CEO of TenStrands in support. Devin Jackson, middle school science teacher. I am very much in support of Bell to Bell, no phones. Good afternoon, Dorothy Johnson with the Association of California School Administrators. We were previously opposed, but really appreciated the dialogue with the author to get us to neutral, and so we are now neutral at this point. Thank you. Joshua Coleman, parent of two boys who definitely do not need to be on their phones at school, and our school recently changed rules and have banned them, and I've seen a great change. So this is a great bill. Thank you. David Bullock, SFB Alliance, Parents Family Group. We are in support. Thank you. Hi, April Robinson, parent of a special needs child with screen time being a big deal. So thank you for all your work on this bill. Anyone else? All righty. We'll now hear from any witnesses in opposition. Good afternoon. Marissa Vizmura on behalf of the California School Boards Association, representing nearly 1,000 school districts and county boards of education across the state. We very much appreciate the author's effort on this bill and also agree that keeping our students learning in a distraction-free environment is very important. Our concern that the bill takes a one-size-fits-all approach and also interferes and interrupts the flexibility of the local LEAs. We hear from those in support of this bill that it is the choice of the schools to ban bell-to-bell use, and we agree with that, but it is the autonomy and the choice and the flexibility that they have. California's public schools belong to the communities, and those electeds know their communities best and are best positioned to work with students, families, and education to adopt policies that reflect their local needs. Additionally, I want to note that last month, the National Bureau of Economic Research published the largest national study of school phone bans. While school bans do reduce student access to phones, they produce mixed academic outcomes across grade spans and also increase disciplinary actions. For these reasons, we respectfully remain opposed to the bill. Thank you. Anybody else in opposition that would like to offer a Me Too? Lisa Disbro, a retired public school teacher. I think there are pros and cons to access to the phones. And I would just remind you all that there are many situations where violence against students has been evidence in court and in district hearings which would have been hidden and denied, and students have been able to report to their parents and administrators, and it's exposed things that would have been pushed under the carpet and have been for years and years Anybody else Saying no and rising we turn it back to committee I'll want to start off the conversation first by sharing Assemblymember Marisucci that I appreciate your work on this issue over the years. I know the bill that you introduced in 2019 was significant to require that and really to give permission to school boards all across the state to begin developing policies, particularly for high school students. And as a result of that bill, there was community engagement that happened in local education agencies to talk about what those policies would look like and to allow for each of these school districts to come up with a policy that they thought would best be applicable to their region. Some of those school districts chose to apply policies to K-8 students. Others didn't and chose to come up with a policy for just their high school students, but they went through this very long process of gathering stakeholder feedback. And oddly enough, today, July 1st, 2026, is the deadline for those policies to be put into effect from your bill that you passed in 2019. And so the bill that you're proposing today essentially says that there needs to be a bell-to-bell ban for K-8. And so overwrite some of that work and some of the policies that those districts created and says that it must be this exact policy. Or if there's not currently one in place, that it must be this policy in place. And so my concern here is less about us having a smartphone ban within schools, which I think is something that many local education agencies have already pursued on their own, even prior to your passage of your bill in 2019, as well as after. but that this is essentially taking away all of that kind of local control and flexibility from every educational agency across the state, right, who have spent a lot of time as a result of your work to come up with a policy that's nuanced and best fits whatever needs that their district may have. And so I have concerns with us kind of basically telling each of our school districts that this is the exact designed policy that this must be after we had them go through a seven-year-long process of coming up with a policy of their own and encouraging them to think about the nuances of how this might work. So I think that the direction of what your bill is trying to do is good. And obviously, I think it's very important for us to make sure that young people have less screen time in general. I remember working at LAUSD when they first introduced the iPad system and what a failure that was within the classroom and how difficult it was. also explaining to some of my colleagues who were older than me what airdrop was and the challenges that that presented. But I also recognize that there are specific circumstances that I might not be privy to. Also, recent events that have happened, right? Sometimes there are traumatic events that happen on school campuses. And as a result, there are a desire from the folks in that immediate district to have a more nuanced policies. So I will turn it over to my colleagues I would love to hear her comments as well But those are some of my kind of outstanding concerns I have here and I trying to figure out how we carefully balance these conversations and appreciate that you're trying to build on your work, but I'm wondering if that kind of defeats the whole process that you just had them go through. Madam Chair, I can respond before the Vice Chair. I asked her a question. First of all, I just want to clarify that the policies that are to be adopted by today are pursuant to the 2024 policy. So actually in 2019, my original bill was to require a school. My 2019 bill was essentially the 2024 bill. the assembly education committee knocked it down from shall adopt policies to may adopt policies in 2019 and then in 2024 we followed up after the overwhelming evidence that continued to build changing it from may to shall and so this is the you know from my perspective and the perspective of of the many people who support this bill. The next step with the evolution of the research, the overwhelming research showing the academic, cognitive, social, and emotional impacts of excessive smartphone use, you know, where I, you know, so that is the reason why, you know, I'm, as a former school board member, I have a huge respect for local control and the ability of local districts to be able to address local circumstances. However, I think, one, you know, because the evidence is becoming so strong, you know, supporting a bell to bell, not just across the country, but around the world. That's one reason. The other reason I've heard from local school board members saying that they have so much public pressure from parents, you know, that are fighting back saying, you know, don't take away my ability to be able to text my son or daughter in the middle of the day. that they were actually asking me and the state to come up with a mandate to give them cover because locally, I know, again, as former school board members, we can appreciate this. But a lot of times when you're on the front lines face-to-face with many of these parents, it's hard to take away their phones from their kids during the school day. And so that's just an alternative perspective. Again, I appreciate and respect your emphasis on local control and the ability of local districts to be able to come up, address local circumstances. I just wanted to share an alternative perspective. I appreciate that, Assemblymember. Senator Chobok? Thank you, Madam Chair. So basically what we are understanding right now is that it was from Shell to May, and then based on the evidence you feel compelled that now we should just completely ban the school. So based on scientific evidence, this is why you're coming up and following up on that bill and the discrepancy. And I just want to note that in principle I'm completely supportive of it just because I notice And note the attention deficit that we currently have on our youth. It's incredibly just disappointing. heartening and it's actually very scary. And we see that also carrying into our young adults into the workplace where they literally cannot be without their phone looking at it every single, you know, five minutes, 10 minutes, looking and going into the bathroom and going away to hide in the bathroom so that they can use their cell phone. It's an addiction. It's incredibly hard to break as any addiction would be. So I am incredibly concerned about the, um, the, uh, the, uh, uh, the impact that it has had on our, on our student and our youth. And we need to do something, especially with our, our, our youth that are frontal lobe, undeveloped yet, and we're exposing them. Um, I think some of the concerns that I, one of the concerns that I have, I think with my, I agree with my chair is that, you know, the local control component of it and their opportunity to be able to do that if needed. But I do also validate the point that you made when it comes to our local elected, whether it's the city council, whether it's our school board members who literally are feeling so much pressure at the local level and they ask their state assembly members or their state senators to carry bill for cover because they can't do it locally. And so they look to the state to do it, and then this is why the state then comes in with a one-size-fits-all kind of manner. And I struggle with that from the local perspective also, ensuring that we're not overstepping the local. So we have, you know, some community elected who are wanting the state to step in and then others who say, hey, this one size does not fit for all of us. So a line for flexibility. I was trying to rationalize also in my mind when I was looking at this bill, you know, banning it completely with evidence that supports it. And also what other means our students may have in the classroom to access technology, right? And many of our schools, especially after COVID, many of the schools invested or received funding so that they could have iPads. And have access to technology and research that they may need for school. So there is still some flexibility where the students can actually have access to technology. It's not that they're completely cut off from the ability to do what they need to do as far as our research and access to online information within the school day. Another component that I'm trying to rationalize my vote on here for my local electeds. You know, even parents, you know, we want that immediate communication with our students. growing up, and I'm going to date myself, I just turned 54 yesterday. So, you know, we still had the opportunity to get calls into the school, communicate with the school. And the schools nowadays might not want as many students and parents calling into the school, but we still have that opportunity as well if something were to happen, and we needed to communicate with our kids. So I'm going to support the bill today just based on the evidence, and I understand how you have transitioned over and evolved. And with any legislation, anything that we do, we always look to data in science even though depending on where you are that science at some point some folks will take that as letter of the law and for other folks when it convenient will say well science can change depending on who's doing the study and the questions that are being posed. But in this case I do see the impact on our students and our youth and their inability to concentrate, the attention deficit disorder, the distractions on it, the bullying that happens, the bills that we have to carry and support in this body because of the online bullying that's happening and the liability that the schools are then being faced on, you know, that are being happened. So I think it, for many, many reasons, I think it would serve to create this ban just because we have the science that's backing it. So with that, I will be supporting the bill today and know for the record that our students still have access to technology during the school day that they may need to do their work. So with that, I will be happy to support the bill moving forward. Thank you, Senator Chobok. Senator Cobaltin? Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't know why this didn't also go to the Committee on Technology, but I can't support the bill today. I appreciate what the author is doing here, but I think the arguments with the opposition and also just the comments in the analysis, and maybe the chair also mentioned this when I was not here, but for me, when I try to examine what is the appropriate mandate role of the legislature, I generally only support mandates where there is something, there is some countervailing force in society that's stopping local communities from doing something. It's not that there's a great idea that local communities are doing it more and more and more, and I just want to be the one to do it for them? Like, that's not the point. Like, we have locally elected school boards for a reason. And so in a domain like this where, you know, there's no all-powerful, well-financed association of phone operators that are fighting on the other side, it's parents and teachers and local and school and vice principals and school boards that are grappling with this. And they mostly are coming with the same perspective. They can see the same research that we see. They can see that same research in the context of their own local demographics and student populations, what have you, and then they can make the decision. That's what we told them to do. As a legislator, we said go through and consult and look at the research and adopt local policies that make sense. And in the absence of evidence that 50% of districts are not doing it because the oil companies, the tobacco companies have weighed in and blocked it from happening, I'm not comfortable making those decisions for everyone. Bell to bell is a very strong policy approach, but I'm not convinced that Elk Grove Unified shouldn't have the ability to say, you know, there's 10 minutes during recess. That's just not a level of detail that it feels to me like it's necessary to preempt every school district in the state on at this point. So I absolutely support the direction and the policy and the existing law that already pushes districts to make those judgments. But for me, it's just a mandate too far, and this is a decision that people are heading towards in ways that are locally crafted. And so I can't support the bill today, but I very much appreciate the work that the author is doing to try to keep spotlighting this and the dire consequences when communities don't do anything at all. But I have more hope that they will. Thanks, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Capaldon. Senator Cortese. I going to be supporting the bill today and I certainly respect the opposition We talk to them all the time As a statewide organization I not sure on this bill that I heard a strong argument other than the broad sweeping statement that it impacts local control. The impact on my children for adult children now as they grew up and essentially split, if you will, the period when smartphones became ubiquitous in schools is a stunning impact from a parental standpoint, a devastating impact. the difference between the lives of the two older children versus the two younger children. I don't think that's unique to me. I'm involved with many organizations in Santa Clara County, parents helping parents and others that are trying to grapple with this problem. And I do feel, from my perspective, that not only a sense of urgency, but almost a sense of emergency that we, you know, lay down the law, literally, in terms of what's okay and what's not okay. If something still needs to be figured out here, I'd rather have a moratorium on the use of the phones while things are being figured out than to continue with what I think is a bit of a helter-skelter approach, you know, based on the hundreds of districts that are out there. One of those of my adult children has been a substitute teacher at LA Unified for the last year. And you could call that anecdotal evidence or you could call it percipient witness of what he sees every day in the classroom. And it's very troubling. Substitutes have a hard time, you know, controlling a classroom anyway historically, you know, compared to a full-time certificated teacher, but the inability to get kids to even put down a phone in the classroom during the entire class day at times up to one-third of what he describes as one-third of the classroom. This is a young man who grew up with the same affliction himself, complaining about it, concerned about it. So I'm just going to go with, call that, you know, my own, again, anecdotal experience, lived experience, experience as a parent. But, you know, I'm just going to lean in from that perspective and support the bill. Thank you, Senator Cortese. Seeing no other comments, Assemblymember Marci, I'll turn it over to you to close. All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate all of the comments, and happy birthday, Vice Chair. Again, as a former school board member, Senator Cabaldon, I'm not sure if you caught my comments in response to Senator Cho'a Vogue. But as a former school board member, I mean, I normally give tremendous respect and deference to local school boards, local school districts to be able to make their own decisions. But as we were talking about, the evolution of California's policies on smartphones in schools, starting with my 2019 bill that started with allowing school districts to adopt policies. To 2024, the legislature passed and the governor signed the bill to take the next step to go from May to shall, that school districts shall adopt policies to ban or restrict to now the next step in response to the growing scientific evidence academic cognitive social emotional that we should take that next step. As 22 other states, as Common Sense Media pointed out, 22 other states have adopted bell-to-bell bans. So we're not pushing the envelope for better or worse on this. We're following 22 other states. I should also point out that originally this bill was proposing the bell-to-bell ban for TK through 12, but the Assembly Education Committee pushed back and still maintain that local discretion for high schools. Although, you know, perhaps the evidence is most compelling for our high school students, nonetheless, that is the bill that is before you. And so with that, I respectfully ask for a aye vote. Thank you for your presentation, Assemblymember Marzucchi. The motion for AB 1644 is due to pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Do we have a motion? We have a motion from Senator Ochoa Bogue. Secretary, if you can call the roll. Senators Perez, Ochoa Bogue. Aye. Ochoa Bogue, aye. Cabaldon. Choi. Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. Gonzalez. Reyes. All righty. And we will put that bill on call. Thank you, Assemblymember. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Assemblymember Rodriguez presenting. AB 2460, an assembly woman, you can begin whenever you're ready. Thank you. Good afternoon. We're in afternoon now. I want to start by thanking the committee consultants for their thoughtful analysis. AB 2460 helps schools better support students when immigration enforcement causes fear, trauma, or instability at home. By updating California's existing school behavioral health referral protocols to include guidance for local emergencies related to immigration enforcement or deportation. Students cannot learn when fear keeps them from the classroom or makes it harder to focus, feel safe, and seek help. In many immigrant communities, like mine, students are living with fear of family separation, parental detention, or sudden disruption at home. That fear does not stay outside the school gates. This issue affects entire school communities, not just undocumented students. Many California students are members of immigrant or mixed-status families, including many U.S. citizen children. Recent immigration enforcement activity has also been linked to declines in attendance, and student mental health needs are already widespread across California. This bill addresses this gap by making sure schools have clear guidance to connect students and families to appropriate behavioral health supports during these moments of crisis. This approach builds on the referral process already in place and helps schools respond with care, clarity, and consistency. AB 2460 promotes stability, early identification, culturally responsive support, and continuity of care for students affected by immigration-related trauma. I have with me today Gianna Kim with the California Association of Student Councils and Saret Kaminsky on behalf of the Association of California Administrators to provide testimony. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Senators. Saret Kaminsky. On behalf of the Association of California School Administrators, representing over 18,000 school administrators throughout the state, ACSA is proud to support AB 2460 and urges your aye vote today because it would help enhance mental health supports for our students. Administrators have witnessed increased student mental health needs due to heightened fear in the aftermath of immigration raids and enforcement activity. We surveyed nearly 120 leaders from over 100 California districts to capture how immigration enforcement is impacting students, families, and school operations. Overwhelmingly, we found that immigration fears are taking a toll on school communities, eroding student well-being, academic progress, and family trust. 61% of administrators surveyed reported a sharp decline in student mental health, and 36% reported reduced student engagement. Two-thirds of the districts in our survey have already mobilized to safeguard students amid enforcement fears. 69% of those leaders we surveyed have already increased mental health services to address student needs resulting from immigration enforcement activity concerns. AB 2460 is an extension of these efforts. The measure compels the California Department of Education to update the existing model behavior health referral protocols to include guidance on supports in the case of impacts of immigration enforcement activities. Some schools and districts have already updated their protocols to address these issues and importantly, AB 2460 permits local measures and plans to continue without any changes. AB 2460 compels the state to create a model that can be used as a guide for districts that haven't yet completed this work. For these reasons, ACSA supports the measure and urges your aye vote today. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Gianna Kim, the Government Affairs and Policy Director with the California Association of Student Councils. I'm here today in support of AB 2460. The California Association of Student Councils is a student-run nonprofit, and we have been working since 1947 to uplift the voices of students across California. Our organization represents students from diverse communities across the state, and we have long recognized that student mental health is fundamental to educational equity. In recent years, the California education system has placed greater focus on students' mental health. And for this reason, it's important to also acknowledge that schools cannot fully support student learning without also addressing factors that affect student safety, stability, and ability to succeed in education. Because, unfortunately, immigration-related challenges can even follow them into the classroom. These experiences diminish student's sense of safety, they affect attendance, and they affect a student's ability to fully participate in school. AB 2460 helps ensure that students facing immigration-related crises are provided the appropriate and situation-sensitive mental health support through updated referral protocols. For these reasons, CASC respectfully urges your aye votes on AB 2460. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other witnesses who would like to register their support for AB 2480? And please share with us your name and the organization you're representing. We do not need to hear your lobbying firm if you are a contract lobbyist and your position on the bill. Understood. Thank you. Good afternoon, Alejandro Solis, on behalf of Los Amigos de la Comunidad and La Cooperativa Campesina California, in support. Thank you. Thank you. Harold Tallerup, on behalf of the Santa Clara County Office of Education, in support. And back to her. Are there two witnesses lead witnesses in opposition to the bill I be short so I stop All right David Bullock on behalf of the SFV Alliance What we appreciate what the author trying to do for our community with the students in there and the stress that they're going through, we do because of existing law, allowing 12-year-olds to get mental health care without knowledge of their parent or their guardian, we have to oppose this. Thank you. Sorry, I just came back. That was lead opposition from the public. Yes. So seeing no other witnesses in opposition, we'll bring it back to the dais. Questions, concerns, comments? No? Okay. So I'm going to, sorry, trying to see if I have any questions for 22. Sorry, I'm catching up. It's okay. You were going to move the bill, I think. I completely apologize. We have been here for several hours, so I had to use it for a little bit. So just really quickly, it's in my notes that existing law already requires LEAs to adopt the model referral policy addressing people's mental health concerns based upon guidelines developed by the CDE. This bill adds specific elements to the model policy that may or may not be driven by local input and based upon an issue that has been relevant for decades but has gained political notoriety as of now. So do we have any concerns about local policies being developed in consultation with school and community stakeholders and not dictated by the current political scheme of reality, I guess? No, this is building upon the existing protocols to ensure that there are mechanisms in place so that students who need that support related to immigration-related trauma are supported. But this builds up. Would you like to step in as well? I would echo the authors' sentiments that some local districts have already done some of this work, and the bill allows for those local plans to continue. But there's nothing currently in statute that prohibits them from doing that already. Is that correct? They can do this already, and some have. And some have. Okay, so they're really – I'm just looking at the reason for the bill, basically, because it's my understanding that they can already do this. So it really creates model policies from the state. Model policies. For all of the districts to be able to adopt. Okay. All right. Thank you. I'm seeing no other comments or questions from the dais. Would you like to close, member Rodriguez? Yes. AB 2460 ensures that schools are better prepared to support students when immigration enforcement or deportation causes fear, trauma, and family instability. This is about supporting our students across the state, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. We have a motion by Senator Cabaldon. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Motion is due passed to Senate Appropriations Committee. Senators Perez, Butchul Bo. Not voting. Cabaldon. Cabaldon, aye. Choi, Cortese, Gonzalez, Reyes. We'll place that bill on call for our absent members, and thank you for being here today. Okay Okay so okay we have Assemblymember Berman with file item number 27 AB 2271 2771. 2771, sorry. Thank you, Chair. AB 2771 is the sunset vehicle for the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education. Specifically, this bill extends the sunset date for the Bureau until January 1, 2031, tightens accreditation and approval requirements for schools and programs, requires schools to notify the Bureau of certain events such as bankruptcy, prohibits schools from withholding documents required for licensure because the student owes a debt, and makes a variety of other technical changes and policy reforms in response to issues raised during the Bureau's sunset review, and I'm joined today by Manila Vagmani and Elizabeth Elias from the Bureau to answer any technical questions, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you, Member Berman. Please proceed when you're ready. Welcome. Oh. I think just questions? We're just here to answer questions. Okay. For both of you? Yes. Okay. Well, if that's the case, we'll continue with any members of the public who would like to come up and express our support, name and organization and your position. Thanks so much. Kami Peer on behalf of NextGen California, Protect Borrowers, Student Debt Crisis Center, and Young Invincibles in strong support. Hello, Sabrina Means on behalf of the Institute for College Access and Success, or TCAS, in support. Thank you. Okay, see no other members in support. Do we have any lead members of the opposition? Seeing none, do we have any members of the public who would like to express our opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais. Comments, questions? Member Kowalda? Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. I do have questions. That's why I brought them. I know. One of the original acts was the one that I auditioned for to get my job in the Assembly at the Higher Education Committee, so I've always been a detail guy on this particular statute for 40, 30 years. So what are the five areas that were recommendations in the staff report for the joint hearing that are not in this bill? The analysis notes that there are 23 of the 28 are in the bill, but doesn't describe what was it. The five that are not? Yeah, which I don't know those off the top of my head. Maybe. Go ahead. I think one of the main ones is the fees. Yeah. It's not in the bill. but I think the majority of them have recently been amended in. So I think it might be, is it this? Yeah. So it's fees, apprenticeships, STRIF eligibility determinations, and registered out-of-state institutions. Did you get that right? That's right. Okay. All right. The dreaded out-of-state institutions, I'm glad not to be dealing with that today. Okay, in comment number five, or sorry, not comment, but the way that the analysis lists them is number five, modifies minimum operating standards for an institution by requiring an institution offering a degree to be accredited by one or more accreditation agencies. What are we doing in this one? Is it changing the nature of the accreditation, or is it the scope change that the accreditation has to cover every single degree program that the institution offers? I'm sorry, can you repeat that one more time? So the analysis the summary in the analysis says that the bill modifies minimum operating standards for an institution by requiring an institution offering a degree to be accredited by one or more accrediting agencies with the scope of that accreditation covering the offering of all degree programs instead of at least one of its programs And is that, is that in response, what is that in response to? I believe the rationale for that is so that all of the degree programs that are offered by an institution have an accreditor who accredits that specific degree program. Because as of right now, I believe the institutions who apply by means of accreditation may at times only have the accreditation for one of the degree programs. Ashley, okay. In the joint legislative audit committee hearing that you, jointly I think with your committee, I mean one of the clear subject matter areas that were challenging here is if you look down the list of sort of low payoff programs in the state, I can't remember the terms that we use, and this is true in all the federal data as well, that the other two sectors very much stand out. And I'm curious whether you or the committees that have worked so hard on this, and those were cosmetology and the arts, and with different reasons for that. But did this Sunset Review take a look at, like, these were like wholesale sectoral differences. If you took those two sectors out, this segment of higher education has a lot fewer questionable value schools in it. But did this particular sense of review look into either why or whether the policy should change with respect to those two sectors? Michael Hanna, M.D.: We might assume that we did not, but that could be work for the future. Michael Hanna, M.D.: Okay. Michael Hanna, M.D.: Yeah. Michael Hanna, M.D.: All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to support the bill. Thanks for the responses and all the hard work on it, but it's a critical legislative oversight and making sure that the agency is effective. And obviously the fee and financing issue remains a live one in the budget and on an ongoing basis in order to make real all of these promises that are in the law. But I appreciate the author's continued tireless, well, maybe not tireless, probably tired of work on the topic, but it's an important bill and I look forward to supporting it. Thanks. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Senator Kabaldon Singh. No other questions or comments? I'll turn it over to you, Assemblymember Berman, to close. Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. All righty. And we do have a motion on that bill? We have a motion from Senator Cabaldon, and that motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Secretary, can you call the roll? Senators Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bog? Aye. Ochoa Bog, aye. Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Choi? Cortese? Gonzalez? Oh, Cortese, aye. Reyes? All right. And we will put that bill on call. Thank you so much, Assemblymember Berman. Thank you. Appreciate it. And I see that we have Assemblymember Lowenthal here to present. AB 1850. Oh, sorry. Assemblymember Gibson, you are first, actually, and you're presenting AB 1851. Thank you. Thank you very much Madam Chair and members. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 1851, a bill that brings consistency and clarity to how schools support students mental health behavior and overall well-being. California's public schools serves millions of students experiencing trauma, chronic stress, and unmet behavior health needs. California's Department of Education has made clear that social emotional learning is fundamental to both academic success and long-term well-being. Both today whether a student's receive meaningful school-wide support depends largely on where they go to school. Some schools have strong integrated systems in place while others are left piecing together support without clear guidance. AB 1851 addresses the gaps by directing Department of Education to contract with experienced local educational agencies to provide statewide guidance, resources, trainings, and technical assistance to support effective implementation. This bill focused on early intervention and prevention, reducing discipline, and creating safe, positive learning environment. At its core, AB 1851 ensures every student has access to a consistent baseline of supports, regardless of where they go to school. We have individuals here to support Assembly Bill 1851, who was self-introduced, and thank my witness for being here. Hi, good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Monifa Willis, and I serve as the chief of staff for the San Francisco District Attorney's Office, representing District Attorney Brooke Jenkins. I'm here in support of AB 1851. Public safety is at the heart of what we do. Our office works to hold individuals accountable when crimes occur, and we know the strongest form of public safety is ensuring that crimes never happen in the first place. Before becoming Chief of Staff, I spent 20-plus years providing direct mental health services and launched the first social-emotional learning workshop in an Oakland-based school. I saw firsthand what happened when young people did not have emotional tools to navigate conflict. Without those skills, a single poor decision can alter the course of a young person's life, and that decision can land in the criminal justice system. AB 1851 will help young people avoid that path. Today, I have the privilege of bringing public health and public safety together. What I've learned is simple. If we want safer communities, we have to invest in healthy emotional development today. I've also seen the inequities. Too often, whether a child develops these critical skills depends on the resources available at their school or whether their family has access to mental health care through insurance. Those opportunities should not depend on a child's zip code or a family's income. Social-emotional learning is a partnership with parents. Regulating emotions, solving problems, communicating effectively are life skills we all can use, and they are public safety skills If we truly believe prevention is the foundation of public safety then investing in emotional development of our children should be an easy choice For those reasons, District Attorney Brooke Jenkins and the San Francisco District Attorney's Office respectfully request your aye vote on AB 1851. Thank you. Thank you, Chair and members. Elizabeth Kim, Policy Director at Initiate Justice, representing nearly 50,000 members in California. and sponsor of the bill. I'll make three points to urge your support for the bill today. First, as an educator, I've watched students quietly ask for their absences to be excused because a parent had relapsed into addiction, have been hospitalized, or simply wasn't there. I've taught students logging into class on Zoom from motel rooms and the backseat of their family's car because they had nowhere else to go. One student in particular who was homeless and recovering from addiction while enrolled in my class later got accepted to Stanford sharing with me that one teacher who believed in them changed the trajectory of their lives. To my second point, according to CDC last year, 40% of high school students report persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness, one in five seriously considered suicide, and one in ten attempted it. Meanwhile, children are being suspended as early as preschool, and decades of research have shown that exclusionary discipline dramatically increases the likelihood of school failure and later involvement with the juvenile and criminal legal systems calling it the preschool to prison pipeline. Teachers should not have to act as therapists or counselors but the reality is that teachers are already walking into classrooms filled with children carrying trauma, anxiety, depression, grief, homelessness, addiction in the home, and violence. And they are already responding to these needs every single day. The question isn't whether teachers will encounter these challenges. The question is whether we will equip them with evidence-based tools and training to respond effectively. Finally, what makes this bill especially meaningful is where it came from. It was written by students that are incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison, men serving life sentences. Each and every one of them confirmed that had they had the tools to better regulate their emotions, they may have made completely different choices. When given the opportunity to write legislation, they didn't write a bill to help themselves. They asked what could have changed the course of their own lives, and they dedicated this bill to today's children instead. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 1851. Thank you. Thank you for your presentations. We'll now hear from additional Me Too's in support. If you could use the mic at the railing. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Pamela Gibbs, representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education, in support. Jalen Woodard, on behalf of Alameda County Office of Education, in support. Good afternoon, Chair and members. I'm Mariah on behalf of Initiate Justice, and I'm here in support. And if I may also offer support for some of our supporters who couldn't attend in person. Ruth Salady on behalf of Initiate Justice, Back to the Start organization, California Association for Bilingual Education, California Association of School Counselors, California Primary Care Association Advocates, Drug Policy Alliance, and GLIDE organization. Sorry LeAngela Reid on behalf of the California Association of School Counselors in support Devin Jackson middle school science teacher very much in support and I want to say thank you for all the wellness centers that are out there in our K schools Very very helpful to students Thank you. Do we have any witnesses now in opposition? Anyone here in opposition? Seeing no and rising, I'll turn it back to the committee. Do we have any questions or comments from committee members? We have a motion from Senator Gonzalez. Seeing no questions or comments, I will turn it over to you, Assemblymember. To close, I support your bill and my recommendations, and I vote. Thank you very much. I want to thank the committee. I want to thank my witnesses for being here in support of this very important measure. I just want to read a statement from an individual who is incarcerated who offers his support. And it reads, as someone who, as a teen, was not offered the counseling, instead was sentenced to juvenile hall, group home, and probation school, I know that this bill would have established the social and emotional skills I needed before my life spiraled out of control. This would have changed and made my decisions. I would have made different decisions had I had this opportunity in life. And so, again, by the testimonies of those who have already spoken, who testified in support of 1851, If we had something like this back then, people would have made different choices. I don't think it's too late for the future of our young people. I respectfully ask for an aye vote and thank this committee and the chair. Thank you, Assemblymember Gibson. We have a motion by Senator Gonzalez, and that motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Secretary, can you call the roll? Senators Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bog? Aye. Ochoa Bog, aye. Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon. Aye. Choi. Cortese. Aye. Cortese. Aye. Gonzalez. Aye. Gonzalez. Aye. Reyes. Excellent. We'll put that bill on call. Thank you so much, Assemblymember. I see we have Assemblymember Lowenthal here in the audience. You can present whenever you're ready. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Senators. I'd like to thank, begin by thanking the Chair and the committee staff for their thoughtful work and collaboration on this bill. I'm happy to accept the committee's proposed amendments. AB 1858 establishes a pilot program at CSU Long Beach in partnership with a community college or nonprofit independent institution of higher education to award associate degrees to former California State University students who left school because of financial hardship, family obligations, illness, or other life circumstances, but who have already completed coursework equivalent to an associate's degree. Let me be clear, these students did the work. They earned the credits, they satisfied the academic requirements, and made meaningful progress toward a degree. Yet because they began at a CSU and were unable to complete a bachelor's degree, they left without any formal recognition of those accomplishments AB 1858 addresses one of California fastest growing higher education challenges the some college no degree population According to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, more than 37 million Americans have attended college but have not earned a degree, a number that continues to rise. Here in California, estimates once placed this population at 1.5 million. More recent data suggests it may now exceed 6 million individuals, a dramatic increase over the past decade. Within the CSU system alone, more than 68,000 students have discontinued their studies over the past decade. At CSU Long Beach, nearly 10,000 students left without earning a degree. Many stepped away during the pandemic due to financial strain, caregiving responsibilities, and physical and mental health concerns. As we continue to recover, reengaging these individuals is not just a policy goal, it is a shared responsibility. Many of those students completed at least 60 units, enough to qualify for an associate degree, but entered the workforce without a credential recognizing their effort, knowledge, and progress. The truth is that this is a trend that has real consequences. Individuals without a degree face limited career mobility, lower earning potential, reduced participation in the workforce. By contrast, data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics show that individuals with an associate degree earn 18% more on average than those with only a high school diploma. Importantly, these students are disproportionately first-generation, low-income, from Black and Latinx communities. And for them, college degree is more than just a piece of paper. It is a pathway to economic stability and upward mobility. Some have questioned whether a jointly awarded associate degree carries the same value as a traditional associate's degree. Respectfully, I believe that misses the point. The question is not whether this credential is identical to every other associate degree. The question is whether students who have already earned the equivalent coursework deserve to have that achievement recognized. A recognized credential like this opens doors. It strengthens a resume, improves employment opportunities, increases earning potential, and perhaps most importantly, give students a reason to return and finish what they started. Doing nothing leaves these students with no credential at all. This bill offers them recognition for the work that they have already completed and creates a pathway back to higher education. Again, AB 1858 is a limited pilot, grounded in data, focused on opportunity. It puts students first, recognizes academic achievement that has already been earned, and helps California address the growing some college, no degree population. Here to testify in support of AB 1858, our new president of Cal State Long Beach, we're very proud of and so happy that we're able to show off here in Sacramento, President Lauren Blanchard and senior legislative advocate with the CSU Chancellor's Office, Maggie White. Ready? Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. I really appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of AB 1858 in partnership with Assemblymember Lowenthal and the CSU's Chancellor's Office. Cal State Long Beach, I'm sure you know, is an anchor institution for our region. We serve more than 42,000 students, with 54% of those being the first in their family to attend college and 49% being Pell eligible. Our campus, including our alumni, generates $10.6 billion worth of economic activity and support some 51,100 jobs. This is really the context for this bill. Our students bring talent, ambition, and purpose while balancing life's other responsibilities. When they make meaningful progress toward a degree, that progress should not disappear simply because life interrupted them in their path to completion. Over the past decade, roughly 10,000 students left California State University Long Beach before completing their bachelor's degrees. Of those students, approximately 1,000 of them completed the general education and unit requirements that could have earned them an associate's degree had they begun at a community college. They did meaningful college work. They made a real academic investment. yet they left with no credential that fully reflects that progress. That matters for our students. It matters for employers, and it certainly matters for the state of California. We know associate's degree holders earn, on average, 18% more than those with only a high school diploma. We just heard that. We also know that California's workforce increasingly requires post-secondary credentials. Our first goal will always be for students to complete their bachelor's degrees and our door remains open to them. But we also have a responsibility to the students who chose Cal State Long Beach, moved their education forward, and earned meaningful progress along the way. AB 1858 is one of several opportunities we want to provide for students to earn a credential, including baccalaureate degree completion programs for returning students. Along with AB 1858, these pathways together help us responsibly approach a national challenge, and that challenge is the millions of learners with some college and no credentials. I want to also thank the Long Beach City College for its collaboration through a year-long workgroup that helped inform this proposal. Our institutions share a long commitment to student success and mobility through the Long Beach College Promise, and this bill actually reflects that responsibility. Thank you so much again, and I'll turn it over now to Maggie White with the CSU Chancellor's Office. Wonderful. Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Chair, members, and staff. I'm Maggie White with the CSU Chancellor's Office. We are so proud to be sponsoring this bill and incredibly grateful to Assemblymember Lowenthal for his leadership on this issue. This concept was born out of a workgroup between Cal State Long Beach and Long Beach City College, examining the problem of some college no degree in the Long Beach area. We are very grateful for the support of LBCC and other partners in the region, including the Long Beach Chamber of Commerce, as well as some really excellent educational equity partners like the Campaign for College Opportunity and SoCalCan. I understand there have been some misconceptions about AB 1858 seeking to replace the existing reverse transfer process. Reverse transfer is highly individual, it's administratively expensive, and it's geared towards students who need to earn additional credits to finish their degree. We are specifically seeking a solution for the subset of students who began with us as freshmen, but left after completing all of the units needed for an associate degree. degree, but as you've heard, because we don't offer AAs at the CSU, they walk away with no credential documenting their academic efforts Addressing this specific population with a jointly awarded credential is not duplicative of the existing reverse transfer process it is additive These former students are not being served by the current ecosystem I understand that there have also been some concerns about the AA being in general education. I'm very grateful to the committee staff who have refined the bill to clarify that if a student has units in a certain major, we should seek to award the joint degree in that major. Otherwise, we will award a joint AA in general studies, which is one of the most common types of associate degrees awarded by the community college system today. Lastly, we believe that the current economic climate calls for innovative solutions, particularly for these former students who can currently only state on the resume that they have a high school diploma. A hiring manager might not like to hear, well, I went to college, but I didn't finish. A limited pilot led by Cal State Long Beach allows us to refine and test this concept, then see if it can be scaled to address a larger population. As you heard from the Assemblymember, this problem of some college no degree is only growing. We hope we can be part of the solution. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. We'll now hear from MeToo's in support if you can use the mic at the railing. Hello, I'm Dr. Annette Morton and I'm the Vice President of the Board of Trustees for Long Beach City College District here on behalf and we support. Ana Iook Amides on behalf of Los Angeles Unified School District in support. Excellent. Anyone else? Seeing no one else, we'll now hear from any witnesses in opposition. You can begin whenever you're ready. Thank you so much, Chair and members. Tiffany Mock on behalf of CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals. I wanted to first start by saying that we really appreciate the author, the sponsor, and staff for their work on this bill. And the amendments both taken by committee and the one previously to provide that the partnership is mutually agreed upon. And it goes a long way to the goals, which we definitely support. And I'd be hard pressed to disagree with any or, you know, most of the statements that we heard from the witnesses. So thank you so much. CFT's opposition is based on the fact we would like two amendments. First, we believe that since the students had done their coursework at the CSU, the faculty believe that the institution should be able to just grant the degree outright solely so that a CSU can confer a degree in an AA that the students took the requisite coursework for. Secondly, we believe that faculty believe that if they engage in a joint partnership with a community college, that this tracks the partnerships that community colleges currently have with high schools for dual enrollment. And so just as in a dual enrollment situation, the students receive credits from both institutions and ultimately a degree from both institutions that in a CSU community college partnership that the students get credit from both institutions. They should be paid consequently for those. The institution should be paid for those credits as well. And so we believe that the institution should be paid accordingly. So those are the two amendments, but we appreciate the author and sponsor and staff for working on this issue. I Kevin Walters I the superintendent president of Allen Hancock College in northern Santa Barbara County and I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on the irony of AB 1858 For more than a decade the California community colleges have had clear statutory authority to offer applied bachelor's degrees in fields not served by the CSU. These programs exist to meet workforce needs and expand access, especially for low-income, first-generation students in higher education deserts. Yet CSU has repeatedly objected to these programs, citing the master plan, while refusing to provide service to the very students that are locked into communities with no opportunity for a four-year degree. At Allen Hancock College, located in the University Desert, we developed a Bachelor of Applied Professional Studies specifically to serve families and students who otherwise could not pursue a four-year degree. At the same time, Cuesta College to our North proposed a Bachelor of Education to address the teacher shortage in one of the few areas of the state where K-12 schools are seeing increased enrollment. Both programs were approved by the Board of Governors, but CSU campuses across the state claimed duplication and blocked us despite providing no meaningful access to students in our region. Then this spring, CSU announced with great fanfare three new degrees they would be offering, including a Bachelor of Professional Studies and a Bachelor of Education. Apparently we were duplicating future programs. The irony is that the CCC and the CSU are not competitors. We are partners. The competition we face as community colleges come from predatory for-profit institutions that leave students with high debt, depleted GI benefits, and unusable credentials. Meanwhile, as CSU focuses on industry-specific degrees at California community colleges, institutions such as Arizona State University are aggressively expanding in-person access and serving California students at scale, while universities such as Boise State and the University of Utah offer attractive financial packages to lure Californians away. If we are serious about closing equity gaps and meeting workforce demands, instead of this program, we should empower every segment of our system to collaborate. Over the past year, we have seen how such collaboration between Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, Cuesta College, Santa Barbara City College, and Allen Hancock College can change the odds for an entire region. I encourage you to reject this bill and look to our model on the Central Coast as a model for the entire state. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. We'll now hear from additional Me Too's in opposition. Chair and members, Austin Webster with WStratis on behalf of the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges. Appreciate the author and the sponsors for our ongoing conversation as we work to resolve some of our concerns. Cristal Padilla, I'm the Chief Executive Officers of the California Community Colleges in respectful opposition. Good afternoon, Jason Mambusadillas on behalf of California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office in respectful opposition. Thank you. Anybody else? Seeing no one else rising, I'll turn it back to committee. And I just want to say, Assemblymember Lowenthal, I really appreciate this bill. I think this is probably one of my favorite pieces of legislation we've looked at that have come from your house because it is addressing an issue that's existed for so many years, which is this growing population of students we have with some college, no degree, particularly a number of them that dropped out, left and never returned during the pandemic or because of unforeseeable issues due to economic crisis or anything else. and really giving them an opportunity to be able to recognize the time and investment that they've made into pursuing that degree. And I think in so many ways this opens up an opportunity for us to invite those students back. So to finish their degree which is ultimately what we want Maggie and I know one another very well from our time organizing together as students I will say and I you know hear the opposition concerns obviously there been lots of conversation that we had in this committee about the master plan, about our community college systems being able to offer a baccalaureate degree programs, and now with this bill this is a joint program and I do want to highlight with what CFT mentioned if we were to create a system where the CSU was solely offering associate degree programs that that would start to wave into the jurisdictional issue that you brought up and so what we're talking about today is joint degree programs I want to make sure that our community college system is able to offer baccalaureate degree programs that meet the needs of their region especially when we don't have CSU campuses that are able to meet those needs either due to distance or due to the courses that they're offering. And we have two bills, one by one member of this committee, that are moving forward to address this issue in a statewide way so that we don't continue to have this competition between our campuses. And I think this bill dovetails really nicely to look at a joint partnership. We've also taken amendments so that this only impacts five campuses, five CSU campuses, so we can test this out and see how this goes. But I agree with you in that we need this larger statewide solution. We're proposing them. There's also a member from the assembly, Assemblymember Alvarez, who's brought forward a bill. And I really want to see this get done because at the end of the day, this is not about one institution or another. It's about making sure that our students are being recognized for the work and the time and the investment that they've made into their education, helping them reach their educational goals. I'm going to turn it over now to Senator Kevaldin. I didn't even raise my hand but you knew. I agree with the chair 100%. I think this is, I'm not surprised this is coming from Long Beach because Long Beach is a statewide innovator and leader in just figuring out how to meet students' needs and collaborate, compete up to the point where it becomes bloody and then go back to collaborate again and figure stuff out. And that's what this is. I mean, I also agree with the president of Allen Hancock College on every point, which is why I'm looking forward to a package of legislation that that does both things. And both institutions do need to kind of step back and just like listen to ourselves for a second. Like if you're if you're a counselor on campus at any campus and you go back and you're reviewing a student's record and you're like, ah, you know, Jose has he's completed all the requirements of the bachelor's for the associate degree. We haven't seen him in three years, but he's already, you know, he's already. And if I would say, well, that's, you know, that's a great input. now let's go like let's have the let's have them go apply to a reverse transfer program where you will go back not to take any classes at all just to complete some process that we created before but how what kind of education and malpractice is that where where we know somebody has completed all of the coursework for a recognized credential and we're like no because we need to work our stuff out at the institutional level, you cannot go out and use the work that you've done, the skills and the competencies that you've developed to make a better life for yourself and for your community, for the state. I mean, it's so obvious that, I mean, this is one of those areas, like, I wish we were just writing an Excel script. that automatically just anybody who has a degree, who's earned a degree, just gets it, period. We don't need all this other stuff. So I'm very happy to see the bill. I actually, I liked it even before the amendments. But I do also like the, I think the amendments on the degree scope is very, very important. The concerns about the general education focus, we are trying to move away from that to recognize credentials that will mean something. And so I look forward to seeing the language because I do want to make sure we're not asking in this case, for example, Long Beach, Cal State Long Beach and Long Beach City College to negotiate agreements individually about every single degree on the idea that, well, what if one student three years from now walks in and would qualify for an associate degree in Spanish? and we didn't negotiate that one. There should be a way where the whole package is being done at once rather than having to go through the substantial work of negotiating agreements over each bill. So I hope the language will address that piece. I'm also less concerned about the money because in this case, there's no instruction to be delivered. So we don't pay anybody for a degree. We don't pay any college or university for the degree completion. We pay for the enrollment and the classes themselves. And so if and as the bill is limited to, if it's somebody who's already completed all their coursework, there's no expenditures to be done and there's no reimbursement to be made. All of that can be worked out in the joint agreement that the bill requires between the community college and the state university. But this is not a money issue. It's just you did the work. We know you did the work and you should get the sheepskin, the credential that you need in order for it to happen. I'm very, very pleased to see this. I also think it's only to the good that you might get an associate degree that has both Cal State Long Beach and Long Beach City College's name on it. Both of them have different kind of cachet in different ways. And if that can be of a benefit to the student, good for them. So thanks for bringing this bill forward. Look forward to the three bill package moving forward in this area of trying to make sure that we are putting the institutions right there, backing up the students and the local workforces and everything else that are depending on us. This bill does that. I look forward to supporting it. Thanks, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Cabaldon. Yes, Senator Gomez-Reyes, and then Senator Gonzalez. Thank you so much. What a gift for the students. They worked, they did the work, and then now someone's going to recognize that they did it. I'm sure that those five campuses that will be selected are going to be the lucky ones, but in reading through the information, Long Beach has 1,000 students that have been identified over a decade. So 10 years ago, somebody completed 60 units or more, and now they're going to get the gift of their AA degree from both the community college and from Long Beach. That is very exciting, and I do align my comments with the chair. This is such an excellent bill, something that we should have thought about. We've been taking lots of bills about community colleges offering baccalaureate programs. And almost all of them have passed through the committee and on to the floor and on to the governor's desk because we have talked about centering the student in every decision that we make. It isn't about a competition between, and my colleague talked about this in a prior bill, It not a competition between one institution or one form of an institution versus another form the CSU versus the community colleges or UCs It about centering it all on the students what's best for the students. And I'm excited about the bill. I would like to be added with your permission. You've done all the hard work, but I'd love to be a co-author of this bill. It's an exciting one, especially for those five that get selected. Thank you. I yield back to the chair. Thank you, Senator Gomez-Ria. Senator Gonzalez. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. And Dr. Blanchard, it's great to see you. Three months on the job, and we're already putting him in the thick of everything. But how innovative this is in your beginning of your tenure back at Cal State Long Beach. And thank you to the good Assemblymember in which I share, both Long Beach State and Long Beach City College. But couldn't agree more. I would also like to see the – of course, this will absolutely have data and ensure that folks that are going back to get their bachelor's degree or end up getting a better job and getting that 18% increase or 20% increase, that we have that information at our hands to see that this is truly successful. My husband was one example, went to Cal State Fullerton, was working, and then came back and didn't realize he had so many credits to be able to get something, but was sort of in this limbo period. This happens to so many individuals. Ended up going back to Cal State Dominguez Hills, graduated with honors, and holds it over my head every single day. But he's an example of so many other Californians that I think, to Senator Cabaldon's point, that kind of get stuck, you know, in this sort of limbo area. But, like, whatever the institutions need to figure out is one thing, but, like, this is a very student-centered plan. And I'm just glad it's, you know, starting perhaps in Long Beach. So with that, I respectfully ask to motion at the appropriate time and thank you all for both opponents and supporters of this. Excellent. Senator Cortese? I just want to concur with my colleagues. I haven't heard anything I disagree with whatsoever. And I think what I'm even more excited about is to, as a legislator with colleagues, you know, starting to come to some consensus, which I don't think existed as recently as last year, because I was working on a bill last year that just met resistance and rigidity in 1960 Master Plan on Higher Education, which is absurd to me. And, you know, just to see people, I think was well said, start focusing on what's good for the students who are moving back and forth through these systems is so important. So I am an aye vote. Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you, Senator Cortese. I will turn it over to you to close, Assemblymember Lowenthal, and I would also like to be added as a principal co-author, as well as Senator Cavaldin. Well, I sure wish Senate Judiciary was like this. No offense, Mr. Chairman. Sometimes all things can be true. I really believe that wholeheartedly, and I want to validate the concerns of the opposition. We're living in a time where higher education is under fire by the federal government, and the concern over resources for everyone are valid. And we need to work these things out. I'm energized to hear from the dais the prioritization of looking at this holistically and taking care of it holistically. And simply want to remind everyone, you know, the state of California is a little different because we engage in pilot programs So we can try things out and see how it goes And we assess them And it is not a layup for us to continue on with them We scrutinize them very well And so this is going to be the case here And I align myself with all the comments from the dais Thank you so much. They're truly meaningful and helpful. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you for your presentation, Assemblymember Lowenthal. And we have a motion from Senator Gonzalez. And that motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Secretary, can you call the roll? Senators Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Boog. Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Choi. Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. We'll put that bill on call. Thank you so much. I see Assemblymember Haney has been waiting patiently to present AB 2017. Assemblymember, you can begin whenever you're ready. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. I'm proud to present AB 2017, the California Eid State Holiday Act, which recognizes Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Ada as state holidays in California. California is home to one of the largest Muslim populations in the country, yet our state calendar does not reflect these deeply significant observances. Eid al-Futr and Eid al-Adha are among the holiest days in Islam marked by prayer, reflection, charity and community and are observed by nearly 2 billion Muslims worldwide. Despite this, Muslim students across California are often forced to choose between attending school and fully observing these holidays. Even when absences are excused, students miss instructional time and can feel isolated from their peers. Employees face this same burden when workplaces do not formally recognize EED. California prides itself on being one of the most diverse and inclusive states in the nation, but our laws have not yet caught up. Other jurisdictions, including Washington State, New York City, and several other major school districts, have taken steps to formally recognize EED. AB 2017 will bring California in line with those efforts. will add these days to the state holiday calendar while maintaining flexibility for courts and local educational agencies. This approach mirrors how California recognizes observances such as Lunar New Year and Diwali. This bill comes at a particularly important moment. Across our country, we are seeing rising hate, division, and misunderstanding directed at many communities, including Muslim Americans. Just a few weeks ago, we saw a horrifying act of violence in San Diego that has deeply shaken many in our communities and reminded us that hate and extremism still exist in very real ways. One of the most powerful ways that we can combat bigotry is through education, recognition, and inclusion. When children grow up learning about and respecting each other's traditions and holidays, they grow up understanding that our diversity is something to celebrate, not fear. Recognition matters because it sends a message to Muslim students and families that they belong, that they are seen, and that their traditions are valued in California. Here to testify with me today is Antonio Lopez, a former mayor of East Palo Alto, and Tristan Brown on behalf of the California Federation of Teachers. You can begin, Manav, if you're ready. I'm showing my cards, my first time testifying, but thank you all very much. Buenas tardes, it's a pleasure to be here. I want to deeply thank the Assemblymember for his solidarity. this is truly an important piece of legislation. Chair of members, my name is Antonio Lopez, the San Mateo County also Port Laureate former mayor of East Palo Alto I also a convert to Islam I converted to Islam in college in 2016 Proud to say that and I stand in strong support of AB 2017 And I want to speak to what this bill means for insider schools We know that for Muslim students, Eid is not optional. It's also not merely cultural. It's one of the most holiest days of the year. For those of you who may know, fasting is not easy, 30 days, right? And if you're a kid at the gym, running, developing, it's so important that we have teachers that affirm their identity, affirm what this holiday means to them. And oftentimes we hear stories in our community where children are forced to choose between faith and education, missing exams, assignments, marked absent, failing behind simply for observing a sacred day. And this bill is going to allow us to not just have teachers have the discretion to give a kid some slack. It's going to have a statewide affirmation that we're all on the same page. We recognize this holiday is critical. As Assemblymember said, we're seeing rise in anti-Muslim hate and bullying, and it's fueling a real mental health crisis. I think the mental health piece is critical for our Muslim community. School, as you know, is where children learn first where they belong. I'm sure all of you remember your first days at school and some of the stings of prejudice or discrimination that some of us stay with, whether we're Latinos or first gen. And I think this is a real strong signal from the state of California that we're behind our students. And AB 2017 does not privilege one faith over another. It simply ensures that a Muslim child can observe aid without falling behind and bring our public institutions closer to the families they already serve. serve to every Muslim child in the state. This bill says that California sees you. California includes you. California belongs to you too. And I also am here to just remind each other that the community is not a monolith. Latinos are the fastest growing group of converts in this state. And it's a beautiful religion. And it's one that invites dignity, justice, health, solidarity. And I can't think of a better state to help usher this into our country as a reminder, as you all said, of the polarization. And so for the nearly one million Muslim Californians who call this state home, I respectfully urge your IBO on AB 2017, inshallah. And again, I want to thank deeply Assemblymember Haney for this bill. I am wholeheartedly grateful, both as a public servant and as a Muslim. So thank you all so much. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members, Tristan Brown with CFT. How do I follow this? Wonderful statements that you've already heard. I think that our members often see on the faces of our students in our classrooms when there is an inherent injustice or inherent differentiation of treatment among themselves. This bill goes far to update our historical norms on how we value the importance of faith in our students' households and how they practice those faiths. For so long, obviously, we've had winter breaks. We've had other recognition of holidays where even before in the recent times, I'll say, in this committee, we have been talking about how to make sure every student feels safe and supported in what makes them all unique and a part of the special context that makes up our education communities. So we're in full support of this bill to make sure that not only our members who are also members of this faith, but also our students who can freely exercise and be able to know that they are also just as included as anyone else when we take time for these vastly important religious holidays and take a moment to reflect on that and hopefully give other students a time to learn as well to see what it is like to have a diverse community and know that it is not something to be feared, but something to be actually celebrated. And this bill helps us celebrate that so with that we ask for your I vote Thank you for your presentation we'll now hear from a different Additional support, me too, so if you could use the mic at the railing. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Osama Muqaddam on behalf of the California Chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations, a co-sponsor of this bill, in strong support. Monica Madrid with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Chirla, in support. Thank you. My name is Rami Salem. I'm Assistant Professor of Practice at the University of the Pacific. I support this bill and encourage you all to support it as well. Hi, my name is Musa. I'm a Senate District 7 constituent and a Muslim American, and I respectfully support this bill. Thank you. Hello, I'm Lisa DeCari, a co-lead with Hindus for Human Rights, and we are very happy to support this bill. Thank you. Pamela Gibbs representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education, and we are honored to support this bill and like to thank the author for its introduction. Good afternoon. David Mandel. As a Jewish American who grew up in neighborhoods and schools where I was part of a small minority, it was a very awkward situation when Jewish holidays arose. and do we take off, do we not take off, what's going to happen, what are other students going to say. So I think it's very good that in many cases Jewish holidays have been recognized in the same way, and it's about time that Muslim holidays and any others be as well. So I support the bill. Thank you. Hello, my name is Rodney Buckley, and I'm here as an individual from Sacramento County, And I, too, am a fellow Muslim, and I would just like to say not only do I support this bill, but thank you for putting this bill up, allowing us to be seen that we are recognized, and because we choose to believe differently, we should not be discriminated against nor penalized for following our beliefs. Thank you. And I just want to remind folks just me, too, so name, organization, position on the bill. Julian Sanchez on behalf of the California Commission on Asian and Pacific Islander American Affairs in support. Thank you. Hello, my name is Zane. I'm a District 15 constituent and I respectfully support this bill. Thank you. Hello, I'm Aliyah Santos, a student at the University of California, Davis, and I'm in support of this bill. Thank you. Hi, my name is Ukar Stubbe. I'm a student at UC Berkeley and I respectfully support this bill. Thank you. Thank you to all those in support. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Chair and members, my name is Leandra Wells with the California Family Council and we oppose AB 2017. California already has a neutral framework for religious holidays, and it works. State law lets any student be excused for any religious holiday at a parent's request. It protects every faith equally and asks the state to play no favorites. We support it. The neutrality is the settled standard California schools already operate under. The California School Boards Association's own model policy adopted by districts across this state draws the line plainly. Teaching about religious holidays is permissible, but celebrating religious holidays is not allowed in public schools. Los Angeles Unified follows the same rule Districts from Chico to San Luis Coastal have this identical language The distinction between teaching and celebrating is the law of the land in California classrooms today AB 2017 abandons that standard. It writes two specific Islamic holidays into statute by naming and authorizes state curriculum guides for school exercises, acknowledging and celebrating them. Ahid al-Fitr and Ahid al-Adha are explicitly theologically tied to two of the five pillars of Islam. Funding schools to celebrate their religious meaning isn't objective education. It's the celebration every one of these district policies forbids. Last October, the state made Diwali an official holiday using the same language. Meanwhile, no California statute has ever authorized schools to hold exercises celebrating the meaning of Jesus' birth or resurrection. And the author's rationale that a heed deserves recognition because the legislator already named Diwali has no stopping point. The queue includes every faith. There are 4,000 worldwide. The state cannot celebrate them all, so it will keep choosing winners and losers among religions. That is precisely what the Constitution forbids and precisely what school district's policies were written to prevent. Please vote now. Good afternoon. My name is Amber Arias. I'm a mother of seven. I'm a California parent advocate, founder of the Remnant Mama and leader of stand-up ministry Calvary Chapel Solano. Public schools should educate children, not celebrate religious observances or holy days. While teaching about religious religions and their historical significance is appropriate, schools should not conduct exercises that acknowledge and celebrate specific religious holidays. AB 2017 crosses that line by encouraging recognition, acknowledgement, and the importance of Islamic Holy Days in public schools. As a Christian parent, I am concerned about fairness and equal treatment. We hear constant discussions about equity, diversity, and inclusion, yet many Christian families feel that their beliefs are expected to remain private while other beliefs receive special recognition. It would be almost unheard of for public schools to acknowledge the importance and celebrate the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Yet this bill encourages recognition of Islamic Holy Days that raises concerns about government neutrality. Fairfield Sassoon Unified School District Board Policy 6141.2 states, While teaching about religious holidays is a permissible part of the educational program, celebrating religious holidays is not allowed in the district. District-sponsored programs shall not be nor have the effect of being religiously oriented or a religious celebration. Similar principles are followed by the Davis Joint Unified School District. Schools should educate and not indoctrinate. Parents and not the government should guide their child's religious upbringing. In Mahmood v. Taylor, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed parents' rights to receive notice and an opportunity to opt out when instruction conflicts with their sincerely held religious beliefs. This bill could increase opt-outs, absenteeism, and administrative burdens on schools. Most importantly, our children here in California are already struggling academically. Too many students are not meeting state standards in reading, writing, and mathematics. Our schools should be focused on academic achievement, literacy, math proficiency, and safety, not religious celebrations. For these reasons, I respectfully urge you to vote no on AB 2017. Thank you. We now hear from any additional Me Too in opposition Please use the mic at the railing David Bullock in support of separation of church and state We are in opposition SFV Alliance. Thank you. Hi. Thank you. Thank you. Leslie Alves, Community Impact Leader and Revival Church International, and I respectfully oppose. Porfiria Renteria from Solano County. I oppose this bill. Florentina DiGennaro, Latina mother of three, and I oppose this bill. Lisa Disbro, Moms for Liberty of Contra Costa County, veteran public school teacher, 33 years. I've exercised all of my religious beliefs by using... This is a Me Too period, so name organization. I'll finish my Me Too. I'll finish my Me Too. informed parents of Contra Costa and pro freedom of religion thank you seeing as we have no one else standing I'll turn it back to the committee and I just want to clarify because there seems to be confusion this bill authorizes but does not require a school or community college district holiday and so it's It's simply allowing for schools to be able to recognize the holiday if they so wish. It leaves it up to the local education agency. We know that our local education agencies are serving various diverse communities all across the state, and so allowing them the flexibility to decide whether or not they would like to, one, acknowledge the Eid holiday. It also authorizes them to provide informational resources to students, if they so wish, around the meaning and the importance of Eid, which I think follows much of the law that we have in place for other holidays. And I do just want to note, I think almost everybody in this room has taken time off for Christmas break. And we now refer to it as holiday break, but it was built around the Christmas and Christmas Eve holidays. So I will go ahead and turn it over to the other committee members we have here. Senator Gonzalez. Yes, thank you so much to Assemblymember Haney and your witnesses for this bill. I'm really, really appreciative of this, more so not just as a senator but as a PTA mom who is also on the DEI committee in my kids' public school. We love just having, you know, the diversity that we do to teach our children. My fifth grader, now about to be sixth grader, gets to learn about the various different religions, the various backgrounds, And it makes me feel like this is exactly what the state of California should be doing in recognizing these students and ensuring that they also have, you know, they have visibility and are seen. And so I'm just really appreciative for you doing this. And as been mentioned by the chair, you know, we have a lot of Muslim students who are off for the Christmas holiday. And they've been dealing with this for some time. Not that they've been complaining, but I think we've heard from a lot of them, you know, that it'd be nice for them to be recognized. in state law as well in this fashion. For that, I'd love to be added as a co-author, and I'm just grateful for you bringing this forward. It's much needed. Senator Cabaldon? Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. I wasn't going to speak, but as the representative for Davis, Fairfield, Sassoon, Solano, and Contra Costa, I'm very supportive of the bill and glad that it's here. as the chair indicated I mean our existing schedule both winter break but also spring break long before it was people you know think about going to cancun or miami it was the easter break and that we just taken for granted now that the that those that those those periods winter break and spring break came out of some academic study or something didn't it's not they were never based on like what's the best thing best interest of the child for learning it was no we want we need to take off because of the Easter holiday and the Christmas holiday. That was not inappropriate, but that's just been now baked into the system that we have. And so it's not inappropriate to make visible what has been invisible in the system and to assure that everybody has that moment to reflect and to be seen and for others to see if they choose. So I'm supportive of the bill. I think this is a long overdue measure. And as the chair said, it's not a mandate. It simply allows for schools to be able to reflect the communities and the students and the families that they serve. Thank you, Senator Cabaldon. Senator Cho Bogue. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Member Haney. This is the second time that I'll be seeing this bill. I cited NGO and was not supported of the bill in NGO. And this is why, as mentioned, we have over 4,000 faiths around the world. And in a nation that is so diversified as ours, and especially in California, that is so diverse, I actually appreciated and made a commitment that I would work on a bill next year with Senator Wahab, which she probably most likely won't be here as senator, but I really appreciated her. She's the only Muslim member in the legislature, but I really appreciated the bill that she led with last year, which was SB 461, or actually in 23, that would ensure that every state employee would be able to observe their own religious and cultural celebration as they see fit. And I think a bill such as in that format would actually allow for anyone to take off and celebrate their own personal belief, faith, or religious holiday as needed. And that would accommodate all of the religions rather than having every single year coming back and having one by one by one being recognized in the state. So I'm going to work on that with Senator Wahab for next year, making more general rather than having explicit. And to be fair, though the winter holidays or the spring holidays may have been originally dictated, except for the winter holiday, the spring break doesn't necessarily align with every single Easter. It varies from school district according to whenever they want. So I think there's been a push away from making sure that it's not a religious break, but more of a, and so there's been a very precise effort to ensure that we don't celebrate Christian holidays in there. And so I just, I think in order to be fair to every faith and for every faith to feel and culture to feel included, I think Senator Wahab's previous bill or her bill in 2023 actually set a very good model for our state. So I will be working on that. And so I will not support the bill today, but not that I don't believe that every student should have the ability or opportunity to actually take the holidays off. But I think that model would be more fitting for a state as diverse as ours and it would be most accommodating. So I will work on that next year. So thank you for bringing that forward. Thank you for sharing your life experiences with us today. Thank you. Seeing no other comments. Oh, Senator Gomez-Reyes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to thank you for the bill. Since I became an Assemblymember, I've had the privilege of having at least one Muslim working in my office, probably had the majority of them working in my office at one time, but even to this day. And so I'm very well aware of the holidays and assuring that the time off is taken. And the rest of my staff wants to know more about it. And I think that's what it's about. You get to have a more well-rounded view of the world when you get to hear about others. We're not talking about a very small group. We're talking about a group. We all have friends and extended family that's Muslim, and I think that to recognize that and to recognize that there should be, it's a high holiday. We need to recognize how important it is and to give the honor to those who celebrate it to make sure that they do have the time and the place. I recognize the comments from my colleague from Yucaipa, and some of those things are true also. It was Christmas, and now we don't call it Christmas. We call it the holiday. It was Easter, and now we call it spring break. And there's something to be said about that, and perhaps it's something that needs to be addressed in the future also. But I think for today, for this bill, we also celebrate Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. The time is that we are able to take time off and I think that is important. But for today, for this bill, it is an important bill and I'm glad that you have brought it before us. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you, Assemblymember or Senator Gomez Reyes. Assemblymember Haney, would you like to close? Sure, and I appreciate all of those comments and I want to thank the witnesses and supporters. I also want to acknowledge, because her name was brought up, Senator Wahab, who is a principal co-author of this bill and has been a huge champion for getting this bill through as well. There are a few things that are more American than religious freedom, a few things more important or central to our constitutional rights than religious freedom. We don't put one religion over another. and what we know is that there are nearly a million Muslim Californians who are being forced to choose in many cases right now from fulfilling their responsibilities at work or school or being able to observe their most holy days. That's what we're trying to address here, their opportunity to be able to assert and practice their religious freedom. It's not about forcing anything on anyone. If anything, it's about just understanding that we live in a religiously diverse society here in California, and there are people to whom this is incredibly essential to who they are. And it's important if we allow for that and also learn about it. I think if we were to force people to go to school or work as state employees or in state public schools on Christmas, all of us would be up in arms over that. All of us would view that as incredibly unacceptable. Well we want to extend that same opportunity for the many many tens of thousands hundreds of thousands of Muslim Californians And we shouldn just put them in a group and say they just like these 4 others This is one of the world major religions There are 2 billion people around the world who observe these holy days. They deserve the recognition. They deserve the religious protections that are enshrined in our constitution and this is an incredibly important way that we as California say that they are included, they are seen, they matter and we want to learn about them. We want our young people to learn about their religion, and we want to make sure that we respect it and value it in the same way that we would any of the others. So with that, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. And this bill was unanimous in the State Assembly. This is not a partisan issue. This is not a right-left issue. There are people in every single one of our districts of every political persuasion who are Muslim Californians, and they deserve our recognition and support. And this bill is a huge step forward for that. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you, Assemblymember Haney. And that motion for your bill is due passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Do we have a motion? Move the bill. Senator Gomez-Reyes? Secretary, can you call the roll? Senators Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bogues, Cabaldon, Choi. Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Reyes? Thank you Assemblymember Haney. I see we have Assemblymember Soria and Stefani here. Is it Soria first? Yes. And so Assemblymember Soria, you will go up first. Assembly member, you can begin when you're ready. Good afternoon, Chair and members. AB 2301 will help us address our health care workforce shortage and improve the access and affordability of a nursing degree by establishing a pilot program, which would allow up to 10 community college districts to establish nursing bachelor's programs. One of the most significant consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in California has been an unprecedented nursing shortage. California is projected to be short over 44,000 registered nurses by 2030. This shortage is felt the hardest in rural areas like the Central Valley, where we've already seen Madera Community Hospital, which closed back in 2022 in part due to a heavy reliance of traveler nurses from outside the area. While our exceptional community college system has provided many students with an associate's degree in nursing, our health care system more frequently demands a bachelor's. While our rural students would love to complete their education at the nearest CSU campus or AUC if they offer the degree, They don't always have transportation to reach those schools, and when they do, there may not be any slots available. It is all too common for our most promising students to uproot their lives to go to schools in other parts of the state and never coming back or attend a closer private university where they are burdened with huge amounts of debt. In fact, just this weekend when I was home, I was reminded how real this problem is. At my stepdaughter birthday I met one of her friends who had earned her associate degree in Fresno at the community college but because she couldn find a local accessible pathway to complete her BSN she ended up enrolling herself in a private Florida institution that provides an accelerated hybrid model where she must travel there to complete her clinical hours. This is costing her more than it would cost to stay in a local community college. Think about that for a moment. California educates these talented students through our community colleges, yet many are being forced to enroll in these out-of-state hybrid programs and sometimes move completely just to earn their bachelor's degree, our healthcare system now expects. That is a failure of our current policy. We cannot afford to do nothing, otherwise the problem will continue to grow. Our goal should be simple. If a student wants to become a nurse, get her or his BSN and serve their community, they shouldn't have to travel across the country or move out of state to make that happen. They should be able to earn that bachelor's degree right here at home and then care for the patients in the communities that invested in them. We all know our community colleges are the most affordable and accessible higher education option for California students. They are the solution to our health care workforce shortage that has been staring us in the face the whole time, and they are ready to help us meet that challenge. All we have to do is allow them to. AB 2301 does this by directing the Community College Chancellor's Office to select up to 10 community college districts to participate in this pilot project to offer this degree. Every year we delay, we lose more talented Californians to other states, or saddle them with unnecessary debt. AB 2301 keeps our students close to home, strengthens our local healthcare workforce, and expands the opportunity in our local communities that need the nurses the most. I also want to mention that this is a Latino Caucus priority. Here with me today to testify in support, we have registered nurse and member of UNAC, Peter Siddhu, and Imran Majid from the Community College Chancellor's Office. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Peter Siddhu. I am the Executive Vice President of UNAC UHCP. but more importantly, I am a 20-year critical care ICU union nurse. I am here today to stand in strong support of AB 2301. AB 3301 is important because it creates a more affordable and direct pathway for committed students to earn a Bachelor's of Science in Nursing. With most employers now wanting Bachelor's for entry-level positions, this bill simply expands access to a high-quality, affordable pathway to reach that destination. My journey into nursing began with a career in finance, and like many second-career students, I had to make a life-change decision to return back to school, which only cost me $2,500 at a junior college, but it did have a two-year wait list. The same challenge exists for thousands of young Californians now, where public nursing programs simply do not have enough seats to meet the demand. Too many qualified applicants turn away every year not because of the lack of ability, but because there is just not enough capacity. Their only remaining option is often an expensive private program costing over $100,000, leaving them in a never-ending student debt. Today, Americans carry nearly $1.9 trillion in outstanding student loan debt. AB 2301 won solve that problem on its own but it is exactly the kind of practical solution that helps chip away at the problem By giving more students the opportunity to earn a BSN at a public institution instead of taking a massive debt at a private one AB 2301 begins to reverse the trend and is an important step toward expanding affordable public nursing education and helping California build the nursing workforce that the communities desperately need and deserve I respectfully ask you for an aye vote for AB 2301. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee, Imran Majid, on behalf of the California Community College's Chancellor's Office. Just here to answer any technical questions. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. We'll now hear from supportive Me Too's. If you could use the mic at the railing. Good afternoon. Cassie Manzini here on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support. Cristal Padilla with the Community College League of California in support. Chair and members, Austin Webster with W Strategies on behalf of the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, the Student Senate for California Community Colleges, the California Community College Association for Occupational Education, State Center Community College, San Bernardino Community College, and Foothill De Anza Community College Districts all in support. Thank you. Janos Amali, AFSCME, California in strong support. Thank you. Jack Wurston from Nausman on behalf of the North Orange County Community College District, Mount San Antonio College, and Citrus College in support. Thank you. Digo Zamayoa, policy and human sabera group here on behalf of Long Beach Community College District and Gabilon Community College District here in support. Thank you. Thank you. Anna Matthews on behalf of the California Community College Independence Union in strong support. Thank you. Thank you. Melody Viana, student in San Joaquin Delta College, in strong support. Thank you. Aung Nguyen, student at UC Berkeley, a San Joaquin Delta College alumnus, in strong support. Thank you. Thank you. Jason Mamos-Soriros, on behalf of California Community College's Chancellor's Office, in strong support. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, Sabrina Means, on behalf of Pasadena City College, in support. Thanks. Sierra Cook, with the San Diego Unified School District, in support. Thank you. Good afternoon. Kami Peer on behalf of quite a few organizations. NextGen California, Western Center on Law and Poverty, Bay Area Council, Michelson Center for Public Policy, Greater Sacramento Economic Council, California Association of Healthcare Facilities, California Workforce Association, Improve Your Tomorrow, and Courage California in strong support. Thank you. Harold Tallerup on behalf of the El Camino Community College District in support. Thank you. Ana IOCamedes on behalf of Los Angeles Unified School District in support. Thank you. Amber King with Leaning Age California in support. Thank you. David Nevin on behalf of Cerritos College, Santa Monica College, and the Los Angeles Community College District in support. Thank you. Any other Me Too's in support of this bill? AB 2301. Seeing none, let's move to lead witnesses in opposition. I'll remind you that you have two minutes. Begin when you are ready. Chris Morales Thank you so much, Chair and members. Chris Morales on behalf of the CSU Office of the Chancellor and respectful opposition. And I would like to talk about and clarify what I believe is to be the discrepancy on this issue. I believe we're talking about two distinct programs. We're talking about pre-licensure nursing programs, which we've heard about. These are these programs which are significantly impacted, not just for our campuses, but across the state, for the UC, the community colleges as well, mostly because of the lack of clinical placements, an issue that our institutions have minimal control over, largely due to the capacity at the hospitals. And then you have post-licensure programs, which I believe is really at the intent of this bill where you take someone who has already received their associate degree in nursing, have completed, largely completed their clinical placement requirements, and are working to attain a higher degree, a bachelor's degree in most instances. And these programs, these ADN to BSM programs, as we call them, they exist at 20 of our campuses, more than half of whom are provided fully online, and several of which have partnered with over dozens and dozens of community colleges to adopt a concurrent enrollment model. And these programs are not capped. They do not have a wait list. They are significantly under capacity. In fact, if you have an associate degree in nursing and you apply to these ADN to BSN programs, the transfer acceptance rates are over 95% at most of these programs. And they don't require the same clinical placement requirements. So we have the capacity, we have the infrastructure, and we have the faculty to do these programs. And as noted in the analysis, the legislature has appropriated $60 million annually over five years to further strengthen these partnerships, because we know that these are the best ways to improve access for these rural and place-bound students. With that, I'm happy to answer any technical questions. I'm also joined by Lisa Rauch here from San Jose State University, our Director of Nursing, to provide any answers on technical questions if needed. Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Any me-toos? Please state your name, your organization, and your position. Good afternoon. Alex Graves of the ICCU. Apologies about our updated letter coming late, but we do remain in opposition. Thank you. Hi, I'm Lisa Rausch. I'm representing the 20 schools of nursing in the CSU system. I'm the director of the School of Nursing at San Jose State. Good afternoon. Jen Chase. On behalf of the University of California, we have a concerns position. Good afternoon, Mario Herrero with the California Faculty Association in opposition. Seeing no other Me Too's in opposition, I'll turn it back to the committee. Do we have any comments or questions from committee members? Senator Cortese? I've supported this legislation or close to this legislation in the past, so I'm happy to move the item if we need a motion at any point. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Cortese. Senator Gomez-Reyes? Thank you. Assemblymember, this has been something that you've been working on. You're passionate about it, and I have joined you in this journey. The comments made by CSU about 95% acceptance at their CSUs, what is the difference? Obviously, there's other information in the analysis about the areas with the highest poverty, the areas persistent poverty, underserved nursing areas, equitable access. Tell me where the discrepancy is.

Thank you. Thank you. First of all, Assemblymember, I want to thank you for your work on this bill and in this area. I know that this has been a priority issue to you for many years and that we've had several conversations about this bill. I know that there has been, even just today in this committee, lots of conversation around the community colleges, their ability to offer baccalaureate degree and baccalaureate degree programs. And there's been this kind of debate going on about that authority, what it should look like. And frankly, it's created a lot of challenges for access for our students. They're the only ones that continue to lose out as we continue to kind of go back and forth in this debate with our institutions. And so there are, I know, both statewide solutions moving forward this year, as well as some local solutions. And yours is a bill that approaches this in a focus of focusing on sector, looking particularly at nursing degree programs, And particularly in community college districts where there is a population that has an underserved nursing area and has a high level of poverty. And so really taking a microscope and focusing on some of those key areas. As I shared with you before I want to make clear to folks that are listening because we already started to receive phone calls from other community college districts across the state that my desire as a chairwoman of this committee is to move away from us doing these district by district bills to prevent a situation where we have 70 different community college district bills being presented to this committee and coming forward. My goal for this committee and for the legislature as a whole is for us to move forward a statewide solution so we move away from this kind of patchwork of bills that has been the approach in the past i think that we have some real solutions some real proposals here that can provide us with with guidance for how we should be approaching all of these issues i also recognize at the same time assemblywoman that this has been such a significant effort for you, that your district has very specific needs, given that you represent the Central Valley, which has for a very long time struggled to attain a health care workforce, really as a result of access issues. I mean, as you just outlined, you know, we have students in your district that have to drive over an hour, sometimes even two hours just to get to Fresno State. That is not adequate access for any student. And if we're really going to be genuine about trying to meet students where they're at, we're going to need to see a better partnership between, with our community colleges to offer these high needs areas, the degrees that we know that they so desperately need. And so today on your bill, I know I've left it as a year call for the rest of the committee, but I am going to be supporting it today because I do think that your bill is approaching this from a sector perspective. You've done a tremendous amount of work on this over the years. But I do really want to emphasize that my goal, and I hope that our partners that are in the room today can hear this too, is to really come up with a statewide solution because we know that there are so many different sectors, different areas all across the state where we need a targeted approach like this. And so I will turn it over to you to close.

Thank you, Assemblywoman. And the motion for your bill is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee, and we have a motion from Senator Cortese. Secretary, can you call the roll? Senators Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bogues Cabaldon Choi Cortese Aye Cortese aye Gonzalez Reyes Aye Reyes I we will put that bill on call thank you so much and then we have assembly member Stephanie here to present assemblywoman whenever you'd like to get ready Madam Chair and members, today I'm presenting AB 2540, the Community College Student Right to Access Act. And first I want to thank the committee staff for their incredibly hard work and partnership with my office, as well as the community colleges for their thoughtful engagement. We will be accepting the committee amendments today, and we're very grateful for your work and attention to this. Four years ago, the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, and with one decision, the court stripped away a constitutional right that millions of Americans had relied on for nearly half a century. My 17-year-old daughter has less rights than I did when I was 17. It was a devastating step backward for reproductive freedom. California, of course, responded by reaffirming our commitment to reproductive health care. California has long said that access to care should not depend on who you are, where you live, or how much money you have. But today, that's what is happening for many college students in our state. Imagine two students living in the same community. One attends a UC or a CSU. The other attends a community college. Both are working towards a degree. Both may be balancing jobs, family responsibilities, and the pressures of school. And both need access to reproductive health care. But only the student at the UC or the CSU is guaranteed access to medication abortion services through their campus health system plan. The other student at the community college may have to navigate transportation barriers, take time off work, find a provider miles away, or simply go without care altogether. And these are stories that we've heard from real students who attended our press conference who continue to tell us how this is hard to overcome. And the reality is the student facing those barriers is often the student who can least afford them. Community college students are among the most diverse students in California. They are more likely to be low income, more likely to be first generation college students, more likely to be working while attending school, and more likely to be balancing family and caregiving responsibilities. These students are doing everything we ask of them. They are pursuing an education, building a future, and strengthening our workforce. Yet when it comes to access to reproductive health care, we are not treating them the same as students attending four-year institutions. And that disparity is what AB 2540 is really trying to correct. This bill expands equitable access to medical abortion services for students attending community colleges by requiring colleges that have existing health service centers to provide these services. Access to that care should not depend on whether a student attends a UC, a CSU, or a community college. This bill allows services to be provided through existing campus health centers, through telehealth, through contracted providers, or community partnerships. It also improves transparency by requiring colleges to publish information about available sources so students know where they can turn for care. This bill really comes down to this. Community college students deserve the same life-saving access to reproductive health care. And with me today, testifying in support, is Odie Kunthar with the Student Senate for California Community colleges and Dr. Michelle Gomez, a family physician who has provided primary and abortion care for over 20 years. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Odie Kanthar, and I sit here as a Legislative Affairs Director for the Student Senate of California Community Colleges, the official voice of 2.2 million students across California. My support for this bill is rooted in my experiences working in basic needs at my college, where as a president of 7,000 students, I witnessed firsthand the significant disparities in resources and support available to community college students compared to students in California's other public higher education systems. These experiences have reinforced for me how important it is to advance policies that promote greater equity and ensure community college students have access to the support that they need to succeed. AB 2540 is an effort to provide equity when it comes to reproductive healthcare to some of our most vulnerable populations. While students at UC and CSU campuses already have access to medication abortion services through SB 24, community college students who are more likely to be low-income, working, and place-bound often do not. Students in remote areas such as up far north often do not have access to the same services that students in urban regions may have, and our students who are struggling to make ends meet may not have reliable health care. With this discrepancy, students in the community college system are disproportionately affected and cannot access timely reproductive care. Instead, they may be forced to miss class, delay their education, or drop out entirely. This matters most for the students who are already navigating the greatest challenges – foster youth, undocumented students, students of color, and first-generation students who have the least margin for disruption in their lives. Barriers to healthcare are barriers to college completion, and access to these resources expands on the equity work that should be strived for in healthcare and higher education. This bill affirms dignity and autonomy when students seek support and ensures students are well informed about these services and how to access them. It also affirms a simple truth. Community college students deserve the same standard of care as any other student in California. We respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you. Good afternoon Chair, Perez and members. My name is Dr. Michelle Gomez. I'm a family medicine physician who has provided primary care and abortion care in California for over 20 years. I'm also the proud mother of two teenagers, including a daughter who just completed her first year in college, so this bill is particularly important to me. My daughter's two best friends from high school are both children of immigrants and are attending community colleges in California. They're like daughters to me, and they deserve access to the same excellent health care as their peers at four-year colleges. If we truly believe in reproductive freedom, justice, and equity in California, then we must pass this bill. Medical professionals are often asked to learn and do new things, and this is no different. We must not let unfounded anxiety get in the way of doing what's right. Colorado has mandated that all institutions of higher education, public and private, including local district colleges, must provide medication abortions, and California can do it too. Forty percent of California counties have no abortion provider, but there's a community college in all of those counties, so this bill would truly help increase access. My tiny primary care clinic started offering medication abortion back in 2000, 26 years ago, right after Mifepristone was approved by the FDA, and it's easier now than ever. I was honored to help the Sonoma State University Student Health Center implement medication abortion services after SB24, and a few years ago I helped the UCSF Women's Health Primary Care Clinic do the same. What has been universally true in my experience is that it feels scary before starting, but afterwards providers tell me they were surprised. It not medically or technically difficult at all and it extremely rewarding to help young people think through their options This is exactly the type of care the community college health centers provide In their own words accessible short acute care to support student success Routine ultrasounds and even routine follow-ups are no longer required. California has already funded the Reproductive Health Service Corps to provide free trainings and the Reproductive Health Hotline to provide immediate free support to providers. There are also call services to help with patient questions after hours. In support of healthcare equity, I respectfully request a yes vote on AB 2540. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. We'll now hear from Me Too's in support. If you could use the mic at the railing. Ryan Spencer on behalf of the American College of OBGYNs, TISIC-9, and the California Medical Association, both in support. Thank you. Adam Keglin on behalf of California LULAC in support. Leah Barrows on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in support. Darba Bautiza-Zavala on behalf of Unite for Reproductive and Gender Equity and the California Latinas Reproductive Justice, both co-sponsors. Jennifer Robles with Health Access California in support. Martin Radosevich on behalf of Reproductive Freedom for All California, co-sponsors. Symphony Barbie on behalf of the ACLU California Action in support. Good afternoon. Shravika Pilari-Sedi on behalf of the Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kunalakis in support. Francisco Ranellis with the University of California Student Association in strong support. Yancy Garcia-Montes also on behalf of the University of California Student Association and we strongly support this bill. Thank you. Hello, my name is Candace Fan. I'm a student at UC Davis, also with the UC Student Association. Strong support. Angel Marie Taylor with Black Lives Matter Grassroots. Strongly supports. Hi, my name is Micaela Ellis. I'm a student at SFU. I'm a member of Black Lives Matter, Youth Vanguard, Black Student Union, who all support this bill. My name is Melis Arrojerez. I'm a Chicosay student. I'm in full support. Thank you to all those who spoke in support. We'll now hear from witnesses in opposition. Chair and members, my name is Leandra Wells with the California Family Council. Council. I'm here today in opposition to AB 2540, which promotes and expands access to abortion drugs on community college campuses. I know what it feels like to face a pregnancy you were not prepared for. At 21, I was in the first semester of my final year of college when I found out I was pregnant. My husband and I were door dashing to make rent. I was taking five classes while working. I was overwhelmed and afraid. Exactly the kind of woman AB 2540 claims to help. This bill tells women that an abortion pill is the easiest solution, but fear is not a reason to end a life, and ending a life is not health care. What I needed was real support. A local pregnancy center gave me food resources, free ultrasounds, affordable baby essentials, accessible child care, and parenting classes. What vulnerable women need is resources and encouragement to know that a baby doesn't mean the end of your education or your future. Additionally, abortion drugs are not safe. Imagine I heard so many stories of women who are bleeding out on their bathroom floor looking at their fully formed little tiny baby in the toilet This is not safe. Expanding and promoting these services without immediate access to emergency care puts students at risk. So what problem does AB 2540 actually solve? Abortion is already widely accessible in California. You can have pills mailed directly to your home. Expanding that access on community college campuses doesn't fill a gap, it just normalizes that message that motherhood and college are incompatible. If we truly want to support women on college campuses, fund adoption services, safe surrender sites, child care, a meal plan, and parental resources, that is what works. My story proves that. I completed my degree three weeks after my son was born. This bill tells women they cannot have an education and be a mother, but we all know women are far more capable than that. So I respectfully urge a no vote on AB 2540. Thank you. We'll now hear from Me Too's in opposition. If you could use the mic at the railing. Justin Selmick on behalf of the Health Services Association of the California Community Colleges. HSA still has an official opposed position, but we did want to express our gratitude towards the sponsor and the authors. and committee staff for the work on the amendments, and the amendments that are outlined in the committee analysis should remove our concerns and our opposed position. And also, I am here on behalf of the California Community College Chancellor's Office just to echo the comments of HSA. Thank you. Andrew Martinez, Community College League of California. I want to thank the author, the sponsor, and the committee for the amendments, and we look forward to seeing the bill in print, and thank you so much for your work with us. Thank you. David Bolag of the SFV Alliance in opposition. Florentina DiGennaro with Moms Army, representing thousands of moms here in California, also part of Church of Glad Tidings and representing myself as a person who grew up and was believing all of this. and now I'm a mother in my 40s and regret the choices that were made. I'm Latina, grew up in low income, and if I could show you my family and friends that regret all of this. This period is for me too, so just your position on the bill. Thank you. Opposed. All right. Seeing as we have no one else standing, we'll turn it back to committee, and we do not have any other committee members here right now. So Assemblymember Stephanie, I support your bill. My recommendation is an aye vote. I'll turn it over to you to close. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I just really want to thank the student leaders who have been such a pleasure to work with on this. I'm looking forward to this bill getting passed. And I want to thank also the community colleges for hanging in there as we continue to make amendments. I know that once these amendments are in print, they are going to be okay. One of the things I love about this job is consensus building, and we've been able to take this bill a long way. So I appreciate your support, Chair, and I look forward to others voting on it when they get a chance. Thank you. And once we have another member, he will be able to do a motion. But thank you so much, Assembly Member. Thank you. I see we have Assemblymember Al-Hawari here to present her bill AB 2551. Assemblywoman you can begin whenever you ready Thank you so so much Madam Chair and not members but amazing staff on the committee First, I would like to thank the chair and committee consultant for their patience and collaboration throughout this process. I'm here to present AB 2551, which would increase transparency and uplift student voices when it comes to protests on university campuses. Earlier this year, I was approached by students with stories of disciplinary action that seemed disproportionate for their conduct. I heard them share stories about being denied the right to protest against ICE when they were showing up for a job fair. being followed by campus police because they exceeded the amount of time they were permitted to protest by just a few minutes, facing felony charges for simply putting food dye in a water fountain, and even worse, students being disenrolled for their participation in protests. Harsh consequences for exercising this fundamental First Amendment right. Their stories resonated with me because I was just like these leaders. Had these policies existed when I was a student activist at UCLA, I would not be where I am today. Our college campuses, especially in California, have always led the way in protests for change, from the 1960s Vietnam War, anti-apartheid movements, and even now with many of the movements, No Kings movements against Trump. Protesting is an American tradition that we should be fostering because it is only through sustained public pressure that meaningful social change can be achieved. Restrictions like these TPM measures would have silenced many of these movements if they existed back then. TPM seeks to restrict protests because they are disruptive. However, we know that protests are inherently disruptive. They are meant to bring about systemic change. As a former student activist, I care deeply about empowering all students and protecting their ability to organize and advocate. Through data collection and student hearings with university leadership, this bill seeks to find solutions to the inequitable and inconsistent enforcement of time, place, and manner policies. I am accepting the committee amendments and would ask if the chair is open to also allowing for open forums to be situated in locations that would have better access for physical participation, preferably campuses in urban areas. With me here today are Angel Marie Taylor, who is a recent Cal State University graduate, and Yancey Garcia-Montes, a student from the University of California. Good afternoon, committee. I'm Angel Marie Taylor, a recent graduate of California State University, Channel Islands. I was only able to finish at CUCI because after over a year of being investigated for time-placed manner policy violations, the charges were finally dropped. TPM threatens my future, my safety, and takes away my free speech. In my years of student activism on campus, I've been investigated for TPM violations three times for 11 different policies. During these investigations, I've been subjected to surveillance, suppression, retaliation, and violence. In 2022, I led a protest on campus for Title IX reform and survivor rights. As the leader, I faced a TPM investigation and administration stalking during finals. I was too afraid to come to campus and failed. In 2023, I protested for Black student resources and against the tuition increase. I was disenrolled without due process. I faced police harassment and was pulled over 12 times in one semester. Being disenrolled, I could not continue and knew my classes needed to graduate that year. In 2025, I joined a protest for labor rights against employment cuts. As the only black student speaker at this event, I alone was surrounded by campus police. I was later charged with two TPM violations, faced potential expulsion, surveilled at my workplace, and had a hold on my student account that prevented me from registering for classes, applying for housing, receiving financial aid, and ultimately graduating. This particular investigation took 402 days to close, eight days before commencement, not giving me enough time to apply and attend. My academic journey was filled with terror and trauma, losing my honors society position and countless opportunities for my future. As I apply to graduate school, I am concerned. As students, we pursue education to get degrees, not felonies. We should have the freedom to grow into change makers that our society needs. This is urgent. We need you, the committee, to think of students like me across the state and vote yes on AB 2551. But ultimately, we must work together to abolish TPM policies to protect free speech and students. Thank you. Thank you. Yancy Garcia-Montez Good afternoon, Chairs and Members. My name is Yancy Garcia-Montez and I'm a student at UC Irvine and representing the UC Student Association which represents over 237,000 undergraduate students from all nine UC campuses in strong support of AB 2551. Thank you to the Assembly Member for her leadership on this bill and her dedication to strengthening student voice. I'm here today as the voice of students at UC Irvine who have been adversely impacted by time, place, and manner policies. During this past spring quarter, my peers at UC Irvine were placed on a Level 5 administrative hold for violating a campus policy, which was a simple failure to submit the necessary forms to use amplified sound, just for demanding housing, healthcare, and basic human needs for workers and students on International Workers' Day. Organizations at UC Irvine and across the UC system were protesting the UC's neglect of students and workers such as unalienable wages compiled with rising expenses as well as addressing federal policies directly targeting marginalized communities like the brutal conduct of ICE agents. Now graduating seniors who were not present at this protest and come from vulnerable backgrounds but are officers of this organization are not able to receive their diplomas until the targets are resolved and to this day they are still waiting to hear response from this administration. This has caused detrimental effects on the mental health of these students and they are uncertain of what is yet to come due to this unfair policy. As students, we should not be silenced and punished for advocating for educational equity and issues we care so deeply about that affect our communities within and outside our campuses. TPM policies have disproportionately targeted students of color as showcased in the impact analysis including our support letter conducted by UC Berkeley student leaders citing instances of discrimination and free speech crackdowns. Hence the need for disaggregated data on who these policies are targeting. Additionally, having students from student forms will increase student feedback on policies that impact us, the students. Bias laid laws that directly harm students should have a place in California's educational institutions, especially at the UC, which has historically been the pioneer of student advocacy. And thus I respectfully request your aye vote Thank you Thank you for your presentations We now hear from additional Me Too in support If you could use the mic at your railing and state your name organization and position on the bill Good afternoon, Chair and members. Vincent Rosso with the University of California Student Association. On behalf of our 237,000 undergraduate students, we're in strong support of the bill. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Osama Muqaddam on behalf of the Council on American Islamic Relations, California Chapter, in strong support. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Sandra Barrero on behalf of SEIU California, in strong support. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Ruby Arceau on behalf of Children Now, in support. Sheila Bates with Black Lives Matter California and Black Lives Matter Grassroots, in strong support. Rebecca Nelson, advocacy of freedom of speech, Chico State student and shared governance for students to be included in the policy process. Symphony Barbie on behalf of the ACLU California Action and Support. Andrea Terry on behalf of California Faculty Association representing 29,000 coaches, counselors, librarians and faculty in the CSU system in strong support. Hi, Musa here, a Senate District 7 constituent in respectful support of this bill. Thank you. Hello, my name is Zane. I'm a District 15 constituent, an undergraduate student, and I respectfully support this bill. Hi, good afternoon. My name is Kimberly Godino on behalf of Brown Issues in support. Thank you. David Mandel representing Jewish Voice for Peace chapters from around the state, including student chapters. We strongly support this bill. It's really important to protect free speech. Thank you. Margaret Okuzumi representing Democrats for Palestinian Rights Bay Area concerned about the impact of SB 1287 and that should be put back into the bill. Frances Goranel is with the University of California Student Association in strong support of this bill. Hello, Lisa Adikari with Hindus for Human Rights Bay Area. We support this bill. Candice Fan on behalf of ASUCD, the Associated Students of UC Davis as well as UC Student Association in strong support. My name is Melis Arojerez. I'm a Chico State student. I'm in full support. My name is Khadijah Halim and I'm a Chico State student and strong support. Hi, my name is Velveth Escamilla with Brown Issues and in support. Hi, my name is Mikaela Ellis. I'm a SFSU student on behalf of the Black Lives Matter Youth Vanguard, Black Student Union, and House Black. I'm in strong support of this bill to protect students' free speech. Keon Bliss on behalf of Anti-Police Terror Project, standing in solidarity with our students of color across the state and in respectful support of AB 2551. Margaret Solomon as the Associated Students of the University of California, Berkeley President, in support. Mariel Conception, Sacramento born and raised and Calaveras County resident. I'm in strong support. Malina Abdullah political action chair for the California Faculty Association representing 29 faculty in 22 CSU campuses as well as co of Black Lives Matter Los Angeles and Black Lives Matter Grassroots We are CFA is a sponsor of this bill. We're in strong support as a first step towards ending time, place, and manner restrictions that are repressive and harmful to our students. Kiki Miller, former academic advisor of political science, arrested with my students for violations of time, place, and manner restrictions. I'm also here in support of this bill as a first step to full abolition of time, place, and manner restrictions. Veda Diphteman, I am a fourth year at UC Davis and I represent the University of California Student Association in strong support of this bill. Anybody else? All righty. Seeing no more support, we will now move on to witnesses in opposition. Do we have witnesses in opposition? You'll each have two minutes. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of this Honorable Committee. My name is Ashland I'm a recent graduate of San Francisco State University. Before the passing of SB 1287, I witnessed protests and rallies that often included targeted harassment and intimidation, including recurring rallies featuring anti-Semitic rhetoric, vandalism, and disruptive encampment activities during the spring of 2024. During that semester, I remember my peers routinely rerouting their path to class on a daily basis. Not long after, I became involved with my local Hillel to learn support and advocate for my Jewish peers. However, after SB-1287 passed and went into effect in spring of 2025, protests did continue, but with less targeted and, I'd argue, more defensible rhetoric. And they were no longer so disruptive as to impede the normal business of student life. Students come to university first and foremost to study, learn skills, enrich themselves, and prepare to contribute to our Golden State workforce. Our universities should provide a high-quality education, and most importantly, a safe and respectful academic environment where people, regardless of conviction, race, or creed, can express and change ideas and engage in critical thinking. Time, place, and manner policies give campuses a baseline set of common standards where all students can meaningfully express their grievances and opinions without disrupting coursework or the normal business of student life. Any measure that adjusts time, place, manner policies should be of grave concern to students and administrators alike. If adjustments are made, they should center two principles. The ability of students to attend class and participate in university life in security and peace. and the right to all students to free expression in an orderly and equitable fashion. I urge this committee to keep these principles at the center of its work. I'd like to thank this honorable committee for its time and consideration. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Perez. It's nice to be back here. I served on this committee for six years, and it's nice to see you all again. It important for this committee to understand the history and the background that resulted in the passage of Senate Bill 1287 in 2024 a measure that prohibits violence harassment intimidation and discrimination on our college campuses My goal as the author was to ensure campus safety support free speech and promote civility. I spent almost a year in 2024 consulting and working on this bill. We had six committee hearings, which included consultations with numerous education committee staff, judiciary committee staff, constitutional lawyers, students, administrators. I took numerous amendments to build consensus and compromise. That measure passed this committee 7-0. It passed the judiciary committee 10-0, and it passed the floor of the Senate 33-1. In the Assembly, it was heard in multiple committees. It passed their difficult Assembly Judiciary Committee 10 to 0, and it passed the floor of the Assembly less than two years ago 70 to 0. Now, why did this measure, that this bill in its original form, seek to sunset? Why did it receive such broad bipartisan support? And I want to give you three reasons. Number one, it was advanced with content-neutral requirements. It was certainly responding to anti-Jewish hate, but it was about protecting the rights of all students. Number two, there was broad agreement that free speech would always be a North Star, but we needed to enhance our students' understanding about the importance of civil conduct. And number three, there was wide belief that time, place, and manner rules protect the free speech rights of all students. and it's working. We went from a year of barricades and violence on numerous college campuses to a new day of clear rules and enhanced communication to students that have protected free speech and free access to all students. Now the law has been in effect for 18 months. Data from the University of California and the California State University show dozens if not hundreds of free speech events on campuses under my bill. There's no data to support claims of free speech suppression. In fact, where is the data documenting a crisis that justifies this gut and amend action? As heartbreaking as it is to hear these anecdotes, that's not real data. And where is the data that shows a widespread problem and any constructive steps for a remedy on an individual campus? Let me be clear on this. If there is abuse or unfair sanctions, I join with the author in wanting a thoughtful and fair examination of the specific circumstances. Now, what has not changed since the adoption of my bill? The same group that opposed 1287 is the sponsor of this proposed repeal. The same group that shows little concern for the safety of students who have different views. And as recent events have made clear, it's that same group that now has a track record of anti-Semitic behavior. This bill, with the new amendments, and thank you to Chair Perez, will likely limp out of this committee today. But the failure of this sponsor to follow Senate rules and customs and to allow time for a full examination and public scrutiny is unacceptable. Unacceptable. I'll close with 30 seconds. World events have created trauma for many groups. A bill like this proposed in the final The final days of the legislative session creates a new terror and trauma to our Jewish students, especially with the sponsor's anti-Semitic activities. As senators, you're here to protect all students and their rights for free speech and unobstructed access to our public universities. That is what the Senate must fight for today, tomorrow, and always. Thank you. We'll now hear from additional witnesses in opposition. If you could please use the mic at the railing. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Cliff Berg here for Jewish California, formerly J-PAC, the largest coalition of mainstream Jewish organizations in the country. I want to thank the chair of the committee and her staff for working with us and with the author to secure amendments that remove the objectionable part of this bill, which was the sunset. with the removal of that piece of the bill. We remove our opposition to the bill and are now neutral on the bill. So I want to thank you and the author for doing that. I do want to just observe in removing our opposition to the bill that, you know, the reason we are here, this was a bill on June 11th that dealt with health care. It was gutted and amended towards the end of the process. This is the Me Too process, and you know that. You're very aware of this process. just want to make the good afternoon Maggie white with the CSU chancellor's office we have a formal opposed position on the bill but I want to express my thanks to the committee and the author for the work done on the amendments. We'll continue to work closely with the author and technical concerns. Thank you very much. Connie Stewart, I'm retired as of today from Cal Poly Humboldt. I want to thank the author and the committee for the amendments, but I'm opposed to the bill. Good afternoon. Jessica Dwan, the University of California. We remain opposed to this bill, but appreciate the work of the committee and the author in taking out the repeal language. But we still remain concerned about the data privacy issues with the amendments as well. Thank you. Joshua Coleman with V is for Vaccine. We have members and have organized demonstrations and protests in all 50 states in this country as well as four countries outside of the U.S. Free speech is important, but also so is following the rules and following the law. So I oppose this bill. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else in opposition? Seeing no one else rising, we're going to turn it back to the committee and see if we have any questions or comments from committee members. Senator Gonzalez? Thank you. And I just want to say I thank the author for bringing this forward. I also thank my good colleague, Senator Glazer, for being here and certainly defending your bill. but I understand there's obviously been a lot that has ensued over the last couple years that have been really alarming for students and professors and faculty all the same. And so I actually believe that this bill, and I know that you taken amendments significantly I know this was a gut and amend process Obviously there a lot of gut and amends that we done throughout the year that have supported or opposed certain groups And that just part of the legislative process Guilty as charged I have a gut and amend that I doing to be able to support folks at detention centers But, you know, it calls for the need now to start looking at ways to start pivoting and reforming what this looks like. And bringing in student voices, I don't think, is a bad idea at all. I think it's a great idea. I will be supporting this bill, and I look forward to engaging on how we can move forward. From what I understand, too, is even if the bill, as Senator Glazer had mentioned, even if there's a repeal to his bill, universities can continue enforcing the time, place, manner restrictions, but obviously under the description of content neutral. Do you foresee, I mean, what else do you foresee in addition to what the bill lies out? I guess my question to you is what else do you foresee in terms of engagement on this bill? I think it's really important for us to look at solutions. Students shouldn't be disenrolled from class, as our witness talked about her experience. When it comes to raising her voice during a campus protest, whether she talked about Title IX or labor rights or Black Lives Matter as specific opportunities or even campus fees. Like the reality is that we want to make sure that we find solutions that can truly no longer allow those type of disproportionate responses and reactions. disciplinary action I think is something that we need to look deeper at and figure out you know why are students being targeted in this particular way how do we fix that I think the there's an important point about keeping students safe but it sounds like none of these issues were around safety it was around specific issues related to the policy that that may have been violated but I I think even hearing those examples, amplified sound but forgot to submit a permit, shouldn't have five students being placed on a list that, you know, takes them away from having those types of permission or even not being allowed to go to your own commencement. Yeah, and I appreciate it. I think if any author is going to author this type of bill, it's going to be you, quite honestly, because you understand the voice of students. I know you've, like I said, you've put forward a hearing to be able to listen to voices and not just decide for yourself what you were going to do. And so I commend you for doing that and continuing to work, of course, with the opposition to ensure that there is a, you know, the right method moving forward. But oftentimes these bills have to be reformed because there's got to be more people at the table and there has to be an understanding that this is unfortunately had some repercussions that we've seen with disciplinary actions that seem unwarranted, with misunderstandings that can result in suspensions. and who are those individuals, who are those students. I would say what we've seen from preliminary data, mostly black and brown students and students that are already facing a lot of challenges in our system. So I'm happy to support the bill today, look forward to ongoing conversations. I know the Latino Caucus has been very involved in moving this forward and just hearing most importantly from the voices of students and from every voice. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Senator Gonzalez I want to make a couple of comments I think first and foremost because this is very important for me as a chair and Senator Glazer, it's good to see you. I'm not sure if you remember me. I used to work for the Campaign for College Opportunity for five and a half years. My expectation as a chairperson, especially when people come into my committee, is that they follow the rules of the committee. And so I just want to reiterate that out of respect to me as a chairperson. I would also like to continue just by recognizing the efforts that Assemblymember Al-Hawari has put into this bill and the amount of time that she spent looking into this issue. I think that the issue that she's raised and these individual stories that I've heard of students and the impacts that these policies, and particularly the enforcement of these policies has had on these students, is of concern. And I'm very interested in looking more deeply into this. I know we have some representatives from the CSU that are in the room today. I have real questions and concerns about how these policies are being applied and the impacts that they're having on students. I myself, when I was a student at Cal State LA, was very active at my local campus and was engaged in lots of advocacy. advocacy that might be considered in violation of time, place, and manner policies. There were times when we did sit-ins in the President's office. There was a time period when we had student success fees when we saw that tuition was going to be raised at alarming rates back in 2011. And I'm sure there were many ways that policies could have been enforced to really harm students. At that time period, I remember seeing a student from UC Davis being maced during a time period when we saw students protesting all across the UC and the CSU system. These were things that happened. These videos are available online. And so these conversations about how our institutions are treating students that are exercising their First Amendment rights, I think are really important because I wouldn't be in this position today if I was not an active student on campus. If I didn't learn about exercising my First Amendment right when I was getting my political science degree and my economics degree at Cal State LA, that experience helped shape me into who I am today so that I could become a senator. And I know the assemblywoman has probably had a very similar experience going to a higher education institution here in California. And so I think it's really important that when those moments happen, those moments of conflict that our campuses or institutions have an adequate response a response that makes sense and being overly punitive to our students to try to silence them or intimidate them out of exercising their first amendment right and expressing their viewpoints I don't think is appropriate and we need to have a real conversation about this and I don't mean just waiting for another piece of legislation or passing this bill. I'd encourage us to sit down and the CSU is here for us to begin talking about this in the next couple of months because I think this is a very serious issue. I know I've talked with Senator Glazer about some of the issues that have been raised and I think he also shares in that concern. We need to protect your First Amendment rights as students It so incredibly important and I appreciate you coming here to share your story as well And so Assemblywoman I Assemblywoman I just want to acknowledge and thank all of the work that you done on this issue I recognize, yes, it was a gotten amend. There were certainly a lot of questions from stakeholders. But I think you see here a member that is willing to work with folks. She's trying to dive in deep to do what is right on behalf of students. And as my colleague and also a very close friend of mine, I really trust that that is what she's centering here. And I know every single person in this room has that same priority. We all should. This is the Senate Education Committee. The work that we're doing here is for students and protecting them. Senator Glazer, I'll give you a moment. Thank you, Chair. I just want to reinforce and support what you have said. I think that this is an important conversation, and I certainly would want to play any role as appropriate in the conversation. The challenge has always been a bill right there in front of you with a change, without all that engagement, which I tried to talk about that happened in 24. So I support the sentiments that you've shared, and I would be happy to continue to work with appropriate parties to do that, because we want to make sure that the students are protected and that their First Amendment rights are protected. So that's certainly not something that we want to get in the way of. So I think there's a lot of places for common ground here to try to figure out if there's problems. What are they? How can we work them out? Thank you. Assemblywoman, my recommendation is an aye vote, and I'll be voting yes. I'll turn it over to you to close. I just want to reiterate my gratitude to the chair for the opportunity to really work through this bill and come to a place where we can work with the CSUs and UCs and really listen to the students to find the best solutions that we know we can find given some of the impacts of these policies that I think often are unintended given some of what we heard from the opposition. And that's really what our goal is, is to work with everyone to figure out how we can push forward true opportunities for students to continue to protest on their campus. TPM policies have had a chilling effect on student campuses. I talked to UCLA students that said that Bruin Walk used to be teaming with students and resources and excitement and now there's a sense of like even not doing that because they're worried about maybe doing something wrong and I think that's not what we want to do at our campuses. We really want to be able to do everything we can to uplift young people like you and me who had a chance to be student activists, young people like Angel Marie and Yancy, who are truly incredible leaders, and that's what our goal is. And so really looking forward to doing this work in collaboration and ensuring that we can get to a place where we don't see these disproportionate and punitive consequences and policies that continue to impact our young people. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you for your presentation, Assemblywoman. and the motion for this bill 2551 is due passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Do we have a motion? We have a motion from Senator Gomez-Reyes. Secretary, can you call the roll? Senators Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bogues, Cabaldon, Choi? Aye. Cortese, Gonzalez, Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. And we will put that bill on call. Thank you so much, Assemblywoman. Thank you. Thank you. All right, I see Assemblymember Miyabonta on item number 26, AB 2651. You may begin when you're ready. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Committee members. I am introducing AB 2651 due to the increase in outbreaks we have been experiencing. AB 2651 is a straightforward measure. It requires schools to notify parents when their child's school vaccination rate falls below the level required to achieve herd immunity, as established by the California Department of Public Health. The herd immunity rate is the percentage of the population that must be immunized to prevent disease transmission and thus provide some protection even for those who lack immunity. Schools and school districts already send health-related notifications directly to parents. For example, they send notifications for lice, HPV, confidential medical services, excused absences for illnesses, hospital instruction, and many more. AB 2651 is one notification that is critical to protect immunocompromised people, including vulnerable children, babies, and elders. Of the nearly 27,000 schools in California, this bill would currently apply to about 428 schools, 110 of which have been on CDPH's audit list for lack of compliance for at least three consecutive years. As such, this bill will affect about 0.4 to 1.6 percent of our schools. While measles was once eradicated in the United States this year, 10 counties in California alone have reported a total of 51 measles cases. It's also costly as well as being deathly. L.A. County approximates that its first three measles cases in 2026 cost $231,000. Despite this information being publicly available, right now to find immunization data, parents would need to be aware of the concept of herd immunity, research herd immunity thresholds, make the time to find the reports themselves, have the knowledge to interpret the reports, and then take action. And right now that information is complex and opaque and needs to be able to be accessible and actionable for parents to be able to ensure that they can respond to this vital information. This notification that we are proposing through this legislation uses data that is already collected and already public. It ensures that no individual student can be identified, and CDPH has already taken precautions for student identification in small schools. Among students with missing doses in 2024 and 2025, the proportions of conditional entrance and medical exemptions were just 2%, just as an example of some students that are not included. If we receive further guidance we will make any appropriate amendments and we will also be extending should it be required of this committee the school timeline to send the notification to parents from 10 days to 30 calendar days So how does this all work for schools because there's been a lot of discussion about this. If a school fell below the threshold they would first receive the notification from CDPH decide in what manner they want to communicate and notify parents and send that out. They would direct parents to use the CDPH resources linked in the notification to answer their questions and to get the help that they needed. They would use the notification to encourage parents who are out of compliance to update their child's vaccination records, and they would then upload any records they had not uploaded in time to local public health, and if they wanted, update parents on the actions they are taking. We've made many amendments to address opposition's concerns. The opposition that remains seems to be fundamentally around the need to be able to just provide notification of any sort, which actually end up keeping parents informed, or they have concerns about the requirements around vaccinations in our schools. Here to testify and support are two experts on the importance of children's health and education, Dr. Maripel Concepcion, who is one of two full-scope primary care physicians in all of Calaveras County, and Denise Morgan, who is the California State PTA Board of Managers Education Commissioner and the third district PTA president for the greater Sacramento area. And we have Natalie Pita, who is legislative and policy advocate for the California Academy of Family Physicians, here to answer any technical questions. Very good. So to lead witnesses, begin when you are ready. I remind you that you have two minutes each. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Dr. Marielle Conception. I'm a family physician and a mother of two children who go to public school in Calaveras County. I am here on behalf of the California Academy of Family Physicians, co-sponsor of AB 2651. In my practice, I care for infants too young to be vaccinated, pregnant women, and immunocompromised patients who rely on community immunity. I also work with parents trying to make the best decisions for their children, decisions that depend on accurate, timely information. As a parent and as a physician, right now when it comes to whether a child's school is protecting them against measles, the parents don't simply have that. The data does exist. CDPH collects it, but it is not easy to find. As stated, AB 2651 puts that information where it belongs in the hands of the people who need it the most. Look at what is happening in my county of Calaveras. Copperopolis Elementary has an MMR rate of 91.4%. Albert Michelson, 15 minutes down the road from myself, is at 90.2% for all required vaccinations. and Mountain Oaks Charter has an MMR rate of 43.5%. The county-level MMR rate sits at 93.9% below the necessary 95% threshold. And I only found out about this data, even though I'm a physician, by doing research for this bill. Counties like mine with severe primary care shortages and an under-resourced public health department are not equipped to handle infectious disease outbreaks. Diseases like measles do not wait. in a room with one infectious person, nine out of 10 unvaccinated individuals will contract the disease California has confirmed 51 cases in 2026 already across multiple counties in California as of June 29th and this is up from 35 cases as of April of this year This is a disease the U eliminated in 2000 Early accessible information is what allows families and physicians to respond before a quiet gap in coverage becomes an outbreak that we cannot contain. This is not about compelling a decision. It is about making sure You'll need to wrap up your comments now. Thank you. It is about making sure the information that already exists is present for the people it serves. And you're asking for an aye vote. I urge your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Next witness, please. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Denise Morgan. I am an Education Commissioner for the California State PTA here in strong support of AB 2651, the Informed Parents Healthy Schools Act, which we are proud to co-sponsor. California State PTA, representing over a half a million members, works to improve the lives of all children, youth, and families. Ensuring strong family-school partnerships is central to that mission. Students thrive when families are genuinely engaged as partners, trusted, informed, and active in their children's education and safety. This partnership requires honest communication. Parents deserve to know when conditions change in their children's school. Right now, vaccination rate information is only available to families who know where to look, how to interpret what they find, and can read English. In fact, 428 California schools are currently being audited for low vaccination rates, and most parents have no idea. AB 2651 ensures that when a school's vaccination rate falls below the threshold needed to prevent disease spread, families receive notification from their school in the languages their communities actually speak. Schools have an established relationship with families built on trust. That existing relationship is precisely why they are the right messenger. CDPH handles the science and the explanation, writing the notice with resources and contact information. Schools simply deliver that information through the channels families already know and trust. It is not a burden. It is a public health tool schools are uniquely positioned to support. Some worry it puts schools in the position of fielding hard questions from parents. Consider what schools actually face when an outbreak happens without warning. A Stanford study of a Texas school district outbreak found absences jumped 41% district-wide, driven by excluded students and families keeping healthy children home as a precaution. For a California district, that scale of absence means real ADA exposure, emergency substitute coverage, and crisis-level administration load. Distributing a CDPH written notice is far less burdensome than managing an outbreak. Can you please wrap up your comments, please? On behalf of California State PTA, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the room that would like to register their me-tos or eyes on this? Good afternoon. Cassie Mancini on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support. Thank you. Sandra Barrero on behalf of SEIU California in support. Thank you. Chloe King with Political Solutions on behalf of three clients, the California Dental Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Children's Specialty Care Coalition. Thank you. Thank you. Ryan Spencer on behalf of the California Medical Association, the American College of OBGYNs, District 9, and the California Pediatric Medical Association, all in support. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Farrah McDade Ting on behalf of the County Health Executives Association of California in support Thank you Devin Jackson middle school science teacher I am fully in support Thank you Anyone else wishing to give an aye comment in support Very good. We will now move on to lead witnesses in opposition. There are only two that can be allowed to speak. We'll work this out. Hold on just one second. Thank you. So two witnesses will be allowed in opposition. The other obviously can register as a Me Too. Two minutes each. Who would like to begin? Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Serech Kaminsky on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators in respectful opposition to AB 2651. First, I want to acknowledge that ACSA shares the author's goal of ensuring safe schools and communities. Vaccinations are an important component of protecting student health, and schools stepped up in extraordinary ways during and after the height of the pandemic. ACSA appreciates the author's intent to increase awareness of available vaccination resources, but feel AB2651 has the potential to undermine these important goals. Rather than directing schools to issue broad notifications to predominantly vaccinated families, state resources would be more effectively invested in broader public health campaigns led by CDPH and local health departments. This approach would better target unvaccinated populations such as homeschooled students and those outside of the traditional classroom-based instruction. Herd immunity is not just important schools, but it's also influenced by interactions that occur throughout the broader community, including public libraries, grocery stores, parks, sporting events, and other shared public spaces. Additionally, AB 2651 doesn't contain enough upstream communication. Schools are unable to update vaccination records with CPH once the reporting period has closed. Therefore, the state will only have a place-in-time snapshot of the data that becomes more inaccurate as time passes. A school could achieve herd immunity by just one family presenting their updated record after the reporting period has closed. but AB 2651 would still require the school to notice all families with outdated, inaccurate information based on their point-in-time data. Not only do front office staff and school nurses have the burden of double-checking records, they would have to explain the notices to family with a message that CDPH has old information. Schools are now inappropriately thrust into a position to refute public health notices and risks creating unnecessary confusion as well as distrust among families. At a time when schools continue to restore student attendance and engagement following the pandemic, AB 2651 would erroneously create a message that schools are unsafe. For these reasons, ACSA remains in respectful opposition to the measure, but we remain committed to ongoing conversations with the author. Thank you. Thank you. Next witness, please. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Joshua Coleman, co-founder of V is for Vaccine, a public demonstration group focused on informed consent and medical choice. My firstborn son, Otto, became paralyzed from the waist down after developing a known vaccine side effect called transverse myelitis following his 17 month round of vaccinations. Before that happened, I had no idea something like this was even possible. That experience changed my life. For the past decade, I've worked to educate the public about vaccine risks and what I believe are shortcomings in vaccine policy. Through this peaceful public outreach, my volunteers and I have been spit on, had signs and equipment destroyed, been physically assaulted, and even received threats of violence and death. It has shown me firsthand just how emotional and divisive this issue has become, and that is why I'm deeply concerned about AB 2651. California already has the strictest school vaccine laws in the entire nation. The bill now excludes students with medical exemptions from the calculation, but not students with IEPs. My concern is that when parents receive this notice, they will naturally look for someone to hold responsible, and disabled students may become the ones they associate with the school's vaccination rate. Those children should not become the targets of fear, frustration, or blame. Many people don't realize that students with IEPs are not educated separately. They attend class alongside their peers, eat lunch together, play together, and learn together. Life is already challenging enough for many of these students without creating another reason for them to be singled out or stigmatized. I respectfully ask you to stand up for California's disabled students by voting no on AB 2651 unless it is amended to provide the same protection already afforded to medically exempt students. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Any other witnesses opposed to this measure? Name, organization, and position. Good afternoon, And April Robinson with a voice for choice advocacy in opposition and also as a mother of a disabled autistic child that did have a vaccine injury and almost died within six hours who cannot be fully vaccinated to attend school and has an IEP. I oppose. Thank you. For the rest of you, please name, organization, and your position. I'm Darlene Rosetti Alquiza of Informed Policy Advocates in opposition. Thank you. Jessica Cabrera with Informed Policy Advocates, also in opposition. Thank you. Marissa Vizmara on behalf of the California School Boards Association and California Association of School Business Officials, respectfully in opposition. Thank you. LeAngela Reid in respectful opposition on behalf of the Small School Districts Association. Thank you. Would your son like to register his opposition also? My name is Otto Coleman. I'm with my dad and I'm in opposition. Thank you. Any others wishing to voice their opposition? Seeing none, let's bring it back to the dives. Any questions, comments? Senator Ochoa Bogue. Sorry, my computer died or just shut down. So a couple of questions on there, and I apologize. I was not here for your opening statement or for the witnesses. So if the questions are redundant, I'm sorry, I didn't hear them. So I'm just going to go ahead and ask them. So what does the implementation look like for local educational agencies to effectively administer the bill? I will share again the example that I offered in my opening statement about what this looks like on the ground for a school district So first and foremost is a school district is already required to provide this information to schools and school districts are already required to provide this information immunization information to CDPH So they're already required to provide that reporting. What it looks like on the ground is that should a school fall below the threshold as they get information back from CDPH about falling below a threshold for any particular immunization, they would receive that notification from CDPH. They would then be able to decide in what manner they want to be able to provide in communication to family members, students, and families about the reality that they've fallen below a threshold. It directs parents to use the CDPH resources linked in the notification to answer these questions. They will then use the notification to encourage parents who are out of compliance by not having updated immunizations or not providing that information to the schools. They will then upload any records that they have not uploaded in time to local public health. And if they wanted to, they could also update parents of their actions to address the low herd immunity or the low immunization rate as required by CDPH for as future action. Okay, so there's nothing in there that would compel families who opt out from, that have IEPs, for instance, that are not required to have immunizations to have immunizations? Is that accurate? We are not seeking to change at all existing state law around what is required of students as it relates to attendance at schools for vaccinations. To clarify, and I want to appreciate the Coleman family for raising this concern just to make sure that we are clear about it, students who have IEPs are required to get their vaccinations. However, they cannot be denied services or school services should they choose not to get vaccinations. That is the current state of the law. So what exactly does that mean, that the students are able to attend school and are exempt from being vaccinated? They are not exempt from being vaccinated. They can attend school and receive educational services, but they are not exempt. So I guess the father, Madam Chair, would like to get clarity on that. I appreciate you going to that. I also just want to say that this bill does not at all seek to change the current state of the law regarding IEP students and their attendance at schools. And I want to make sure that I understand what that means in reality for the public to either dispel a misinformation or to be able to clarify. Appreciate that. So to the – what does that exactly mean when the current law – how does that apply to folks like yourself with an IEP? I think Mr. Coleman's button is not on. Or there it is. Okay. So I was here during – I got turned off too. During SB 277, which is the reason why there's no exemptions. And there was an amendment Amendment H And Amendment H was basically put in place so IEP kids could still go to school mainstreamed with other kids because an IEP is a federal law and it was going to conflict with federal law So, yeah, an IEP kid, like a child like my son, who has 37 vaccines, when I stopped, he's not up to date. He can still attend school with his peers because he has an IEP. So there's nothing stopping any child with an IEP from attending school, whether they have zero vaccinations or they're under by a couple. But I should also mention this. I realized this yesterday when when I both times that I got hit a checkpoint and my son was going back into school and they asked me, well, where's his vaccination records? I said, well, he has an IEP, so he doesn't he's not required to have all the vaccines. And they said, OK, what they didn't do is they didn't say we need to know what he's been vaccinated for already. Now, I think they were supposed to. It says so on the CDPH site. And I've asked a few of my friends and they all had the same experience that I had where they don't know the 37 vaccines my son has because they've never asked. So he's not fully unvaccinated. He has several. He's been fully vaccinated for several things. Some things he's short on, but I'm worried that there are a lot of kids like my kid that they're in on an IEP, but they do not know what vaccines they have if they have some. So then what is the concern to the current bill, which is just seeking to inform and follow the current law? What is your specific concern with this particular bill? Well, like I was saying, the exemptions are so narrow, it can only be the kids with IEPs. That's it. So they're going to – I mean if the parents are going to get upset, they're going to get fired up, and they're going to be angry. My kid's in danger of dying. That's what all the news articles say. And then who are they going to get angry at? That's the only group that can be the ones in school without all vaccines. So just for clarity, so without disclosing the children, without disclosing the health information or vaccine records for the students, which the schools would not do, your interpretation is that or what you're implying is that this current bill in the process would automatically basically disclose your son as a potential student who has not been vaccinated and that you would be mistreated or that your child would be mistreated because of that. Is that what your concern is? Yeah, that's exactly right. And like I was talking about, like I've seen it in public. It gets pretty bad. People are pretty upset. And, you know, as a parent, your tunnel vision on keeping your child safe, you know, at least that's how I am. And if somebody gets a scary notice from school, they might tell their kid, you know, we don't know who it is that's not getting the vaccines, but stay away from the disabled kids. It's one of them. We know it's one of them. And I'd rather you be safe. Don't play with them. If you're sitting next to one in class, go somewhere else. I see that happening. I really do. because, again, people think life and death when they hear disease. Okay. So, Madam Chair, I do see another witness I would like to test. I'm not sure to what end. Technical assistance. Through the chair, can the technical answer this question? Okay. Thank you. Perfect. Thank you. Yeah, just wanted to clarify some information. So like Assemblymember Bonta said regarding IEPs they cannot be denied those services but it not equivalent to exemption So a permanent medical exemption you have to get from a doctor and it goes into the immunization registry and it considered an exemption and it called an exemption There nowhere in the law that it says children with IEPs have an exemption. They just can't be denied services. And then also, I just want to give some data. So around 12% of kids in California public schools have IEPs. Most of them are vaccinated. Otherwise, our state data would be dramatically lower than what it is right now. And then also there's an other category on CDPH's reports that are online right now that includes students receiving IEP services, homeschooled children, non-classroom-based children who do not have to submit those records. And that's about 3.1%. So that just goes to show most kids with IEPs are vaccinated. And unless someone says they have an IEP because that is protected information, that would just be a random assumption. Yeah. And I am aware that IEPs are not normally disclosed unless the student or the parent discloses that. That is something that is confidential as well. So all of that is confidential. So I understand that the bill was recently amended to exclude students with legal exemptions from the immunization rate calculation, which I believe is what you just stated. That's the permanent medical exemption. That's a different category. I'm sorry? I'll let you finish your question. Has the author or the California Department of Public Health produced any analysis showing how many schools would fall below the threshold with the recent amendments? I will say first that that amendment was put in at the request of AXA, who still remains opposed. We excluded students with medical exemptions. Medical exemptions are rarely concentrated in high enough proportions to be the reason the school would be below the herd immunity threshold. In fact, I think people with medical exemptions are 6%? About 0.1% of California students have a permanent medical issue. And so we have not, CDPH has not offered any technical assistance on this. And should we be able to receive technical assistance, we'd be able to answer that question at a later date. But given the overall very de minimis percentage of students that receive medical exemptions and the great likelihood that they would not all be concentrated in one particular school, we also believe that that impact would be de minimis on the total number of impacting herd immunity. Okay. If the goal of AB 2651 is to improve immunization rates, why does the bill place new responsibilities on schools rather than on the health care providers and public health agencies that are trained and equipped to counsel families about immunizations? I will say that it doesn't remove the responsibility of health providers and county health providers to continue to perform their outreach programs to be able to do that. I've spoken to many county health offices in the process of moving forward this bill. They invite and welcome the ability to continue with their outreach programs that allow us to be able to have county health advisors and health advisors involved in this process. The reality is that where we see challenges right now are in about 428 schools that continue to exist on the audit list at CDPH, where all the practices that are completed by schools and our county health providers are falling short in terms of what needs to happen. At the end of the day, we have a nexus between required vaccination rights for ability to attend a school. That is not the case for going to a library or going to a park. And so it is incumbent upon the school community to be able to provide the notification requirements that they are required to report on to a parent so that they can make an informed decision. We have many different health care related notifications already that are required by our schools, by CDPH to our schools. And this would be one amongst we have not exempted our schools from being engaged in the overall health of their school community. so um so on these 428 schools that are currently not are falling short from uh fulfilling their responsibility of this closing or reporting the uh the their vaccination rates and so forth do we not have a an enforcement mechanism right now in place for that yes so So remember that this, just to recenter one of the key components of this measure, this information that schools provide to CDPH is publicly available, but it is also available in a way that is inaccessible to our school communities. So this bill is seeking to ensure that that information reported to CDPH becomes accessible and actionable for parents through a school notification process. So just want to kind of get us centered around what the intention of the bill, as you've stated, Senator, is. The – and I've forgotten your question. So the enforcement mechanism. Oh, enforcement mechanisms. Thank you. So enforcement mechanisms. So, yes, there is an enforcement mechanism at there is right now a requirement for this to be enforced when schools stay on the audit list for several years. They do stand to lose ADA when currently currently currently currently. OK, so currently that's the mechanism they lose after several years. I guess the next question would fall do we need to shorten I'm just trying to figure out the need for the bill as to what we currently have because I'm assuming that the intent of the bill is to enforce what we currently have is that correct? except for the component that you want to make this publicly available to the schools and the opposition is stating that they're afraid that this would be used to discriminate against students which by the way no one knows the IEP status of students for it just it not normally disclosed but but are you implying that all students with disabilities have an IEP everyone that I've never known yeah I mean it's it's pretty common yes can I answer your question yes ma'am senator appreciate I appreciate the question. I think the reality is right now that schools are reporting information to CDPH. It's going into the ether. And on the back end is something that people can comply with in order when it starts, I'm sure, to impact their ADA. And it has no effective impact, if you will, on changing what is happening at the school site in terms of encouraging people to complete their records, update their immunization records, get their children vaccinated. And I find, having been a school board member and worked with many different school districts across this country and in the state of California, that when you are doing something for the sake of compliance alone, it tends to be something that you don't really tend to. So the purpose of this bill is to really be able to encourage schools to be able to have a conversation and through notification with their school community about the results that they're getting related to herd immunity levels and vaccination levels at their particular school site. And it's done so without just without moving beyond just putting something into the ether, but actually encouraging schools to start that conversation with a pro forma letter that is given to them by CDPH or the content which is given to them by CDPH, and then allowing them to provide resources to their families about what they can do to change that reality around falling below the herd immunity threshold which leads to if not addressed can lead to terrible things like outbreaks in our schools for very commonly addressed diseases like measles i don't i i see my is it through the chair maybe chair yes do you want to address that Senator, is it okay to comment? Make it brief, please, if you can. I think that the Assemblymember has done a great job of responding. Just because I'm a parent and a physician, I'm coming from Calaveras County, where my husband and I, as stated by the Assemblymember, we're the only two physicians in the entire county who can take care of pregnant women, who can do full-scope care. So unfortunately, when it comes to the access of our community to resources, Public Health San Andreas is 45 minutes away. When our kids get exposed to lice or they get exposed to hand, foot, mouth, it's simply texted to us in a platform that says, you've been exposed, the school has been exposed to this illness. and there's no divulgions of who has the who is the one who brought that into the school or who has been affected and so for me as a parent and a physician I get no guidance from public health like I literally had no idea that we were so close to being losing herd immunity until I researched on behalf of this bill and CAFP and as a physician there our public health officer isn't even in our county and they're not notifying physicians. And if you look at the physicians who actually see children in Calaveras County, it's very few. It's my husband and myself. If you wish to see a physician, you have to go then 45 minutes down the road. So for parents to know that for parents not to know that from April to now the cases of measles have increased from 35 to 51 Parents are waiting months to get into their pediatrician to get a vaccine If you are insured, you are not allowed to go to public health to get a vaccine. That's silly in and of itself, but today we're talking about that this is about informing parents and communities through the institutions of public schools that we already trust. Like, if lice is present, we're checking our kids. I'm not asking who brought lice in. And so this is an extension of what is already happening on data that already exists. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Any other questions? All right. And the young lady who was providing technical assistance, would you please identify yourself? Yeah. Natalie Peeta on behalf of the California Academy of Family Physicians. Thank you. Thank you. I first before my comments, I do want to first say that we live in a democracy where people can go out and talk about whatever they want to talk about. But the truth is, the democracy is very important on both sides. But the fact that you and your son have been exposed to this hatred and this harassment and this the assaults is something that bothers me tremendously. And I'm sorry that you had to live through that. And I hope you make the appropriate reports and get restraining orders wherever you need to. I sincerely hope you do that. On the bill itself, I think knowledge is so important. And I think that as parents, we want to know if our child has been exposed to something and then take the appropriate steps. Make, as the Assemblymember said, make informed decisions. and the only way you can make an informed decision is to have all of the information available to you. I would like to give you the opportunity now to close if you would like. Thank you so much, and I want to thank the Coleman family for their engagement in this legislation and for your testimony over several hearings, and I will say that I've learned something every single time that you've presented, And I want to thank you for that. And also, second, the senator's comments around we should all be able to be treated respectfully in in the values and views that we hold. And and I apologize as well on behalf of those people who harmed you. I want to want to thank our proponents who were able to come and testify as well. At the end of the day, parents deserve to keep their kids healthy. children deserve to be safe from preventable disease. This is a very simple notification bill and should this move out of this committee, which I'm very hopeful it will, I believe that in this time when we are seeing rise in preventable diseases because of lack of vaccination hesitancy, this is a very critical bill to pass in this moment in time when health care access is all the more scarce, unfortunately. With that, I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you, Assemblymember Lanta. We have a motion on AB 2651. So moved. Moved by Senator Gonzalez. The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. It's do pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. 26 Do pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee If I said Do pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee If I said I just reading what I was given Madam Chair? So it's something different? Could we just have the Assistant maybe state the motion, if that's okay with you as the Chair? Thank you. Motion is do pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Thank you. Senators Perez, Ochobog? No. Ochobog no. Cabaldon? Choy? No. Choy no. Cortese? Aye. Cortese aye. Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes aye. Thank you. We will put that on call. Assembly member. All right. At this point, we'd like to lift calls. Secretary, please start at the beginning of the agenda and call the roll call for any bills on call. Okay. We need a motion on consent. So moved. Actually, motion on consent. Okay. Senator Gonzalez. Okay. Senators Perez. Ochoa Bog. Aye. Ochoa Bog, aye. Cabaldon. Choi. Aye. Choi, aye. Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. Gonzalez. Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Reyes. Aye. Reyes, aye. Okay. File Item 1, AB 387 Alaniz. We need a motion. Moved by Gonzalez. Motion is due pass as amended. Senators Perez, Ochoa Bog, Ochoa Bog, Cabaldon, Choi, Choi, Cortese, Cortese, Gonzalez, Gonzalez, Reyes, Reyes, Reyes, item number two. AB 467, Fong. is do pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee, and we need a motion. So moved by Senator Cortese. Okay, Senators Perez, Ochoa Bogue, Cabaldon, Choi, aye. Cortese, aye. Cortese, aye. Gonzalez, aye. Reyes, aye. Item number three. We'll put that back on call. Item number three. AB-664, Alvarez. Motions do pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. We need a motion. Make a motion. Moved by Senator Choi. Senators Perez. Ochoa Bog. Aye. Ochoa Bog, aye. Cabaldon. Choi. Aye. Choi, aye. Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. Gonzalez. Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Reyes. Aye. Reyes, aye. We'll put that back on all. Item number four. AB 2694, Alvarez. Motions do pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. We need a motion. Moved by Senator Cortese. Senators Perez. Ochoa Bogue. Aye. Ochoa Bogue, aye. Cabaldon. Choi. Not in order. Cortese. Cortese, aye. Gonzalez. Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Reyes. Aye. Reyes, aye. We'll put that back on call. Item number six. I'm sorry, item number five. AB 917, Avi Laferes. Motions do pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. We need a motion. Moved by Senator Gonzalez. Okay. Senators Perez, Ochoa Bogue, Ochoa Bogue no, Cabaldon, Choi no, Cortese, Cortese aye, Gonzalez, Gonzalez aye, Reyes aye, Reyes aye. We'll put that back on call. Item number six. AB 1093 is launching. Motions do pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. We need a motion. Senator Cortese moves it. Senators Perez. I'm sorry. Senator Rochoa Bogue. This is Solache? Yes. Number six, right? Yes. Not voting. Cabaldon Choi? Not voting. Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Put that back on call. Item number seven. AB 1636 Solache. Motions do pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote is four ayes and no nos with the chair and vice chair voting aye. Cabaldon, Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. We'll put that back on call for absent members. Item number eight. Number eight is a consent item. Item number nine. AB 2496, launching. Motions do pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote is four ayes, no noes with the chair and vice chair voting aye. Cabaldon, Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. put that back on call next item number 11 10 sorry 10 AB 25 28 to launch it emotions do pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee current vote is two eyes and no nose with the chair voting aye Ochoa Bogue Cabaldon Choi Gonzalez Reyes what's the vote please right now is a senator Perez two eyes no nose not voting at this time okay back on call final number 11 a B 1644 Marisucci motions do pass to the Senate appropriations committee current vote is two eyes no nose with the vice chair voting aye senator Perez Cabaldon Choi Choi I Gonzalez Reyes I raise I Gonzalez I item number 12 was taken off correct item number 13 a B 1769 Ramos motions do pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee current vote is four eyes no nose with the chair and vice chair voting I Cabaldon Troy Troy I Reyes I Reyes I that'll go back on call for absent members item number 14 a B 1851 Gibson motion to pass to Senate Appropriations Committee current vote is five eyes no nose senators Troy Troy I Reyes I Reyes out I am that is seven to That item is out. Yes. Item number 15. AB 1850, Lowenthal. Motion is due passed as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote is 5 ayes and no no's with the chair voting aye. Senators Ochobog. Is this Lowenthal Yes I going to wait right now Okay Choi Did you? Oh, you know what? I'm going to actually do an I. Okay, Senator Cho'bog, I. That's six to zero. That bill is out? Yes, six to zero. Item number 16. AB 2017 Haney. Motions do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote is four ayes, no no's with the chair voting aye. Senators Ochobog. Is this 16? Yes. No. Ochobog, no. Cabaldon, Choi. No, voting. Okay. Back on call. That is put back on call for absent members. Item number 17. Consent item. I'm sorry. Consent, consent, consent. Item number 20. AB 2301, Soria. Motion is due past to Senate Appropriations Committee. Current votes, three ayes, no nos. With the chair voting, aye. Ochobog. Aye. Ochobog, aye. Cabaldon. Choi. Aye. Choi, aye. Gonzalez. Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Back on call. That item is back on call for absent members. Item number 21. Consent. 22. Item number 22. AB 2460 by Rodriguez. motions do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee current vote is one I no no's with the with let's start from Senator Perez on AB 2460 I press I what's up Choi? Choi? Cortese? Cortese, aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Okay. Five. That bill is out. That bill is out. Item number 23. Consent. Item number 24. AB 2540, Stephanie motions do pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee, and we need a motion on that. I'll move. Move the bill. Move by Chair Perez. Okay, Senators Perez. Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bog. No. Ochoa Bog, no. Cabalden, Choi. No. Choi, no. Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. Gonzalez. Gonzalez I raise I raise I back on call back on call perhaps members yes item number 25 AB 25 51 El Hawari motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee current vote is two eyes and no knows with the chair voting aye. Ochoa Bogue? Cabaldon? Choi? Cortese? Cortese aye. Gonzalez? Gonzalez aye. Great now we will move on to AB 2651. Okay motions do pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote is three ayes and no no's. Excuse me, three ayes and two no's. Senators Perez. Aye. Perez, aye. Cabaldon. And it's back on call. And we will put that bill back on call. Okay number 27 And now we moving on to item number 27 AB 2771 Motion is due passed to Senate Appropriations Committee Current vote is four ayes, no no's with the chair and vice chair voting aye. Senators Choi. Aye. Choi, aye. Gonzalez. Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Reyes. Aye. Reyes, aye. That bill is out 7-0. and now we will lift calls again beginning with quorum consent beginning with consent okay and I think it's just gonna be for you okay on the consent calendar Senator Perez I grass I okay okay we'll put that back on call file item one AB 387 Alainese motions do passes amended senator Perez I press I Cabal didn't we'll put that bill back on call file File Item 2, AB 467 Fong, due pass to Appropriations. Senators Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Ochobo Cabaldon? Back on call. We'll put that bill back on call. File Item 3, AB 664 Alvarez, due pass to Appropriations. Senators Alvarez, excuse me, Senator Perez? AB 664, this is the local one, right? Do you want me to move on? Senator Cabaldon? Okay, we'll put that back on call. Okay, file item 4, AB 2694, Alvarez. Do pass as amended to the appropriations. Senators Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Cabaldon? Okay, back on call. I'll put that bill back on call. File item 5, AB 917, Avila Fares. Do pass as amended to the Senate appropriations. Senators Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Cabaldon? Back on call. And we will put that bill back on call. File item 6, AB 1093, so launch it. Do pass as amended to Senate Appropriations. Senators Perez. Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bo Cabaldon-Choy. We'll put that bill back on call. File item 7, AB 1636, so launch it. Do pass as amended to Senate Appropriations. Senator Cabaldon, back on call. File item 9, AB 2496, so launch it. Do pass as amended to Senate Appropriations Committee. That's all Cabaldon. I'm just going to see the... Da-da-da. Yep. Yep, and I think that's it for now. Alrighty, and we will go and recess for a quick moment while we wait for more members to arrive. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. All right, we're going to lift calls. Lifting. Oh, let's come back from recess. we're going to lift calls and we're going to start with item number 10 our file item number 10 motion is do pass as amended to senate appropriations committee current vote is two eyes and no nose with the chair voting aye senators ocho bog Cabaldon, Choi, Cortese is an I, Gonzalez, Reyes. So that measure fails 2-0, reconsideration requested and granted. Alrighty, we're going to go ahead and start from the top of lifting calls, beginning with consent. Senators Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Consent is out 0-7. consent is out zero seven zero file item one ab387 alanese motion is due pass as amended current vote is six eyes no no senator cabalden cabalden i that bill is out seven zero file item two ab467 fong do pass to the senate appropriations committee current vote is five eyes no no's with the chair voting i ocho bog cabalden cabalden i that bill is out six zero file item three ab664 Alvarez. Motions do pass to Senate Appropriations. Current votes 5 ayes. No no's. Senators Perez. Cabalden. Cabalden aye. That bill is out 6-0. File item 4 AB 2694 Alvarez. Do pass is amended to Senate Appropriations. Current votes 5 ayes. no notes with the chair and vice chair voting aye senator kabbaldin kabbaldin I Choi that bill is out six zero five item five a B 917 I be lafarius motion is Passes amended to Senate Appropriations. Current vote is 4 ayes and 2 no's with the chair voting aye. Senator Cabaldon. That bill is out 4-2. File item 6, AB 1093. Solangeet. Motions do pass as amended to Senate Appropriations. Current vote is 4 ayes. No no's with the chair voting aye. Ochoa Bogues. Cabaldon. Cabaldon aye. Choi. That bill is out 5-0. File item 7, AB 1636, Solange, motions, due passes, amended to Senate Appropriations. Current vote is 6 ayes, no no's. Senator Cabaldon, aye. That bill is out 7-0. File item 9, AB 2496, Solange, due passes, amended to Senate Appropriations. Current vote is 6 ayes, no no's. Senator Cabaldon, aye. That bill is out 7-0. That bill is out 7-0. File item 11 AB 1644 Murasuchi Motions do pass to Senate Appropriations Current vote is 5 ayes and no no Senator Perez Senator Cabaldon That one is out. That bill is out 5-0. File item 13 AB 1769 Ramos. Motions do pass as amended to Senate Appropriations. Current vote is 6 ayes and no no's. Senator Cabaldon. Cabaldon, aye. That bill is out 7-0. File item 16, AB 2017, Haney. Motions do pass to Senate Appropriations. Current vote is 4 ayes and 1 no. Senator Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Choi. That bill is out 5-1. File item 20, AB 2301, Soria. Motions do pass to Senate Appropriations. Appropriations current vote six eyes no no's Senator Cabaldon Cabaldon aye that bill is out seven zero file item 24 AB 2540 Stephanie motions do pass as amended to Senate Appropriations Committee current vote is four ayes and two no Senator Cabaldon Cabaldon aye That bill is out 5 File item 25 AB 2551 El Hawari. Motions do pass is amended to Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote is four ayes. No no's. Senators Ochoa Boe, Cabaldon. We're going to put that item back on call. We're going to go to item 26 next, AB 2651. Okay, by Assemblymember Bonta, Motions do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote is four eyes and two no's with the chair voting aye. Senator Cabaldon. That bill is out for two we're gonna lift call on file item number 25 AB 2551. Senator Sotilbog, Cabalden, Cabalden I, Choi. That bill is out 5-0. Just double check. OK, we're good. Excellent. All righty, that concludes our committee. The Senate Education Committee hearing is adjourned.