Assembly Floor

Assembly is now in session. Assemblymember Di Maio notices the absence of a quorum. The sergeant arms will prepare the chamber and bring in the absent Members. Clerk will call the roll.

[Roll call]

Speaker, Members quorum is present. We ask our guests and visitors in the rear of the chamber and in the gallery to please stand for the prayer. Today's prayer will be offered by Reverend Patti Oshita. Reverend Oshita.

Please join me in a moment of reflection. This morning I cannot help but share an incident that happened to us about 30 years ago. Bob and I recall feeling a little irritated because we had to return home to retrieve some things that we had forgotten.

During that brief moment home in the midst of our search, the doorbell rang in three quick bursts. Rather than walk down the hall to the door, we looked out the front window to see who it might be. To my dismay, I saw a young child running as fast as he could from our doorstep and across the lawn.

He was rejoining his classmates who were walking in pairs down the block with their teacher leading the way. Lisbon Elementary School was right across the street. I thought to myself that teacher should keep a closer watch over the class and they shouldn't be playing pranks like that.

Only that evening when we returned home did I notice on the handle of our front door was a handmade crepe paper basket filled with now wilted flowers. There was a note that read, happy May day from Julio, Mrs. Robinson's second grade class.

Although almost three decades have passed, the memory of Julio's May Day flowers still brings a smile to my face and continues to remind me that there is much pure goodness in the world, especially in the hearts of our children.

Please let the gift of Julio's May Day flowers remind us all that that we must try to refrain from judging and criticizing too quickly. We may be overlooking what could well be an act of kindness. Wishing for all of us a happy May day as we welcome the month of May. Namo Mina Tsu Let us live with kindness and gratitude beyond words.

We ask our guests and visitors to remain standing to join us in the flag salute. Assemblymember Bains will lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Colleagues, please join me in the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag.

You may be seated. Our guests and visitors today state law prohibits persons in the gallery from interfering with legislative proceedings or disrupting the orderly conduct of official business. Persons disrupting legislative proceedings are subject to removal, arrest or other appropriate legal remedies. Reading of the previous day's Journal Assembly.

Chamber Sacramento Monday, April 21, 2025 the Assembly met at 1pm The Honorable Josh Lowenthal, speaker pro temporary of the Assembly.

Majority Leader aguirre curry moves. Mr. Flora seconds that the reading of the previous day's journal be dispensed with presentations and petitions. There are none. Introduction and references to bills will be deferred. Reports of committees will be deemed read and amendments deemed adopted. Messages from the Governor? There are none. Messages from the Senate? There are none.

Moving on to motions and resolutions. The absences for the day for illness. Assembly Members McKinnor and Chen now moving on to procedural motions. Madam Majority Leader, you are recognized for your procedural motion.

I request unanimous consent to suspend Assembly Rule 118A to allow Assemblymember Gabriel to have a guest on the floor and to allow Assemblymember Bryant to have a guest at the rear of the chamber today.

Without objection. Such shall be the order. Madam Majority Leader, just one moment please.

I move to withdraw. I move to withdraw AB 1178 Pacheco from the Appropriations Committee and order to the second reading file. The Bill is no longer fiscal.

Without objection. Such shall be the order.

Pursuant to Assembly Rule 96, I request unanimous consent to re refer the following bills to Committee. AB317 Jackson from Rev and Tax Committee to the Appropriations Committee and AB 1331 Ella Horay from the Judiciary Committee to the Appropriations Committee.

Without objection. Such shall be the order. Assemblymember Demaio, you are recognized.

Thank you. Mr. Speaker. Pursuant to Rule 88, motion to set special order, I hereby move that we consider Assembly Bill 379 today without the Public Safety Amendments. I understand that this is a debatable motion as to the parliamentary procedure and justification for using an extraordinary change in our Assembly rules to consider this Bill.

Thank you. Mr. DeMaio. Just a moment. It appreciate your patience. There is a motion by Assemblymember DeMaio and seconded by Assemblymember Castillo. Assemblymember DeMaio, you may open. Thank you.

Assembly. Rule 88 is reserved for a failure of our legislative process. That's where this body can demand that something be heard on this floor by all Members because the legislative process has broken down.

The reason why I believe that the full body needs to consider Assembly Bill 379 is that earlier this week in the Public Safety Committee, in my opinion, the legislative process broke down. That Bill was gutted by the Committee in a manner that I don't believe reflects the opinion of a majority of the Members of this body.

But because of our legislative process, this body as a whole may never be able to consider that Bill in its original format. The change that was made that I believe enjoys majority support of this body struck language that would make it a felony to purchase A minor age 16 or 17 years old for sex.

This is outrageous that that Committee deemed it so unpopular as to remove language from the Bill. I do not have faith and confidence in the legislative process today. And that is why I am urging my colleagues to afford themselves the benefit of Rule 88 to immediately consider Ms. Krell's Bill.

Assembly Bill 379 without the Public Safety Committee's amendments in its original format, I believe that a majority of Members of this body are reasonable, that they will listen to the will of the voters and that they will accept this Bill and pass this Bill without the amendments of the Public Safety Committee.

We don't need to send this to the Appropriations Committee. We can consider this under a special order of business pursuant to Rule 88. I ask for your support for this motion. It is a 2/3 threshold that we would have to achieve today to take up this Bill without the amendments. I urge your consideration.

Thank you, Mr. DeMaio. Seeing in hearing no further debate. This will take a 54 votes in order to pass. Mr. DeMaio. Apologies, Members. We are going to move to a vote Again, as Mr. DeMaio noted, this does take a 54 votes in order to pass. Mr. DeMaio is asking for an aye vote.

The majority Leader is asking for an Excuse me, Madam Majority Leader, you are recognized.

We will be bringing this up as we go through the file. Thank you. Madam Majority Leader.

Just a moment, please. Madam Majority Leader, you are recognized.

We will be substituting the order for as we go forward.

State your point, Mr. DeMaio.

To the majority leader through the Speaker. I would be willing to withdraw my motion with more clarity as to the form of the taking up that you are proposing. Just a moment, Mr. DeMaio.

You can speak to us. Mr. DeMaio, that's a parliamentary inquiry. That is not a point of order. Do you wish to restate your parliamentary inquiry?

Point of parliamentary inquiry through the speaker to the Majority Leader. In what form will the Bill be taken up? Specifically my. My motion includes no amendments from the Public Safety Committee. Can we get more clarity as to the representation of the Majority leader as to today's activity?

Mr. Speaker, I was drawn by parliamentary inquiry and it's and see that some of my colleagues would like to speak to my motion and under the rules of the Assembly speak to the motion under Rule 88. It's a debatable motion.

Thank you Mr. DeMaio. We will continue with floor debate. Are there any other Members that wish to speak on this motion? Assembly Member Macedo, you are recognized.

Pursuant. Pursuant to my colleague's motion, we still. Need to take the vote regardless of. The actions as mentioned by the Majority leader.

Assembly Member Dixon, you are recognized. Yes.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I too support bringing forward the motion until we know with greater greater clarity what the majority leaders action will be. But I support my colleague's motion.

Thank you miss. Thank you. Assembly Member Dixon. Mr. Flora, you are recognized.

Thank you. Mr. Speaker. I know the amendments are across the desk now. The Republican caucus has not had time to review those just yet. So if we could just have like five minutes review those. I think my colleague is willing to with pull his motion. But we just need a hot second to review those amendments.

Just a moment. Mr. Flora. Mr. Flora, we will pause momentarily. Members, if I could have your attention while we're going through this pause. Will you join me in wishing a happy birthday to our chief Cheryl Craft. It is her birthday today. Where would we be without Chief Terrell? Happy birthday.

I also want to let you know at the conclusion of session today there will be adjournment in memory for the Los Angeles Lakers. We love them so much. We'll see you next year.

Okay Members, now that you've all grieved for my Los Angeles Lakers, we can get back to the business on the daily file or business of the day I should say. Members, can I have decorum please? Madam Majority Leader, you are recognized.

Mr. Speaker, substitute motion instead. Instead take up Assembly Member Schultz Amendments to AB 379 and this will allow additional discussion.

Motion substitute motion has been made by the majority leader. Seconded by Mr. Garcia. Takes the majority of those present and voting. This is non debatable. Clerk will open the roll. All those vote you desire to vote. Majority leader is asking for an aye vote. Mr. Flora is asking for a no vote.

Majority leader is asking for an aye vote on her substitute motion. Mr. Flora is asking for a no vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes55 no. 17 the motion carries is substitute.

Members, I. I thank you for your patience and grace Pursuant to the substitute motion. Members, before the Clerk reads second reading, we are taking up file item item 101. Assembly Member Schultz has amendments to this item on second reading, the Clerk will read with amendments

Assembly Bill 379 with amendments by Assemblymember Schultz.

Assembly Member Schultz, you are recognized.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, colleagues, today I rise to amend Assembly Bill 379. I will note that amendments are at the desk. I'd like to read amendment three. This is on page two, line eight. This will be added to Assembly Bill 379 with approval by this body.

It is the intent of the Legislature to adopt the strongest laws to protect 16 and 17 year old victims, strengthen protections in support of survivors of human trafficking. Mr. Speaker, in a moment you'll hear from some others, including Assemblymember Nguyen.

But I would like to point out that in the last week there has been a regrettable amount of misinformation not just coming from this body, Members of this body, and not just from some of the highest constitutional officers in the state, but from those in the media as well.

It is important to understand that 16 and 17 year olds, minors of any age in the State of California that are contacted for a sexual purpose that is punishable as a felony. Already the Governor made a statement earlier this week.

I agree wholeheartedly with the Governor's statement to the extent that it already states existing state law, penal code Section 288.3 prohibits this sort of conduct. So before we get any further than this, let's be extraordinarily clear. California has tough laws on the books to protect our children, and rightfully so.

I've spent my career in the courtroom, just like my colleague here from Sacramento. I have fought for victims of justice. I have fought for children endangered by those who are supposed to protect them. Our laws can and should be tougher.

But we also have to ensure that the legislative process is honored, that we are consulting with every voice to make sure that the solution that we provide isn't just lip service to survivors, but is in fact effective.

With these amendments, I believe we can deliver a product that truly does ensure that California continues to care for the safety and well being of every single child. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Schultz. Assemblymember DeMaio, you are recognized.

I cannot believe you just said that this Bill does not pay lip service to survivors because that is the absolute definition of what this offensive Bill does. You sit there and you water down the penalties. You're paying lip service to the 16 and 17 year old victims of sex crimes.

I mean, what more does it take for this caucus, the Democrat caucus, to wake up and realize you're on the wrong side of this issue? It is so patently offensive. And why? Because you have an extremist wing of your party that says somehow it is normal to have sex with minors. Let me review the bidding.

SB 145 in 2020 signed by Governor Newsom. Notwithstanding the theatrics that he has engaged in this week on this Bill, SB 145 would allow a predator to molest a child as young as 14 years of age and avoid mandatory sex offender registry. That's what this Legislature passed. That's what this Governor put into law.

Because it is reflective of a perverse, deviant, perverted philosophy that somehow it is normal for men to molest young boys and young girls. SB 357, which this Bill is trying to fix, legalized loitering for the purpose of sex trafficking, sex work and prostitution. Why?

Because somehow it was spun as anti LGBT to try to enforce laws against sex trafficking. I will tell you as a gay Republican, it is offensive. And a majority, a super majority of the gay community, they disavow the LGBT caucus claiming that somehow this Bill is anti gay.

It's offensive to use the gay community as window dressing for sex trafficking. That's what's going on here. Make no mistake about it. These are young minors. They are victims of sex trafficking. And this Bill would allow predatory behavior to continue without punishment.

What this Bill does is it does pay lip service because it says a couple words that seem to cover 16 and 17 year olds. But then it takes away the ability of prosecutors to actually prosecute and punish individuals who purchase 16 and 17 year olds.

That at the end of the day is the plain English legal standing of what you're about to do. You're trying to pull a con job over on the California voters. No prosecutor will be satisfied with this language. I doubt Ms. Krell will be satisfied with this language. I'd be surprised if she were.

What's more offensive than that is the breakdown of legislative decorum here today. Your colleague has put her time, talent, treasure, her passion into an important issue.

Mr. Berman. Mr. DeMaio. Mr. DeMaio. Just a moment. Excuse me. Just a moment. Mr. Berman. Mr. Berman, you're recognized.

Please don't use Assembly Members names when referring to them. That is against the decorum of this floor. And I would once again ask My colleague from San Diego to speak to the amendment that we are discussing and not anything else. Thank you very much, Sir.

Excuse me. Mr. DeMaio, you will wait until the chair is ruled on the point of order. Mr. Berman, your point is well taken. Mr. DeMaio, you will conduct yourself with decorum on this floor. Do not refer to Members by their last name. Please stop wagging your finger and pointing at Members.

We are discussing the merits of this Bill, of this resolution. Excuse me. These amendments. Excuse me. These amendments. Thank you, Mr. DeMaio.

So, speaking of names, the amendment strikes Ms. Krell's name from a Bill that she has spent a lot of time working on and leading on. The amendment itself is offensive by stripping the names of the Members off the Committee.

Mr. DeMaio. Mr. DeMaio. Mister Berman, I got this. Thank you. Mr. DeMaio, you will not refer to your colleagues by their names. Please. Last warning.

The amendment strips the name of a Legislator who has spent a tremendous amount of time, talent, treasure, energy, passion on this Bill from a Bill that she deserves to have her name on in its original form.

It's offensive to do this to this colleague without mentioning the specific colleague's name, apparently, because the amendment actually does change a name on the Bill. Look, you can do what you're going to do today, but there are two things that are going to be clear at the end of today.

Number one, we're not going to protect 16 and 17 year olds from predatory sexual violence. 30 seconds. And number two, I don't think the voters are going to fall for this. And I will spend every day working to ensure that. And I think many Californians will work to ensure that.

Thank you, Assemblymember DeMaio. Assemblymember Krell, you are recognized.

My name is Maggy Krell, and I don't care whether or not it's on the Bill. What I do care about is whether California protects minors who are being sold for sex. The Trafficking Victims Protection act has a really important recognition in it, and that is that there's no such thing as a child prostitute.

In other words, any person under the age of 18, any minor who is bought for sex is considered a victim. Now, that's codified in California law under 236.1 sub G, which refers to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.

This is a really important legal framework that survivors have been fighting for, literally for decades, because it used to be that these teenagers were treated as criminals. That still happens today, unfortunately. But at least we have this legal recognition. We have the fact that you cannot be arrested for prostitution if you're under the age of 18.

Flashback to last year, Senate Bill 1414, unfortunately created this distinction. Instead of saying that any victim of sex trafficking who's purchased, instead of making that a wobbler or a felony for the buyer, it instead created this other layer where it's under 16 or under 16 or over 16 and a victim of human trafficking.

But again, you're automatically a victim of human trafficking if you're under 18 and bought for sex. That's the federal definition and it's codified in the state definition. So what we need to do here is fix that.

We need to say loud and clear that if you're under 18, a child, a minor, copy it from 288.3, which my colleague from Burbank referred to earlier. It says a minor, it's anything under 18 that the person who's buying that person should be charged with a felony. It's plain and simple. Sex without consent, that's rape.

The exchange of money doesn't change that. And the problem with penal code Section 288.3, which my colleague from Burbank referenced, is it includes a whole host of statutes for contacting a minor. But there's one that's missing prostitution, 647B. We could easily include 647B in 288.3 if we wanted to.

And then it would be clear that contacting a minor would include prostitution. But right now that's unclear. And unfortunately, what's also unclear is the provision in 236.1, which I'm trying to fix with my original Bill. So here's where I'm at. I want one thing out of this.

I don't care whether my name's on the Bill, but I would happily support it if it includes protections for 16 and 17 year olds, if it treats them as victims because they truly are, if it recognizes the fights that survivors have led for decades.

For the basic understanding that if you're 17 years old on a street corner and an old man comes up and purchases you for sex, that's rape, that should be treated as a felony.

I don't know whether to respectfully ask for your aye vote or your no vote, because I truly don't know what the intent of my colleague from Burbank is. But if he would answer that question, I'll be able to make a decision at least. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Krell, Assemblymember Tangipa, you are recognized colleagues.

I rise with a broken heart that this is debatable today. And the Assembly woman from Sacramento is a hero and should be trusted with the original version of this Bill because she saved my family member's life. She ended a social media page called Backpage that a family Member of mine was on.

Trafficked by a former teammate of mine. When I grew up less than six miles in one of the most trafficked areas in the State of California, off of Watt Avenue, Roseville Road and I80. And I share this story with you. I worked at the Mcdonald's off of Roseville Road and Watt Avenue.

And a classmate of mine that was older than me would come in on the later part of the shift. And all she wanted before she started walking on the street was three cookies and that they were hot because all she could afford was, was the $1.

As I worked the register that day, something that will never leave me is a blue sunburnt Silverado from the early 1990s pulled up and as she waited, walked in, he took her out and they got in that truck and we never saw her again. It should be a felony every time.

And anytime somebody wants to purchase a child for sex, those families that we talked about, those communities that we said we would protect, is my family. SB14 was one of the original reasons why I ran, because I couldn't believe that the California Assembly Public Safety Committee killed that Bill.

It broke my heart with the amendments to SB 1414 that removed additional protections for 16 and 17 year olds. And I was damn proud to see that I was back on this floor again to get it right. And I know in your hearts you feel the same way.

You know that every single time somebody solicits a minor for sex should be punished with a felony, I'm for the death penalty for it because I watched it break down families, because I saw teammates of mine and classmates of mine, what it would do to those families, because it happened to mine.

And the Assembly woman from Sacramento is a damn hero. But what has happened with the degradation of laws recently is that prostitution is growing again off of Watt Avenue. The Red Lion Inn is something if you're from North Highlands. It was a legend in our community. Why?

Because we knew the manager there would cut deals with people who would bring them in. Across the street from that Mcdonald's that I worked in was the last porn theater in the State of California. 30 seconds that they would take them in there and they would participate. It is our turn.

It is our chance to choose the kids of California to save them. And again, I don't know whether to ask for your eye or your no vote on this, but we haven't done enough and we should support the Member from Sacramento.

Thank you, Assemblymember Tangipa Members, before we continue on with debate, I would like to say to this body for a second time, please stop pointing fingers. We are all colleagues. We're all trying to improve the quality of life of all Californians. There's nobody in this body who is not sensitive to this particular issue. Assemblymember Patterson, you are recognized.

Great. Thank you. Mr. Speaker. When I was walking in this morning, I walked in with one of our colleagues who's on the other side of the aisle. And this colleague that I have a great deal of respect for asked me what we were hoping to accomplish. What were Republicans hoping to accomplish by doing this?

And you know, yeah, I mean, look, we can't deny that there has been a lot of, as my colleague from Burbank said, you know, press around this and politics, for lack of a better term. But sometimes you need to do those sorts of things to do what is just and what is right.

And so when this language was presented this morning, by the way, props to Legislative Council and the team over there for drafting. I'm sure in about 10 minutes we had a chance to go back and look at the language. And I don't know if you've had an opportunity to see it, but it's very clear.

Like, you know, I was going to bring my 4 year old daughter here today. I'm really glad I didn't. As a side note. But the language strikes the operative language. I mean, it's like page one in the Legislative Council digest.

It strikes the main language that my colleague from Sacramento was trying to accomplish with this Bill and instead it inserts intent language. When I woke up this morning, you know, I intended to do a lot of things, tended to work out, tended to wait. I intended to wake up earlier and have a more productive day.

I intended to be done with session earlier today than it is now. We all intend to do a lot of things and they don't happen. This Bill doesn't accomplish what we're trying to do, which is to make it a felony for purchasing a 16 or 17 year old.

And so if you don't have a chance, if you haven't had a chance, please go back and read the language because it is struck out of the language. The plain language is not supportable and because of that I must respectfully ask for a no vote on these amendments.

Thank you, Assemblymember Patterson. Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today is May Day. It's a day born from struggles sustained by Solidarity and rooted in the enduring pursuit of justice. It is a day when we honor the dignity of workers, lift up the voices of the oppressed, and recommit ourselves to building a world where no one is visible and no one is left behind.

What's embarrassing, what's offensive, is when you stand on this floor and you call yourself gay, but yet you vote down the same civil rights for gay people every single day. That is an embarrassment. That is something to be ashamed for. And my mama raised me. Don't intend to be who you don't.

Don't pretend to be who you don't intend to be. And that's what we are hearing from this other side today. On this day, on this day of courage, I rise with deep conviction in strong support of this Bill and all of the amendments before us.

Earlier this week, as a Member of the Public Safety Committee, survivors of human trafficking stood before us and shared their stories. They shared their pain. They shared their truth. They shared their power to each and every one of them. Your courage moved us. Your voices changed us. And I want you to know that.

We see you, we hear you. We carry your strength into every vote that we cast today. This Bill is one that is unshakable truth. Our children deserve protection. Every child, especially those who have been exploited, abandoned, or failed by the very systems meant to keep them safe.

This Bill with the amendments, sends a clear message to every 16 and 17 year old who is caught in the nightmare of human trafficking. You are not invisible. You are not alone. And we will fight for you.

I support this Bill in its heart because I believe in our power as a body, a people, to create something stronger, something more. Just let me be absolutely clear. Soliciting a minor is a crime. It always has been and it always will be. Soliciting a trafficking victim is a felony. Full stop.

Those who prey on our children and survivors will be held accountable with the full force of the law. This Legislature has already taken bold steps, including making the trafficking of a minor a felony strike under our three strikes law.

This Bill built on that progress and pushes us forward toward deeper protections, stronger accountability and a more just California.

With these amendments, we affirm our shared commitment to adopt the strongest possible laws to protect our young people, to expand support and services for survivors, to work hand in hand with communities to get this right, not just in policy, but in practice.

On this May Day, as we stand in solidarity with those too often Ignored, too often silenced. Let us remember, Justice is not passive, Justice is not polite, and Justice is not patient. Justice is active, Justice is bold and Justice is urgent. Let us rise at this moment together and. And I respectfully, passionately and profoundly ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez. Assemblymember Gallagher, you are recognized.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members. I've never heard such ridiculousness as I've heard this morning. This is very simple. It's not complicated.

The simple thing before us, do 16 and 17 year olds deserve the same protection as all other minors when it comes to child prostitution, when it comes to John's purchasing them for sex on the street? Gallagher, please stop pointing your finger at Members. Do they deserve the same protections or not? We have said yes.

And last year when 16 and 17 year olds were removed out of 1414 many of us said, that's ridiculous, it's wrong. Every rational, insane person in California said that's wrong. There should be no distinction. And make no mistake about it, these amendments before us continue the distinction.

It will be a different standard for 16 and 17 year olds as it is for other minors. That's wrong. If you think that's wrong, you should vote no on these amendments. If you're fine continuing that distinction between 16 and 17 year olds, which is crazy. It's crazy.

Why you give somebody on this floor, give me an example, give me one good reason why we should treat them differently. You can't, you cannot justify it. So that's what we're voting on today. Make no mistake about it. If you want to continue that distinction, which is wrong, then you vote yes on these amendments.

If you're ready to stop that and say no, let's. So let's go back to the Bill that the gentle lady from Sacramento introduced in the first place and the author of these amendments, that's rich, the gentleman from Burbank, he was perfectly fine with taking this provision out in his Committee. He did that.

And when he got called on it afterwards, he didn't say, Oh no, I'll work on some language. He said, let's have an informational hearing in August, allow this injustice to continue. So make no mistake, he was perfectly fine with continuing.

And only today, when we've moved and pushed for these hostile amendments to actually make this right, to actually remedy, to actually do what the gentlewoman from Sacramento set out to do, do they now bring these amendments. And you know, we haven't had long to look at them, but I can already tell it's different.

It's not the same language that the gentlewoman from Sacramento brought. It doesn't provide the full protections. It doesn't say those johns, it's a felony if you buy a 16 or 17 year old for sex. Period. That simple. Instead, we get these gymnastics on the floor, these amendments.

But make no mistake about it, we know what's at stake here. And I think most of the Members on this floor know what's at stake here and many of you have been thinking about it, that we need to make this right today. Let's do it, reject these amendments and let's restore the Bill to what it was.

There is a breakdown in our process when we allow radical ideologues on committees. And I'm talking about staff who control the decisions oftentimes that come out of these committees instead of us as the Members making the decisions. And I'm kind of tired of that. And you should be too.

And it's happened too often in this Committee where good bills, just bills get changed. They get denied hearings by a small minority of people and some of them who are not elected. That's not right.

But we could bring it to the full body, that Bill, the original Bill, and I guarantee you it would get a majority vote on this floor. Let's do that. Not some subterfuge, smoke and mirrors amendments here at the last minute that don't do the job. Let's bring the full Bill back.

In fact, that's what I was going to do today. I was going to object to unanimous consent on second reading to say, hey, take those amendments from Committee out and restore the Bill to its original language. That's just, that's what we should be doing.

And if you care about minors, if you care about 16 and 17 year olds like you say you do. 30 seconds, then, yeah, that's what you would do today. Vote no on these amendments and let's restore the Bill to its original language. That's what needs to be done.

And if you're not willing to do that, don't tell me that you're standing up for minors. You're not. You were fine to leave the amendments out. You were fine to continue to ignore them. You, you were fined to have more informational hearings. We don't need more information. This body needs a moral compass and you need to stand up for it today.

Thank you, Assemblymember Gallagher. Assemblymember Davies, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to be very short on this, but I don't understand why we can't vote on the Bill. As it was, this Bill is right.

And I, you know, I have the opportunity to meet all of you in the beginning and I know your hearts, I know that you protect children and I know what you want to do. And sometimes there's a lot of pressure. Try being a target. I understand, but you know what?

There's a lot of pressure, but there's pressure to do the right thing. And you know that that Bill, as it was, is the right thing. And we can do that right now.

We can make good with our promises that we go and we go out there and we're campaigning saying, I will protect you, I will protect your community. It's very simple. We can do the right thing, guys. And that's all I'm asking. And for those of you that haven't seen the substitution, you've got to vote no.

Because it really is in there. It is not doing what it needs to do. So unless you've read it and you know completely. Yes, I read it and I agree with this, you have to vote no. Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Davies, Assemblymember Bains, you are recognized.

Colleagues we have to stop playing politics. Somehow, as our President tanks our economy and deports innocent children, the American people still don't trust Democrats. Any sane person knows that purchasing a 16 and 17 year old for sex should be a felony, not a misdemeanor. This should not be a debate. Please vote no.

Thank you, Assemblymember Bains, Assemblymember Petrie Norris, you are recognized.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So I rise as a co author of AB 379. And I rise in support of these amendments. We began today's session with a prayer from Reverend Osha reminding us of two things. The first was reminding us of the beauty in the world, the remarkable beauty in the world.

And the reality is what we're talking about here and now is the exact opposite of that. It is the ugliest, most horrifying, most terrible, terrible things in our world. And as policymakers, we've got to absolutely, yes, look for the beauty everywhere we can. We've also got to confront the ugliness.

And I don't think I just speak for myself when I say that, of course, of course we recognize that anyone who would solicit a child for sex deserves not to just be punished. Here on this world in the State of California, there is a special place in hell for those people.

We also were reminded by Reverend OSHA not to jump to judgment. Not to jump to judgment. And so as we have what is an incredibly tough conversation here on the floor. I would urge us across our caucus, with our colleagues across the aisle, let's find common ground.

Let's believe in the good, in the humanity of each and every person on this floor. And let's start from a premise that accepts that each and every one of us is fighting every single day to protect vulnerable Californians and absolutely to protect children from predators. So with that, I respectfully ask for your support of these amendments.

Thank you, Assemblymember Petrie Norris. Assemblymember Macedo, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I've seen a lot of crazy things in my short time here in Sacramento, but this one I think probably takes the cake. The language that I'm reading based on what was just given to me, is it is the intent of the Legislature to adopt the strongest laws to protect 16 and 17 year old victims. What does that mean? We have to wait for informational hearings in the fall?

How many 16 and 17 year olds are going to go through the trauma of this before we do something? We don't just intend to do something, we actually do something. How many of us are going to wake up and realize we make promises to voters that we intend to do things and we don't follow through.

We don't have to wait to the fall with our intent. We can make action today, right now. So I challenge each and every one of you to explain to your constituents your vote today that you intended to take action, but you didn't actually take action. I urge a no vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Macedo. Assembly Member Ellis, you are recognized .

Members I'm the old guy here. I have children, I have grandchildren and I have great grandchildren. It appears to me that there are folks in this building that are trying to keep 16 and 17 year olds from being protected of being sold or negotiated to sell a child for sex.

Can someone please tell me, does this amendment really protect our children? Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Ellis. Assemblymember Arambula, you are recognized

As a father of three daughters. I cannot support this amendment today. I recommend a no vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Arambula.

Assemblymember Hoover, you are recognized. without objection.

Permission to read. The law should treat all sex predators who solicit minors the same as a felony, regardless of the victim's intended, the intended victim's age, full stop. Those are the words of Governor Gavin Newsom. What a sad State of affairs it is when Governor Gavin Newsom has to be the voice of reason.

Please listen to Governor Newsom and do this for our daughters and our children in the state and vote no. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Hoover. Assemblymember Dixon, you are recognized.

Thank you. I don't know if everyone has a copy of this amended language, just to stop to consider what it is saying that the violation of soliciting sex of a minor by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than two days and not more than one year, that latitude, you tell me that a judge is going to have the ability to say, well, you could be three days in jail.

You just raped a minor or had sex with a minor, a felony, and you're going to spend three days in jail. Where is that acceptable? What form of society and civil society is that acceptable to solicit sex with a minor and spend three days in jail?

Please read what we've done or what someone has done in creating these amendments.

We have the original Bill created and drafted by an experienced prosecutor, a US Prosecutor who knows the law and knows and has borne witness to children who have not been protected and sees people who commit these crimes against children let off with an overnight stay in jail. What kind of society is that?

We do that to our children. He's a bad person. And they'll spend three days in jail. It's done. He's been punished. That is not satisfactory in any civilized society. Don't be misled by these amendments.

They're intended to weaken for reasons I do not understand, why we need to treat this class of people differently than any other felon against committing sex crimes. Why is this a special class?

Why are we amending this law or this Bill that's been introduced, it should be passed by this body in its entirety or we've reached a new low as a Legislature in California.

Thank you. Thank you, Assembly Member Dixon. Assembly Member Berman, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I. I'm a little surprised by the selective outrage from my colleagues from across the aisle on this issue. This is an issue around prosecutorial discretion on. On whether to charge somebody soliciting sex with a minor with a misdemeanor or a felony. But just a couple of months ago, we saw another Issue of discretion.

The President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, had the discretion whether or not to appoint somebody who was being investigated for child sex trafficking, not soliciting a mile, but sex trafficking of a minor to be Attorney General of the United States of America.

Mr. Berman, just a moment. Mr. Flora, state your point. Mr. Flora, I cannot hear you. State your point to the chair, please. To the chair.

Thank you, sir. We've made this comment a few different times today through different colleagues. Let's keep the merits, our conversation merits of the Bill, bringing in the President, those types of things. It's not helpful for the discussion of today.

Mr. Mr. Flora, just everybody, just a moment. This chair has allowed this to become a political debate about parties and would be unfair at this moment. To stop that debate, we need to be even keeled. I listen to the colleague from San Diego lecture the entire body on what one party is doing versus the other.

First, I need to rule on the point of order. Your point is not well taken, Mr. Berman. You may continue. There's been appeal of the ruling of the Chair. Just a moment, please. Ms. Macedo, this motion is. This appeal is not debatable. Clerk will call the roll on appealing the decision of the Chair.

The Majority Leader is asking for a no vote. Ms. Macedo is asking for an aye vote. Majority Leader is asking for a no vote. Ms. Macedo is asking for an aye vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes. 18. Those 48. The appeal is rejected. Mr. Berman, you may continue with your comments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know why my Republican colleagues are so afraid to talk about what the Republican President of the United States publicly did in appointing a congressman who is being investigated for sex trafficking of minors, sex trafficking of minors to be the top law enforcement officer of the United States of America.

We talked about messages that we're sending to victims and I asked my colleagues who have been expressing their selective outrage this morning, what message did it send to victims when President Donald J. Trump appointed somebody who was being investigated for sex trafficking of a 17 year old to be Attorney General of the United States.

So I asked how many people on this floor think that it was an absolutely offensive and depraved act of President Donald Trump to appoint somebody who was being investigated for sex trafficking of a minor to be Attorney General of the United States? I thought that was a depraved act.

How many people spoke out, how many of my Republican colleagues spoke out against President Donald J. Trump, like they're speaking out this morning for his actions to appoint somebody who was being investigated for sex trafficking of a minor across state lines to be Attorney General of the United States.

I don't think any of my Republican colleagues spoke out when President Donald J. Trump tried to appoint a sex trafficker, someone being investigated for sex trafficking, to be Attorney General of the United States of America.

So I appreciate the passion, I appreciate the policy debate, but I can't help but notice the terribly selective and the hypocrisy and the selective outrage that's happening on this floor this morning. Based on what we've seen from President Donald J. Trump over the past four months, I respectfully urgent I vote on these amendments.

Thank you, Assemblymember Berman, Assemblymember Kalra, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think I was mentioned by our colleague from Burbank. There's no doubt that this is being used as a political cudgel. A lot of sound bites, a lot of social media X tweets, whatever. But the reality is that a lot of what is being said is just simply not true.

As someone that worked in the criminal justice system for over a decade, I will tell you there aren't adults that are raping 16 year olds that are being released two days later, they're facing and getting years in prison, even in the Bay Area, because I saw it every single day.

Let's speak to the reality of what we're talking about here, because the fact of the matter is there are, as our colleague from Menlo Park, Palo Alto, one of those cities, said, this is about giving some discretion to those that actually have the facts of every single case.

There are going to be situations where absolutely there's human trafficking involved or a john taking advantage of a minor. All that is already felonies and in this case will continue to be felonies. But there could be situations where there's an 18 year old and a 17 year old that are in high school together.

There's a wide range of conduct that a prosecutor should have the ability to use their discretion, which we hear all the time from our colleagues on their side, to give those prosecutors that discretion. Now, that being said, ultimately it's about recognizing that there's a wide range of folks that are caught up as survivors.

And there's a reason why, even at the public safety hearing, who are the folks who are coming up that had concerns? Those are folks that represent survivors. So this is not, it's an easy issue to say, oh, you don't Protect kids. We protect kids. oh, you know, you.

You don't want to lower taxes, we want to lower taxes. That kind of stuff is easy to do. The hard work isn't actually trying to figure out what works for our community, what works for survivors. That's the hard work.

So the other side can keep on doing this easy stuff of just bashing and bashing and bashing, following their Fascist in chief. Because the first hundred days seems a lot similar to what he's doing, as opposed to the last eight years where I did not see this kind of conduct from the other side. We actually got things done together, and when we disagreed, we disagreed on policy.

Mr. DeMaio, you're recognized for your point of order.

Did I just hear my colleague call the Republican caucus?

What is your point of order, Mr. DeMaio? State your point of order.

I object to the. The violation of Assembly rules by a Member in disparaging an entire caucus as following their fascist machine. Is that what we heard over here?

Mr. DeMaio? Mr. DeMaio, your point is well taken. Mr. Kalra, please continue under decorum.

Just. Just for the record, Mr. Speaker, I said fascist in chief, but I'll withdraw that. Ultimately, we need to do work based upon facts and based on what's happening in our community and how we protect everyone, including how we best protect survivors. The amendments and what's being put forward today allow us the opportunity to do that.

And I look forward to continued conversations on this issue, especially for those that have worked in this space, like our colleague from Burbank and so many others. But it's tiresome time and again to see the lack of nuance and this continued attack that's occurring again. This is my ninth year. Year, ninth year here.

And it's only these last hundred days that we're seeing this kind of behavior from the minority party.

Thank you, Assemblymember Kalra. Assemblymember Castillo, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanna remind everyone today that this all started because of the language that was removed from the original Bill. Can we go back to that original Bill? I am totally against the amendments because if the amendments work, then why not go back to the original Bill?

We are trying to protect 16 and 17 year olds. As a mother of one daughter, a grandmother of five grandchildren, I am so against this. If you have kids, if you have grandkids, I don't understand how you can be for this.

We have to vote no on this amendment and go back to the original Bill with that language. With the original authority. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Castillo, Assemblymember Nguyen, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I rise as a proud joint author of this Bill. And I want to thank the Member from Clovis for his passionate words around this. You see, I grew up in South Sacramento. Stockton Boulevard is where prostitution happened every single day from morning to night.

Drive out there right now and you will see girls as young as 10 years old, little boys, also being trafficked out there. You see, I may not have ever experienced what these young little boys and girls did, but I grew up around that.

I had friends that would come to me and tell me what they were going through. So I hear you, Member from Clovis, about how important this is, that we protect our children, that we protect these young boys and girls that are being trafficked.

But as you know, to the Members that have been here for years, sometimes bills need years to work on. Sometimes they need some perfecting. And sometimes the culture and the environment of this world, of this state changes. And that's where we as legislators need to come in to fix those areas.

Last year, I carried SB 1414 on this floor and I spoke about it, and every single one of you voted for that. This board turned green like a Christmas tree. And we're back here again. We're back here again because we all care.

And I want to believe as a mother of two young girls, and you've all met my little girls, as the wife of a police officer who's right now in the streets protecting you and making sure our community is safe, do you think I would come here on this floor and jeopardize anybody?

Kids, children, your lives, your family's lives? When my family's lives is at stake every single day because of the work that my husband does, do you think that I would rise and support a Bill that I didn't think would protect young girls?

You see, the Member from San Diego talked about how he felt the Member from Sacramento needed her name on this Bill. If you are a real leader and a true Legislator, you don't care that your name is on any of these bills. You are here for the people. You are here to make things right for our state.

It shouldn't matter what name pops up on this board. It shouldn't matter if your name is on the Bill. It shouldn't matter if your name shows up on any press conference. What matters is that you're making lives better for us here in California, for the people. That is what you were elected to do.

And so I asked my colleagues on the other side of the aisle as you read these one liners from the amendments that we are going to present. One liners, not the entire amendment. One liners. It does not speak to one. We are trying to do.

It does not fully explain that we too care about 16 and 17 year olds. But you know what? We care more than just 16 and 17 year olds. We care about every single person that is being sold for sex. We care about every single person that doesn't want to do this a day long longer.

The author and I are doubling down. It is not the intent, but it is the commitment, the commitment that we bring a Bill that is better than what was presented. If you do not vote for this Bill today, and you've all said that you care about 16 and 17 year olds.

If you do not vote for this today, what you said that you cared about 16 and 17 year old was a lie. That you don't care because these amendments include the 16 and 17 year olds that you raised your mic and you talked so much about with that I respectfully asked for your aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Nguyen. Seeing and hearing no further debate, Assemblymember Schultz, you may close.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, colleagues, it's been one hell of a week for me. I'm sure you can imagine why I'm here, as I believe most of you are, to pursue good law, good policy, to protect community and not to play politics. Which is something I've been ashamed to see on this floor and outside of this chamber today.

Mr. Speaker, before I go on, let me make one point extraordinarily clear. Assume for a moment we have the following fact pattern. You have an 18 year old approaching a 17 year old to engage in sexual activity. Perhaps there's an offer of monetary value. Let's be extraordinarily clear here. It's a felony under penal code Section 288.3.

If you contact a minor directly or indirectly, if you send a text message to a minor trying to engage in copulation, rape because they cannot consent or anything else, that is a felony. And to suggest otherwise means you are either willfully misinformed or disingenuous.

I rise today not as a Member necessarily of this Assembly, but as a father and as someone who, like my dear colleague here from Sacramento, has spent her career in the courtroom fighting for justice for victims on a human level.

I want to say to my colleague through the Speaker, I'm sorry that we couldn't see eye to eye on the solution here, but I commend. I commend my colleague from Sacramento for doing as she has always done and identifying an issue that plagues our community.

California is a hotbed for child exploitation, for human trafficking, and we must do more to deliver on that. But we also have to ensure that the solution is appropriate, that it's effective. That's what we're doing today. We have to continue the conversation. But no, we are not waiting until the fall.

This amendment is the first step and more steps that we will take in the coming weeks to strengthen the law to protect our children. I mentioned at the beginning, it's been a long week. I can understand that being the Chair of Public Safety comes with a territory.

I can accept that my safety will be threatened, that my children will be threatened, that my family will be threatened. I accept that that may happen. But I will not accept that in all of this, the one thing that breaks my heart more than anything is we are not centering survivors.

We are not centering victims of human trafficking and child exploitation. We're playing politics. And that is dead wrong. I'm ashamed to see the political games and maneuvering that are being done.

Here's what I will submit. Mr. Speaker, it is high time that this body, and as Assembly, as my colleague here from Sacramento said so eloquently, if you care about protecting children, there is no reason to vote no on these amendments. There is absolutely none. And I dare you to defend that no vote if you take it.

But it is high time that in the weeks ahead we have the conversations, we take what was the impetus of 379 and we deliver not just a good solution, but an effective solution. And that will have my wholehearted focus and commitment to get this done.

We will have a solution for the Assembly, we will have a solution to send to the Senate and God willing, a solution that the Governor will sign this year. That is my commitment. And the last thing I will say, Mr. Speaker, is this.

It is high time that we stop prioritizing, some of us stop prioritizing politics over people, prioritizing politics over policy. It is time to deliver a result. Let's get it done. I recommend and I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Schultz. Members, prior to moving on, Assemblymember Macedo, you were recognized.

Amendments.

Members. Who was the second on that? That was Mr. DeMaio. Okay. There's a motion on the table to lay these amendments on the table by Assemblymember Macedo. Seconded by Assemblymember DeMaio. This is not a debatable Motion Clerk will open the roll. I'm laying this on the table. Mr. Flora is asking for an aye vote.

Majority leader is asking for a no vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 21, noes 53. Motion fails. If I may continue Members before going to a vote. As I look around the room I see denim everywhere.

I want to thank you all for your sensitivity on this issue. Show grace to each other. Everyone here is trying to improve the lives quality of life for all Californians. It takes a majority of those President voting to adopt floor. Amendments. Clerk Majority leader will be asking for an aye vote on those amendments.

Mr. Flora is asking for a no vote. Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 55, nos. 21 the amendments are adopted. Members pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2.

I'm re referring AB 379 Schultz to the Appropriations Committee. We'll now move on to second reading.

[Second Reading]

All bills will be deemed read and all amendments will be deemed adopted. Without objection we will move. We will pass and retain on items 103 to 171 and item 199 ACR 67 on the consent calendar.

We are moving on to a vote on the Consent calendar but prior to doing that I'm going to recognize Assemblymember Bryan for his guest introduction.

Colleagues, in a much lighter note, we. Have an incredible person with us here today. In the back of the chamber is James Fauntleroy. He's a four time Grammy winning songwriter, producer, recording artist. He's best known for his collaborations with Bruno Mars, Justin Timberlake and others. In fact, Fauntleroy took home Song of.

The Year for The Grammys in 2018. For his contributions to Mars is six. Times platinum and number one single. That's what I Like. James has got the longest number one running global streaming song in music history. He's the only person who I can have breakfast with and he has to pause to take a text from Rihanna. An incredible legend in south la. Please join me in welcoming James Fauntleroy to the Assembly floor.

Welcome to the California Assembly Members. We're moving on to a vote on the Consent calendar. You'll need to be at your desk please. We are going to pass retain on item 199 ACR 67 by Assembly Member Sharp Collins. Does any Member wish to remove an item from the Consent calendar?

Seeing in hearing none, the Clerk will read the second day consent calendar.

Assembly Bill 870 by Assemblymember Hadwick and accolades of children's services.

Clerk will open the roll on the consent calendar. All Members vote who desire to vote. All Members vote who desire to vote. All Members vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. I74 no. 0 consent calendar is adopted. Clerk will read the remaining items on the consent calendar.

[Consent Calendar]

Members Moving on to Announcements follow following committees meet right now upon adjournment.

Human Services Capital Room 444 Judiciary Capital Room 447 Natural Resources in Capital Room 126 Privacy and Consumer Protection Capital Room 437 Session Schedules as follows Friday, May 2 no Floor Session no Check in Session Monday, May 5 Floor Session at 1:00pm Seeing and Hearing no further business, ready to entertain a motion to adjourn.

Majority Leader Aguirre curry moves and Mr. Flores seconds. This House stands in stands adjourned until Monday, May 5 at 1pm Quorum calls lifted and we are adjourned.