Senate Floor

Secretary will call the roll.

Allen. Alvarado-Gil. Archuleta. Arreguin. Ashby. Becker. Blakespear. Cabaldon. Caballero. Cervantes. Choi. Cortese. Dahle. Durazo. Gonzalez. Grayson. Grove. Hurtado. Jones. Laird. Limon. McGuire. McNerney. Menjivar. Niello. Ochoa Bogh Padilla. Perez. Reyes. Richardson. Rubio. Seyarto. Smallwood-Cuevas. Stern. Strickland. Umberg. Valladares. Wahab. Weber. Pierson. Wiener.

A quorum is present. Would the Members and our guests beyond the rail and in the gallery please rise? We will be led in prayer this afternoon by our chaplain, Sister Michelle Gorman, after which, please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.

Let us, ourselves that we're always in the presence of holy mystery. Merciful God, all creation kneels, a single being to praise you from its immense heart. Creation sings myriad songs at once, morning and evening song, praise and dirge, alas and alleluia intermingled. Creation sings even over its own scars where the chasms cry out for balm.

It sings both the remembrance and the hope of blessing. It sings the endurance of faith and the confidence of love. In roar and silence, darkness and light, Creation kneels a single being to praise you, O God. Amen.

Members, please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag. Members, we will now move to privileges of the floor. Senator Rubio, you are recognized at the majority leader's desk for introduction of your guest.

Thank you Madam Chair and ladies and gentlemen of the Senate. Today it gives me great pleasure to bring someone to the floor that is someone that I admire greatly. Someone who I have worked very closely with and has done a tremendous job in the Sangro Valley.

I want to introduce my dear friend, Mayor Tim Heffern of La Verne. If you know Tim in the Sangro Valley, you know the bow tie. And I know there's a lot of you here that wear a bow tie.

But behind the bow tie is a dedicated public servant who has spent years working for not only his own community, but the entire San Gabriel Valley. Tim's been leading the efforts in La Verne for nearly a decade. He was first elected in the City Council 2015 and became mayor in 2020. He was unanimously reappointed just last year.

Dedicated to wildfire safety, insurance access, transit, economic development. He helps secure funding for pedestrian bridges, bridge tied to the goal line extension. Tim always looks for practical solutions that make a real difference for residents. As presidents of the San Valley Cog Council of Governments, Tim helped shape our regional priorities by bringing cities together.

One of the the things he does well is knows how to collaborate, knows how to bring everyone to the table, and knows how to drive everyone in the same direction. I think that's his gift. He finds ways of bringing people together to find common ground. And it makes sure that everyone has a voice at the table.

That is why he's so well respected. I've known Tim for a long time. We work together on many projects. And I've seen firsthand how deeply he cares about the people he serves. Serves not just in his city, but in our region.

It is my honor today to recognize Mayor Tim Heffern for his leadership, his service, and his commitment to La Verne as well as the entire Sangro Valley. He is just stepping down as President of the cog, and I would like all of you to give him a very warm welcome. Thank you.

Welcome to the Senate. Senator Menjivar, you are recognized for introduction of your guest.

Thank you. Madam President. Colleagues, today in the gallery to the left of us, I want to introduce you to the Equality California's 2025 class of fellows. These six extraordinary fellows are selected from across California for a summer fellowship here at the Capitol.

This fellowship has been around for over a decade, supporting young LGBT Californians interested in learning more about the legislative process. It has produced some incredible folks who take what they have learned and use it to give back to the community in many different ways.

Nonprofit leadership, congressional staffers, and of course, some amazing staffers right here in Sacramento, as some of them are placed in your office. They only have a couple weeks left with us. Please join me in congratulating them for their hard work. We have Piper Cornet, Gia Franklin Willis, Carlos Gonzalez, Allen Lai, Evelyn Mata Hernandez, and Emma Duran Stevens.

We hope to see you back in the building y'all.

Welcome Members. Without objection, we will move to Assembly third reading to take up file item 122. Assembly Bill 379 by Assembly Member Schultz. Senator Arreguin, are you prepared? Yes. Secretary please read.

Assembly Bill 379 by Assembly Member Schultz and accurate to crimes.

Senator Arreguin, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. I rise to present Assembly Bill 379 on behalf of Assemblymember Schultz and Nguyen. AB379 authorizes felony punishment for solicitation of any minor by an adult more than three years older than the minor, as well as a misdemeanor for loitering with the intent to purchase commercial sex.

It also provides new tools for prosecutors, establishes a survivor support Fund to aid victims, and establishes tougher penalties for those who deliberately look the other way on trafficking. And I just want to just call attention to a few statistics. Thank you, Madam President. That were referenced in the analysis.

First, California has the highest number of human trafficking incidents supported by the California Human Trafficking Hotline.

And according to a Point Loma Nazarene University and University of San Diego study, in San Diego County alone, they estimated there were more than 3500 victims who are trafficked each year in San Diego County, earning traffickers an estimated $810 million and that those 16 years of age were commonly unfortunately impacted by human trafficking.

I think this illustrates that this is a prevalent issue that impacts our entire state and that requires action. This Bill also provides resources to community based organizations who are serving victims of human trafficking. Together, these changes will help communities working to end trafficking and to protect our vulnerable youth.

AB379 builds on the work of the Legislature over the last several years in partnership with victim advocates to protect victims of human trafficking, including our youth, and to begin changing California's laws to center victims.

AB 379 went through an extensive process in the Assembly which I believe made it a better, more effective Bill, aimed at enforcement of businesses and individuals engaged in human trafficking. I know that we will hear some concerns today from Senators on the floor about the Bill. And I think these are legitimate issues that should be discussed.

And I know the author is committed to continuing conversations with Members to address these concerns if this Bill moves forward. I specifically want to address the concern expressed about whether this Bill would create a new deportable offense at a time of aggressive immigration enforcement throughout our state.

Unfortunately, we are in a time when the recent actions of the federal Administration make detaining and arresting people for no apparent reason standard practice. And as we've seen in Southern California, ICE agents have been stopping individuals on the street for no apparent reason.

And that is why a federal court recently issued an order to stop this particular practice in response to litigation by our Attorney General. That is why the Legislature took action over the last several months to approve over $100 million in legal aid to defend our residents from these outrageous actions.

I think all of my colleagues know how serious my commitment is to protecting our immigrant communities. But I believe that this Bill strikes a reasonable balance. In the end, it's a step towards justice for our youth and for victims of human trafficking.

Once again, the creation of a new human trafficking vertical prosecution grant program, more resources for nonprofits helping victims, increased penalties and enforcement for businesses who do not post required notices and who do not report human trafficking to law enforcement.

AB379 passed by a bipartisan vote of 74 to 0 in the Assembly and is supported by several big city mayors, including the mayors of Sacramento, San Diego, Long Beach, San Jose, Fresno and Bakersfield, in addition to support from the League of California Cities, the California District Attorneys Association and state PORAC.

SB379 is a step towards justice and I respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Senators, I'm going to ask if you could take your conversations off the floor. It is getting too loud. We're going to start discussion with Senator Dr. Weber Pierson.

Thank you, Madam President. Members Human trafficking is a $150 billion global industry and one of the fastest growing criminal enterprises in the world. The FBI has ranked my area in San Diego as one of the 13 worst regions in the United States with up to 8,000 victims per year.

The impact of sex trafficking on the black community is profound. Black children represent 53% of all juvenile prostitution arrests. 40% of sex trafficking victims are identified as black women.

And when we consider studies showing that discrimination based on race and gender, combined with poverty and marginalization, increases the vulnerability for sexual exploitation, violence, and sex trafficking. We cannot ignore the fact that structural racism is once again at the root cause of the disparity of black women and men in sex trafficking.

And as a mother of two young boys, as a physician who has taken care of individuals who have been sexually trafficked, and as Chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus, I recognize the urgency of the hour that it is imperative that we come together to eradicate human trafficking at its root.

And although I understand the intent of AB379, it is disappointing that in our haste to push this Bill through the legislative process, critical concerns were left undressed. I cannot stay silent about the serious implications this Bill could have, particularly in reestablishing and broadening the crime of loitering.

Members Loitering laws have a long and troubling history, rooted in post slavery black codes and Jim Crow era policies that were designed to surveil, control and criminalize black people just for existing. Though facially neutral, these laws have consistently been used to target individuals based on perceived presence or appearance rather than actual conduct.

They rely on vague, subjective interpretations of behavior, giving law enforcement broad discretion to stop and arrest people, often in ways that reflect implicit and explicit bias and racism. AB379 lacks a clear and objective definition of what constitutes loitering and offers no meaningful guardrails to prevent abuse or ensure accountability.

It empowers law enforcement to act on perceived intent, which opens the door to discriminatory policing and racial profiling. It was for these reasons just three years ago the Legislature approved and Governor Newsom signed SB357, which repealed loitering offenses in an effort to address the disproportionate harm that loitering laws caused black, brown, and LGBTQ communities.

Those provisions gave law enforcement sweeping power to profile, target, and arrest people without meaningful oversight or accountability. AB379 repeats those same mistakes and does so without offering clear definition, limits, or procedural protections. The irony is that this very Bill meant to protect young black children like my sons, will also make them more vulnerable to racial profiling.

And this issue of racial profiling is something that this state has tried to combat. And so it is very disheartening and disturbing that we are going back to a time that perception of something equals a crime. We are going back. Not other states, not other individuals. We are going back.

And while I understand that we can't delay action to eradicate human trafficking, I urge this body to stand with those vulnerable Californians to amend in the very near future the loitering provisions, that if not fixed will result in renewed discrimination, harassment, and criminalization of Californians who are already vulnerable and over policed.

Thank you Senator. I have next Senator Valladares.

Thank you Madam President and colleagues. I rise today not just as a Senator but as a mom to a little girl and a tia to 11 nieces and 2 great nieces. When I think about AB379, I don't think about statutes. I don't think about codes. I think about them.

I think about what kind of world we're building for our girls. I think about what kind of protection we owe them. This Bill is about making sure that the law matches our values. AB379 increases the penalties for adults who attempt to buy sex from minors, specifically 16 and 17 year old children.

And frankly it's an embarrassment that this isn't already the law. Right now a grown man can walk away with an aggravated misdemeanor. That's not justice and it sure as hell isn't enough. This Bill changes that. It elevates the crime to a felony misdemeanor, holding the buyers accountable.

It also creates $1000 fine and those funds are going to go straight to the community based organizations on the front lines helping our survivors heal. Let's be clear though. These kids are not criminals. They are victims trapped in cycles of abuse and coercion, manipulation, and often outright force.

And it's time that the system stop treating them like anything less than children in need of protection. I've met the women leading these local nonprofits like Zoe International in my district. Mothers, survivors, counselors, who are all patching up pieces of trauma. They do it with heart, with grit, and not nearly enough support.

This Bill gives them more tools to continue that work. And I have to say, I'm tired of excuses. We should all be able to agree on this. There is no moral or rational argument against protecting children from being bought and sold for sex.

If we can't draw a hard line on child sex trafficking, then what are we doing here? I want to be able to tell my daughter and every one of my nieces that we fought for them. That when we have the chance, we stood up and we said, not in our state, not to our girls, not to our children, not on our watch.

Before I close my comments up here though, I want to take a moment to thank two women who have shown true courage. First, the Emmy winning Senator from Bakersfield.

She has been tireless on this issue, working behind the scenes, building coalitions, and always keeping the focus on victims. She's not in this for the spotlight. She's in it for kids. And I especially want to thank the Assembly woman, Maggie Crowell from Sacramento, who originally authored this Bill.

Her name was taken off of it not because she backed down. Quite the opposite. It was because she stood firm, she had the political courage, and she paid a political price for doing the right thing. But her values never wavered. It reminds me of a quote Ronald Reagan kept on his desk.

First as Governor of the State of California and later as President of the United States. It's the same quote that I keep on my desk. There is no limit. Permission to read? Permission granted. There is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit.

That is the spirit of this Bill, the spirit of the Senator from Bakersfield, the Assembly woman from Sacramento, and the kind of leadership we need more of in this building. And lastly, I'll say that if you are buying sex from a child for a 16 or 17 year old, I sure as hell hope that's a deportable offense.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Senator Grove, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues, protecting children from being bought and sold for sex should not be that difficult. As my colleague mentioned, it's the number one moneymaker for the criminal cartel, and it's the number one criminal offense on our state attorney general's website. It shouldn't be that difficult, but it is.

I introduced SB14 and 1414, sex trafficking of children. And many of you in this chamber co-authored those measures. My good colleague from San Francisco was the one who put it over the top when it came. SB14, selling children for sex to make it a serious felony in the Senate Public Safety Committee.

And there's all this like banter and conversation about how it became the Bill of the Century, not because of the policy itself, but because there was, I couldn't control myself and I ran up on the dais and hugged my colleague from San Francisco. And then everybody thought, what is the this Bill about that, that would happen?

It met a different fate in the Assembly SB14. We all know that the Assembly Public Safety Committee killed the Bill and the Governor engaged.

When you talk about a piece of legislation where the most conservative Legislator in the state could find favor with one of the most liberal legislators in the state from San Francisco and our Governor and come together to pass a piece of legislation that would protect children from being sold for sex, that speaks volumes to me about the way we can work together to solve problems that desperately need to be solved later.

We introduced SB 1414 again with our coalition survivors. Never been in that world, but the survivors were. Thanks for addressing the sellers, but we have to go after the buyers because when the buyers purchased us, it didn't matter. It was brutal.

They paid that money and they felt like they were, you know, able to do whatever they wanted. We went after the buyer portion with SB 1414 and we wanted to stop the negotiation process at the beginning of the negotiation.

There's already laws on the books were brought forth when we introduced SB 1414, that if they, you know, engaged with sex with the child, if they did this, it was a felony. It was under a separate code, code section.

But the point is, if somebody like the UC Davis person, a med student at UC Davis that one of our law enforcement partners gave us, negotiated a deal with a 14 year old black girl, he's white, 35, UC Davis, and he's on the phone negotiating this deal with her, I want it stopped at that point.

I don't want that child raped. I don't want anything to happen to that child. So the solicitation piece became our focus. We introduced that Bill to protect all minor children from solicitation and being engaged in solicitation or the engagement of purchasing a child for sex. And again, amendments excluded 16 and 17 year olds.

I made the argument that in the State of California, you have to have, you have to be 18 to be in a tanning bed. You have to be 2021 to buy cigarettes. But you can be 16 and 17 and still be solicited by a grown man and it not be a felony.

It was maximum two days in jail. That's just long enough to explain to your wife where you've been. We wanted a one year jail sentence. I just refresh your memory on the people that weren't here, but that's what happened in the last couple of years.

And I just applaud AB 379 which was introduced and originally I signed on as a co-author, a principal co-author with Assemblywoman Maggie Correll.

And while I'm grateful that we're finally at this point, I have to be honest, it's deeply disappointed that it's taken this long and it's been this hard to extend critical protections to 16 and 17 year olds being bought and sold for sex.

This, the trauma that we hear about from our survivors is stuff that it almost gives you PTSD when you have to read and think about all these things that happen to these young girls and boys. But everybody in this building knows that progress is incremental and this Bill is progress.

California must, must take action and hold buyers accountable. We have to reduce demand. Even in some of the law enforcement videos that we watched, the perpetrator being arrested for selling the girls for sex right here on Stockton Avenue was screaming, it's not me, it's not me.

I wouldn't be out here if it wasn't for those people paying me money. That's the justification of their argument. And it's true. We have to reduce demand. And SB379 does that.

If there is a risk that you are going to go to jail and if there is a risk that you're going to have to pay $1000 fine, the limit of that risk is reduced. Like you're not going to take the risk. Instead of just getting off scot free, we've got to take a bold stand.

And that's why what exactly AB379 does this Bill moving forward today because of the tireless, courageous, heartbreaking advocacy of survivors and survivor leaders. And I want to thank the author for listening to survivors and survivor leaders.

They were very concerned about working not with a man, but just somebody that they didn't feel comfortable with at first, but he has gained their respect and their confidence through this process. Many of these women were trafficked as children. They've been part of the system.

They were part of the welfare system, they were part of the foster care system and they were trafficked as children and they returned every year to battle after battle to advocate for the changes in the law.

They've showed the most brutal, shared the most brutal stories imaginable, being beaten, raped, starved, degraded, sold urinated on, defecated on, locked in a shower, only for people to come in and take their turn in a shower hour after hour paying their money.

We listened to all these stories and they came here and they were vulnerable in hopes that one more child would not have to experience what they did. And through their pain they also shared something else. Stories of triumph, stories of healing, stories of restoration standing tall and finding their purpose, going from victim to survivor to thriver.

They've testified before countless committees. They faced down hostile amendments. They've walked into rooms filled with confusion, indifference, and sometimes direct opposition.

But they persisted. The strength of their conviction, their grit. These women were the reason that this bill is moving forward. They're the reason that we're here. And I'd like to highlight just a few of them of the survivor leaders that have been with us since the beginning.

Jenna Mckay, Odessa Perkins, Brianna Mosley Price, Ashley Fajian, Vanessa Durazo, Sawan Vaden, Marjorie Saylor, Helen Taylor, Ashley Bryant, and Deborah Resch, just to name a few. There are so many others that walked into this building to share their story to, if not make an impact on your thought process for policy, but an impact on your heart.

And I'd be remiss if I didn't take a moment to thank the original lead author of this bill, Assembly Member Maggy Krell. There's no one in this building with more prosecutorial experience when it comes to human trafficking. As a former federal prosecutor, she spent her career taking on traffickers, including leading the fight to take down Backpage.

She knows the issue inside and out. And since the day that she told me she was introducing this bill, she has worked around the clock, both inside, outside, in the front lines, off the front lines, behind the scenes, never letting up, never backing down.

Even when she was removed as the author of this bill. She's shown what it means to lead with integrity, experience and unwavering commitment, providing real leadership. She speaks, her leadership speaks for itself. A perfect representation of an old adage that my colleague just brought up.

There's no limit to the amount of good you can do when you don't care who gets the results. The Assembly Member is a powerful example to women everywhere. Never let politics, ego, misogyny stand in your way of your God given purpose to protect those that need protection the most.

It's been a great honor to stand with her, with all of our supporters on this floor, with the survivors that made this moment possible, providing it gets off the floor. And I do, I want to thank Maggy Krell for bringing this forward. We, my staff and I, we just couldn't do it again.

It's like to hear these stories and then watch the disappointment and the things that happen in committees when these bills are pulled, died, or amended. It's, it's hard. It's not, it's, it's.

I mean, we can take it, but the people who have lived this life and don't understand why we can't get a simple conviction for the purchasing of a child for sex and prostitution, or soliciting a child for sex, or selling a child for sex, it's, it's very difficult for the, I don't say the real world, but the outside of the building world to understand.

I want to thank the Governor again for rescuing SB 14, my colleague from San Francisco, for getting it over the top in Public Safety on the Senate side, and then everybody here who coauthored these bills and that supports this bill today so that we can try to put an end to this horrific, horrific crime. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Richardson, you are recognized at your desk.

Thank you, Madam President. Let me start by stating unequivocally, full stop. Crimes of prostitution and sex trafficking are an abomination and should not be tolerated, should be punished with great consequences.

Just this year in section 90, item 2720-0002-001 of section 2.0 of the Budget act of 2025, this body, many of you, we worked and we allocated funds to work against the Internet Crimes Against Children's Task Force. Likewise, I fully support AB 379, except for one provision, and that relates to loitering.

According to California Penal Code 653.22, to loiter in a public place with the intent to commit prostitution is illegal. And I agree. The question is whether soliciting, whether asking is the same as committing. I think most minds would concur that they're different actions. After all, loitering may or may not include and involve an immediate criminal act.

Should someone be charged with a misdemeanor for asking to engage in an illegal conduct? Should a person be charged with a misdemeanor and serve six months in jail for asking to engage in illegal conduct? Should someone be charged with a misdemeanor and pay a $1,000 fine for asking to participate in an illegal act?

Should someone be arrested, impact their employment and damage their record for the rest of their life for asking to participate in an illegal act? And should someone have barriers from then on be set against them of housing, public benefits, and other social supports for asking to engage in an illegal act?

Should someone be charged with a misdemeanor if they solicit with a minor 3 years younger? When a person pulls up to the car and they don't know the person is a minor three years younger than them? Should a person be charged with a misdemeanor that demonstrates the purpose inducing, enticing, or soliciting?

Should someone be charged with a misdemeanor for circling an area in a motor vehicle repeatedly? Who defines repeatedly? Is it twice you go around the block? Is it three times or is it twenty? Should someone be charged with a misdemeanor for making unauthorized stops. How many stops? What's unauthorized?

When I was on the Long Beach City Council, we used a local law and it was called the John's Law. And it was very effective. What it did was it didn't go against prostitutes who were going to be arrested and out three hours later.

What it did was the person who committed the act, their car was impounded and they were held in jail for two to three days. So that person then had to call, in most cases, their partner, whoever. Hey, my car's impounded. I can't go to work on Monday.

And do you know a street of Pacific Coast Highway in Long Beach, California, went from prostitution from one end to the other to no prostitution at all. Today we don't have the Jones Act. Today we are sanctioning a disturbing legislative process.

As a Member of this body, I was disturbed to learn that Members were not allowed to submit and Chairs were not allowed to accept amendments. A basic component of how we conduct our legislative business. Here today, we're choosing policy over people. This bill opens the door for subjectivity, racial profiling, and bias discretion, which all is also wrong.

A crime of sex trafficking is wrong. Prostitution is wrong. Solicitation is also wrong. The question is whether loitering should be a crime and a misdemeanor, whether standing around should be a crime and a misdemeanor, whether driving around should be a crime and a misdemeanor, whether whistling, waving, should that be a crime and a misdemeanor?

And if you don't believe me, I think some of you are learning. I like to refer to history. I will tell you two words. Emmett Till, a young black boy who was accused of whistling to a white woman. Whistling, waving, whatever that might be. He was arrested, he was dragged, and he was horribly, horribly killed.

Every city in our beautiful state is not the same. I work for a police station about 6 miles in its entirety, and there was a rule that a minority person should not go from one end to the city to the other without being stopped. That's California, people. That's where we still live.

So AB 379 of itself is spot on. And I commend the authors for their work and for addressing this very serious issue. But loitering is not. And I call on the authors to fix this bill if it goes forward and make it right.

Because that may be your son, your grandson, your daughter, who decides on a Friday night to drive up to Pacific Coast Highway and kind of laughingly seeing people engaging in illegal contact, solicit, say something, and then they're arrested and have a misdemeanor and serve six months in jail.

Senator Rubio, you are recognized at your desk.

Thank you, Madam President and ladies and gentlemen of the Senate. I do rise in support of AB 379 because I think that protecting victims of human trafficking is not only a moral obligation, it is a public safety imperative.

And as I'm hearing everyone discuss this issue on the floor, I have to say it's a complicated issue because you can see both sides. You don't want any child harm, whether it is human trafficking side or those that are being racially profiled.

I did hear the great Senator from Long Beach that they attempted to offer amendments on this bill and they were not taken, and that the process perhaps was not perfect. But I have to offer another perspective because I know we've been pushing this bill for three years, so there's been so much debate going back and forth.

For me, the deciding factor in small part, was having conversations with our police officers back home. And I was really happy to see some of the numbers that our Police Department presented in terms of the victims that they saved. One year they had 54 young girls that they had saved from human trafficking.

The following year it was 12. And I thought we were doing a great job in tackling this issue and that we had now gone from 54 to 12. And what I learned is that it wasn't that we were doing better. Is that the way the law was written, they were not stopping people.

And those opportunities to vet people that are around our communities, especially around young ladies, was that opportunity. Once they stopped them and talked to them, oftentimes they found those little girls or little boys who they were able to save because they were able to stop and have that conversation with them.

So when I think of those 42 kids, that's the difference. When you're 54, the next year, 12, that is 42 children that they didn't save because they weren't able to stop and ask questions. And again, I want to be sensitive to everything that everyone's saying.

It is a very complicated issue because we want to be able to be sensitive to civil rights violations, profiling. But I also want to save our children. And given those numbers that our Police Department offered, it really just breaks my heart that we're not saving enough children.

And so I hope that we continue to move forward with this bill. And I don't disagree if there's opportunities to fix that language about loitering, you know, I hope that everyone sits down at the table.

But I think that this bill takes thoughtful steps towards ensuring that we hold those human traffickers accountable, that we save children, that we send a clear and strong, decisive message that we will not tolerate those that violate our children. And again, this is an issue that I hope everyone understands. It's not an easy issue.

And we've been debating this again. I know I was the original author along with the great Senator from Bakersfield three years ago. So it wasn't something that just came up this year. We've been fighting this bill for three years now. And I believe the first year it wasn't successful.

The second year it was a lot of dialoguing, a lot of conversations, a lot of conversations that were quite intense. And so I know the work that already has gone into this bill. So it's not a last minute bill without thought and consideration.

But I also want to take a moment to thank the Senator from Sacramento, Maggie Krell, because, sorry, the Assembly Woman, because it does take courage sometimes. You're never going to please everyone and you don't want to harm or disrespect anyone's thoughts and considerations. But once again, I feel that this is too important not to move forward.

So I want to commend also the author who is now carrying this bill. But again, we want to make sure that those human traffickers are held accountable and that survivors are protected with the dignity and care of that they deserve.

I too had the opportunity to sit down with some of these victims that the Senator from Bakersfield was just sharing. And they're pretty horrific. They are horrific. They're heartbreaking.

And my heart really hurts when I think of the stories we heard together, the cries, the pleas for help, and that that is why I would like to move forward with this bill. And that is why I stand in strong support of AB 379. Thank you.

Senator Gonzalez, you are recognized at your desk.

Thank you, Madam President. And I rise today in support of AB 379 while absolutely and wholeheartedly understanding the concerns of my colleagues from the Black Caucus as well as my seatmate.

That's why in 2022, I actually supported SB 357 because I did feel that there needed to be checks and balances on law enforcement on this issue of loitering and the offense to rein in these, this unchecked power. However, AB3 79 is an urgent issue in my community.

North Long Beach is the second most frequented area in LA County for sex trafficking solicitation. Two Council Members on the City Council have addressed this, and they brought forward an agenda item they're also talking about.

We're a very unique city in Long Beach because our city Health Department, our mayor, our City Council, our law enforcement, our city prosecutor, who I often connect with on these issues, and many nonprofits together are working tirelessly, even before this bill came forward, on outreach and awareness campaigns, encouraging victims to ensure that they come forward and access vital support services.

And AB 379 will ensure that we focus on diversion court programs to help individuals on a path to recovery without additional barriers. In fact, Long Beach already offers counseling, trauma therapy, GED tutoring, tattoo removal, and court advocacy. But victim support, we know, is not enough.

And AB 379, in my opinion, strikes the appropriate balance to protect our communities and victims while keeping individuals with the intent to purchase commercial sex to account. And this bill holds people accountable for their role in sustaining the trafficking industry while directing those trapped in it towards services, not incarceration.

And ensuring that there are civil penalties for hotels and motels and businesses, which is the first ever. We know all the hotels and motels in our community that are also part of the problem. And again, I do understand the concerns from my colleagues, and I don't take those lightly from the LGBTQ and the Black Caucus.

And I believe that we need to find cleanup and a balance so that not just people are held to account, but also the cities and law enforcement are held to account as well. There should be data and reporting.

And we should also reconcile the ugly historical understanding of vagrancy laws in the past that have targeted black community members and now are targeting Brown and LGBTQ members of our community. We need to do all the above with that.

I will say yes today to vote aye on this bill, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on additional legislation.

Thank you. Senator Ashby, you are recognized at your desk.

Thank you, Madam President. I want to reiterate a couple of points and then talk about several women who got us to this point. First of all, I think it's really important to note I'd like to align myself with the comments made by the presiding officer earlier today, the Senator from San Diego.

I think AB 379 does a lot of good things and important things. I was a had the opportunity to work in the misdemeanor arraignment court as a public defender in this county in Sacramento for a couple years of my life prior to the Senator from San Francisco's bill that removed loitering.

And it was a problem. Loitering enforcement is a problem, and I'll tell you why. Because people who live in communities that are identified as being places where loitering happens can get picked up for just being outside of their home. Or in my instance, I went to Sac High in Oak Park.

You couldn't really hang out outside of the school because it was the designated zone for loitering, which means you literally had to be careful on your way to school, which I don't think is a fair rule or a fair law.

I, in my experience, in my city and the city that I represent, I think there needs to be some work done here on the loitering component of this bill. And I align again, my comments with the Chair of the Black caucus, the doctor, good Senator from San Diego, on those points. On AB 379, separate from that.

You know, there was a day that the now Assembly Woman representing the northern half of Sacramento county came to me and told me that she was going to run for this seat.

And I knew from the moment that she said she would run for that seat that should she be successful, this is exactly the type of bill that we would all be voting on. There was no way that Maggy Krell was going to spend so much as one day in this building without addressing this issue. It is her life's work. And prior to that, of course, there were strong women in this House.

The Senator from Bakersfield, the Senator from Baldwin Park who moved the ball down the field, all in the hopes of coming alongside women who were being sex trafficked or victim or working with the people who are working with those women and children to do everything we can from a government standpoint to provide resources and help.

When the relatively new Assembly Woman used all of her will to get AB 379 as far as she could, another strong woman from Sacramento stepped in Assembly Member Nguyen, and carried Assembly Member Krell's work, the next leg of that lap. So as the Senator for those two women, I'm really proud of them.

I'm proud that they found a way to work together even when they didn't necessarily agree exactly. I'm proud that they both brought their incredible experiences in life to this bill. I'm proud that we get to vote on it today. I'm hopeful that there will be more work, particularly around the loitering component.

But I rise today as a proud Senator of two Assembly Members who I get to represent and ask that AB 379 receive your aye vote.

Senator Wiener, you are recognized at your desk.

Thank you very much. Madam President. First of all, I want to say I feel like the Senator from Bakersfield and I have been on a multi year journey on, on this issue and the Public Safety Committee in particular. And I appreciate that the Senator mentioned SB 14.

There's been a lot of good work in this body, in this Legislature around human trafficking. First in the budget, where we've done more to support survivors and then SB 14, which created the first new strike in California in probably 20 years, I think, for trafficking a minor. If you traffic a minor, it is now a strike.

And that passed this body 40 to nothing, unanimously. So I'm proud of the work that's happened in this body and I'm grateful to my colleagues for their work. I want to also just acknowledge our two lead Assembly authors who have both in different ways, dedicated their lives to public safety. And I am very grateful for their work.

I also want to thank the survivors. Sitting in public, I've been in public, I'm in my ninth year in Public Safety nine years in a row. It's a lot. That is an intense Committee. It is a Committee about life and death, about victims and survivors, about people who are being subjected to potentially massive consequences.

I always like to, whenever someone gets upset with me for a vote I cast on public safety, I always try to remind them, when we're writing the penal code, we're writing it for 40 million people. It's a lot of people with a massive range of behaviors. And we all take that very seriously, the Members of that Committee.

And it's a hard, intense and emotional Committee. And one of the most, one of the hardest parts is when we have survivors come and talk about what they went through and how it changed their life. It is so powerful and courageous.

When the survivors come forward, and I want to, right here now, thank the survivors who advocate not just on this bill, but on so many bills by talking about the hardest thing that any human being could ever go through, particularly this kind of victimization.

The solicitation piece of this bill, which has really taken up all the oxygen around the debate on this bill. That's what the public debate is about, soliciting a minor.

With the amendment that was put in in the Assembly to say there has to be a three year age gap, so you couldn't have a high school senior getting, you know, a felony for soliciting another high school senior, for example. That solicitation piece with the three year age gap is something that I support.

And if that were the bill before us today, I wouldn't even be speaking now, probably I would just be casting my aye vote. Unfortunately, this bill is two bills in one, and that happens sometimes. I've been guilty from time to time putting two bills into one bill.

I really wish that this bill were not two bills in one and that it were separate because I would like to be able to vote for the piece around soliciting a minor. That is something that I support. But unfortunately, bill number two in SB 379 creates a new loitering law.

California colleagues, we should not be creating new loitering laws in the State of California in the year 2025. We have worked hard to get rid of loitering laws. And I want to read. Permission to read.

Permission granted.

This is from, in 2020, the LGBTQ caucus and the Black Caucus partnered to jointly ask Governor Newsom to grant a posthumous pardon to Bayard Rustin. Bayard Rustin was one of Martin Luther King Jr. S lieutenants. He was a gay black man who was arrested in Pasadena for having sex in a car and was prosecuted and convicted.

And we asked for him to be posthumously pardoned. Thank you to the Governor. He pardoned him and then set up a process for other LGBTQ people to come forward to get pardons from some of these crimes targeting our community. I want to read from what the Governor wrote. Thank you for permission. Quote.

"In California and across the country, charges like vagrancy, loitering, and sodomy have been used to unjustly target lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people. Law enforcement and prosecutors specifically, specifically targeted LGBTQ individuals, community, community spaces for criminal prosecution. Now, as a proudly LGBTQ allied state, California is turning the page on historic wrongs."

I worked very hard for several years to pass AB3 57. I guess a very similar bill number. I don't know how that happens sometimes, but SB 357, which repealed California's law of loitering with intent to engage in prostitution.

And that was a law that had been horribly abused for many years because the problem with loitering laws is it's all about. It's not about what you're doing. It's about how you look, how you're standing, how you're moving around using words like beckoning. What does beckoning even mean?

It means whatever a police officer thinks at that moment in time. So when we repealed loitering with intent to commit prostitution, people, usually women and often Trans women, were being arrested for, I don't know, wearing your hair in a certain way, with lots of makeup and a short skirt and high heels.

That and standing in a place that sort of seemed like it might be a prostitution kind of place, that was enough to get you arrested. This law is different. And I understand, and I do appreciate that when the original author of the bill introduced it, it was to target purchasers, not sellers.

So it's loitering with intent to purchase sex. And I appreciate that intent. However, the way that this is constructed, you don't have to actually be trying to purchase sex in order to get arrested. It's about, as mentioned before, driving your car around in circles, walking around in a certain way in an area that is prone to prostitution, that's enough to get you arrested.

When I first came of age as a gay guy in the late 80s, around 1990, I still remember I was an undergrad, and there was a gay guy who was a grad student who sort of gave me, like, a tutorial, just telling me things to expect. How to, you know, the good and the bad and the ugly about dating men. It's just all the ways how to move in the world as a gay man, what to avoid risks.

And one of the things he told me, and I will never, ever forget it, if you are just outside in a place where there are other gay guys, be on the lookout for the police because they're there, and they can just grab you. As a young gay, that scared the heck out of me.

And it's something that's always stuck with me. And it's true. Loitering laws do not target everyone. They target people who are undesirable, perceived as undesirable. That's why they were first created during Jim Crow.

It's why they were expanded as LGBTQ people decided not to be invisible anymore or had to be invisible and had to be in certain dark areas because you couldn't be in public view. And loitering laws are a way to control. It's a way to control communities that are considered undesirable. I really, really want to vote for this bill. I want to vote for it.

I support the solicitation piece, and I'm so appreciative of the work that went on in the Assembly to make this a better bill, but I just can't get there with loitering in there. I cannot support creating a new loitering crime. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Wahab, you are recognized at your desk.

Thank you. I first really just want to start out by saying that a lot of the conversation around human trafficking is not so simple. And I do believe that the majority of the public naturally want to protect our children. I'm in full agreement with that.

But as the former Chair of Public Safety, there's a lot you learn about policy and the impacts of policy. And I've talked to both of the Chairs of Public Safety, both on the Senate side and the Assembly side.

And one of the things I've always shared is the fact that the policies that come through Public Safety are not easy policies. They're incredibly complex, and one minor mistake could have a ripple effect for generations.

And I often tell my constituents, in this particular Committee, you could either help people significantly victims, or you could potentially also entrap more individuals. And you have all heard from colleagues talking about everything from foster youth to LGBTQ youth to people of color and how legislation and policy have historically impacted them negatively.

And this bill is a complex bill. And we've heard from individuals talking about how they offered, including the authors, to address some of the concerns that were raised here and how, because this bill is so complicated in some ways and it gets chipped down to sound bites, that's the reality of this bill.

It is far deeper in regards to the impacts on the community. And, yes, I think every single person in this building wants to protect our children, wants to protect survivors, and wants to hold those individuals accountable for being perpetrators. I'm in full agreement. I know our Republican colleagues are in full agreement and our Democratic colleagues.

And in this building, it has been literally over decade plus, if not two decades, where bills in this space have actually died. Year after year after year. And there's a number of bills I can read off, all of them have died and been held.

And it's because of the fact that we have not had movement in this space on a real issue, an issue that actually affects almost every community. And, you know, many of us have big games coming up in our district, and we know that these issues will arise even more prevalent. And this often happens in the shadows.

It's not just in loitering spaces. It happens online. It happens in backroom alleys. It happens in hotels. It happens everywhere. This is one of the worst things of our society.

And the reality is that we have a long way to go to address every facet of the discussion that has taken place for over a decade, from loitering to solicitation, prostitution, and trafficking, all different things. That is one of the biggest concerns. What are we talking about? The details of policy, especially in public safety matter.

And the reason why I'm going to support this bill, and I want to thank the author for bringing this forward is because even though we have a long way to address all aspects of this issue area, we will be protecting and helping victims, as well as punishing the perpetrators.

And I do believe that the author and many other legislators in this building are committed to addressing some of the concerns that were raised by so many colleagues. And it has to be addressed because it's incredibly important to make sure that we do this right and we have true conversations in this space. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Seeing no further discussion or debate. Senator Arreguin, you may close.

Thank you, colleagues, for, I think, the very robust and important discussion that we've had today about this bill, and I think the areas where it could be better. And I just want to address all the speakers that raise concerns about the loitering provision of this bill.

I'll note that the language in the bill does say that, permission to read.

Without objection.

"That it is unlawful a person to loiter in any public place with the intent to purchase commercial sex." So it comes to intent, and it isn't that you can just drive around and not engage in any other subsequent behavior that demonstrates intent. Intent is a key part of this.

But I want to also acknowledge that, and this was clearly illustrated in the analysis, and I want to thank the Committee staff that did, I think, a really good job of going through all the different issues in the analysis, that there is a very ugly reality in the state and in this country of loitering laws and vagrancy laws being used to discriminate against people, our LGBTQ community or African American community, and communities of color.

There's no doubt, sadly, that these laws have been used in a way that's been discriminatory, and we have to be very careful to make sure that they're not being used in a way that's discriminatory going forward.

And so I know the author is committed to continue to engage, and I want to be part of that effort, as well as the Chair of the Senate Public Safety Committee, engage in discussions about how we can make improvements to this bill to address that particular issue.

But let's not lose sight of what this bill also does, which is it provides new tools to prosecutors. It establishes a survivor support fund to aid victims, establish tougher penalties for those businesses that deliberately look the other way on trafficking.

And also the solicitation piece, I think, provides greater tools for prosecutors to hold Johns accountable who are trafficking kids and harming kids in our communities. So at the end of the day, this is about protecting kids and victims of human trafficking. And addressing the increase of the exploitation of minors and sex trafficking on our streets in California.

And I just want to just briefly acknowledge that this passed with a bipartisan vote in the Assembly of 74 to 0 and has the support of mayors from the cities of Long Beach, San Jose, San Diego, Sacramento, as well as the mayors of Bakersfield, Fresno, and Riverside.

League of California Cities, the California District Attorneys Association, State, PORAC, and victim support groups all support this bill. This is a step forward for justice. But we know there's more work to do. And I'm once again committed, as I know the author is, to engage in those conversations to address the legitimate concerns that have been expressed today.

But this is a step forward to provide justice and to protect victims of human trafficking. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

[ROLL CALL]

Ayes, 33. Noes, two. That measure passes.

Members, we will now move on to messages from the Governor. They will be deemed read. Messages from the Assembly will be deemed read. Reports from committees will be deemed read and amendments adopted. We are now under motions, resolutions and notices without objection.

The Senate journals for July 7, 2025 through July 10, 2025 will be approved as corrected by the minute Clerk. Senator Wiener, you are recognized.

Announcement.

Under motions and resolutions. We will now move to consideration of daily file starting with second reading. File items 1 through 10. Secretary, please read.

Assembly Bill 597 with amendments 474 with amendments 1520 with amendments 1531 with amendments 17.

Reading will be deemed read. We will now move to Senate third reading. File item 43, SCR number 38 by Senator Mcguire.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 78 by Senator Mcguire relative to the Detective Sergeant Ed Wilkinson, Deputy Sheriff Brent Jameson and Deputy Sheriff Bliss Magley.

Memorial overcrossing Senator Mcguire, you are recognized.

Thank you so much, Madam President and colleagues, I rise today asking for your support of SCR 78, which we designate a highway in the North Bay as a memorial for three Members of the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office who made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty.

Detective Sergeant Ed Wilkinson, Deputy Sheriff Brent Jamison and of course Deputy Sheriff Bliss Magley all served in the department's helicopter unit. Now, if you don't know Sheriff Wilkinson, he was. He was a pioneer.

He started the helicopter program for the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office and he piloted angel one on numerous life saving missions proving the enormous value of the limit. But it was on one of those heroic missions, April 17th of 1977 that Sergeant Wilkinson lost his life.

He was a 17 year veteran at the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office when the Angel One crashed in the county. Three and a half years later, October 23rd of 1980, tragedy struck again when Deputies Jamison and Maglie answered a late night call to search for a shooting suspect While Flying Angel 2 back to the airport.

They faced poor visibility and heavy fog and they crashed just south of the Sonoma County Airport. Deputy Jamison was a six year veteran of the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office and Deputy Magley was a three and a half year veteran of the office. Now the Sonoma County Sheriff's Helicopter Unit still flies today, about 1,000 missions annually.

It is now one of the busiest single aircraft rescue helicopter programs in the entire country because of its nationally recognized rescue skills, rescues folks from the Golden Gate Bridge up to the Oregon border and everywhere in between.

And it goes without saying that Law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every shift of every day, not knowing what they'll face on any given day. Their bravery and service inspires countless others to be able to commemorate their bravery. Working with Senator Cabaldon. The science will be put up, not big enough from the air.

But soon, when we drive under Airport boulevard on Highway 101, we'll have a place to memorialize these three heroes, the detective and the two deputy sheriffs. These deputies gave their lives while protecting the communities they loved. We can only thank them silently in our hearts.

And I would ask, I would ask to be able to welcome their family on behalf of the California State Senate who are in the gallery today and give them a warm welcome. And I respectfully ask Madam President for an aye vote on this important memorial.

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion or debate. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Ayes. 37 nos 0. That resolution passes. Senator Mcguire, you're recognized at your desk.

Thank you so much, Madam President. I'm going to ask the families of the fallen officers to please stand as they are to my right. And we could please give them a round of applause and thank the deputies, the detective sergeant, for their incredible work on behalf of the people of California.

Thank them for their sacrifice in this welcome to the California State Center.

Members. We will now move to Committee announcements. Senator Archuleta, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We have the Military and Veterans Committee in room 2200 immediately after adjournment.

Thank you. Senator Wiener, you are recognized.

Thank you, colleagues. The Budget and Fiscal Review Committee will convene in room 1200 shortly after adjournment. So if Members could please head over there. It should be a not very long hearing, hopefully. Thank you.

Thank you, Members. We will now return to motions and resolutions, and this is our time to do our adjourn in memory. Senator Niello, you Are recognized at your desk for your adjourn in memory.

Thank you, Madam President. I rise to adjourn in the memory of a friend and neighbor of my late father, Stanley Austin Atkinson award winning journalist Stan Atkinson, otherwise known as Mr. Sacramento. Let me tell you a little bit about a truly remarkable life. Stan was born on November 11, 1932 in San Diego.

He grew up in Santa Barbara. He studied journalism at Pasadena City College. Then joined the army and served in the Korean War. Following his honorable discharge, he joined the Fort Ord Division as a faculty Member. During that time he taught literally thousands of trainees.

Stan began his journalism career in 1957 at KCRA Channel 3 when it too was launching its own broadcast journey. He also worked at KTVU in San Francisco and KNBC in Los Angeles. So perhaps all of you or prior generations of you have seen Stan on TV.

In 1976, he returned to Sacramento's KCRA and served more than two decades as the principal news anchor. He then spent five years at KOVR 13. He became the most popular news figure in our area. And as a testament to that, the Sacramento Bee called him the man who owns Sacramento. Like I said, Mr. Sacramento.

He retired in 1999. To say that Stan had an awfully action packed career would be an historical understatement. He was chased by a Soviet helicopter gunship in Afghanistan, Held up and robbed by guerrillas in El Salvador and shot at in Cambodia.

He also covered the presence of the US Forces in Bosnia, Reported on Hong Kong's reunification with China, Went to Baghdad and Kuwait before and after Operation Desert Storm, covered the withdrawal of American forces from Somalia.

And on his third assignment to South Africa, Stan covered the remarkable transition of South Africa as their citizens voted in the country's first all race democratic election. I get tired just thinking about his career. The awards Stan received were more than voluminous.

He was one of 25 reporters selected for the prestigious Ford Foundation Journalism Fellowship at Stanford in 1967. He won three Emmys, the very prestigious Governor's Award from the Northern California Chapter of the National TV Academy. And was among the first selectees to be named to the TV Academy's Silver Circle As a television pioneer.

He also was awarded the World Affairs Council Award and International Reporting and the Albert and Marieu Lasker Award for Medical Journalism. As I said, he was very popular locally. He was honored by our state Legislature, the very same. The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, the Sacramento City Council and the Congressional Record.

He was the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce Sacramentan of the Year and received a Lifetime Achievement award from the Sacramento Regional Foundation. In his spare time, he raised a little money for some local causes, like about $8 million. He received the United Ways Humanitarian of the Year and National Philanthropy Association's Volunteer Fundraiser of the Year awards.

He served on the Mercy Foundation Board, the First T of Greater Sacramento Board, the Advisory Board of SAC State, and the We've Been Board. I've probably left out a few. Stan was tragically predesteased by his son Lance, about whom I heard him speak many times.

Left to mourn his passing and celebrate his legacy is his wife, Kristen, his children, Brad, Mike, Alex and Sarah. His stepchildren, Griffin and Allison McCann and David and Adam Laverine. His 14 grandchildren and 18 great grandchildren and his brothers and many of those today have joined us in the gallery. If you'd all stand up and be recognized.

Thank you very much. So. So I ask that you join me in adjourning our memory. In adjourning our session in the memory of Stan Atkinson.

I want to thank my colleague who helps me represent Sacramento county here for his incredible words and story.

It would be very difficult to express to you all how larger than life Stan Atkinson was for this region in his time as a news anchor, easily the most recognizable face in media for the greater Sacramento area. I grew up here, and I grew up with his face on the television in my living room every night.

And so for him to pass is a very big deal for our region. He was trusted and beloved. He was reassuring, and he empowered the many women that he helped lift up during a time when that was just getting started. Stan was deeply committed to serving this community.

It's interesting because he retired some 20 whatever years ago, but define retirement because he certainly kept working in the interest of Sacramento. He helped raise over $2.2 million for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial right here in the State Capitol Park. And through his Atkinson foundation, he worked the Sacramento River Cats to establish something we call Independence Field.

It's a baseball diamond built for kids with disabilities to be able to play. It's actually an incredible amenity in our city. His integrity, his warmth, and his dedication to a very high standard of journalism really set the bar for Sacramento. Channel 3 enjoys a very strong reputation in this community.

It is largely built the back of Stan Atkinson. His legacy lives on through generations of journalists here in our region. And I, too, would like to extend my heartfelt condolences to his family and friends who are with us and to the people in Sacramento who remember him so fondly. With gratitude and pride.

Thank you. Senators Ashbey and Niello, did you want to close?

Just that I am pleased and actually honored to be able to adjourn in the memory of a giant of our community.

Thank you. Our condolences to the entire family. Thank you so much for being here. Senator, please bring his name to the desk so that he can be properly memorialized. Senator Becker, you are recognized for your adjourn in memory.

Thank you, colleagues, for allowing me the honor of adjourning the Senate in honor of a friend, Andy Fensalau, who left us way too soon on June 21st. I will always think of Andy as somebody who would just light up with his big smile and talking about the next idea to improve the world.

We started together the Board Fellows Program, what became the Stanford Business School Board Fellows Program, which connected business school students with the boards of nonprofit organizations so they could get involved earlier in their careers and not wait to the end of their careers. And he loved the program. This became a model for lots of other schools.

And he himself served for 15 years on the board of Acterra, which is a really important environmental nonprofit in our area. And he served on the board of Grassroots Ecology on Sustainable Schools International. And he found a real passion when he and his wife Suzanne adopted a child from Cambodia, Nick.

And he's got super involved in charitable work and philanthropy in that country. And I just looked. He's still on the board of. He's listed as Vice Chair of Caring for Cambodia, which does schools and career work and all kinds of incredible programs in Cambodia. That was just a huge passion of his.

And I just went on the caring bridge. Already had 7,000 comments. I just want to read two things from classmates that I saw were posted. So we were classmates together. One said, I've never met anyone like him.

The most contagious smile and warm personality, the utmost charisma and intelligence and wisdom and humor all combined into one beautiful, yummy soul and friend. Another said, every conversation with Andy started with a wild smile and ended up with loud laughter.

He had a long, successful career in tech marketing, but his passion was all these things outside of his career. And it was just a shock. I just can't express how much it was a shock to me and so many of our classmates, but it was really incredible to see the outpouring of support.

And our thoughts are with his wife, Suzanne, his kids, Nick and Becca, Sam, and we just think of them. And please join me in adjourning the Senate in his memory. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Our condolences to his family. Please bring his name up to the front so that he may be properly memorialized. And if there is no other business, Senator Mcguire. The desk is clear.

Thank you so much, Madam President. Madam President was saying to me earlier this morning, please correct me if I'm wrong, that you'd love to be able to spend Thursday here into the afternoon. Am I right, Madam President?

No, actually, I said into the evening.

Okay, there we go. Exactly. So, just as we talked about last Thursday to know, emails have gone out to staff. Please prepare for a two and a half to three and a half hour session on Thursday. There will be three budget votes coming up on Thursday. In addition, we will have some policy on the floor as well.

So Members should anticipate a two and a half to three and a half hour session. Folks would like to better stay here as long as possible and we want to grant that wish as you were about to leave on your summer work period. Very grateful for everyone's grace in that and appreciate everyone's patience.

The next floor session is scheduled for Thursday, July 17th at 9am thank you, madam President.

Thank you. The Senate is adjourned. We will reconvene Thursday, July 17th at 9am.