The California Assembly Floor Session on May 1, 2025, focused on Assembly Bill 379, which aims to strengthen protections for minors, specifically 16 and 17-year-olds, against human trafficking. Assemblymember Schultz introduced amendments to the bill, emphasizing the need for robust laws to protect young victims and support survivors. He highlighted existing state laws that already classify contacting minors for sexual purposes as a felony, asserting that California has strong protections in place.

However, the discussion quickly became contentious, with Assemblymember De Maio criticizing the amendments as insufficient and accusing the Democratic caucus of failing to adequately protect minors. He argued that the proposed changes would dilute penalties for those who exploit young victims, framing the amendments as mere "lip service" to the issue of human trafficking.

Assemblymember Krell, a co-author of the bill, stressed the importance of recognizing minors as victims rather than criminals, referencing the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. She called for clear legal definitions that would ensure that soliciting a minor for sex is treated as a felony.

The debate saw passionate exchanges, with several members expressing personal stories related to human trafficking and the impact on families. Assemblymember Tongi Paa shared a heartfelt account of a family member affected by trafficking, urging colleagues to prioritize the safety of children.

Despite the emotional weight of the discussions, some members, including Assemblymember Gallagher, argued against the amendments, insisting that they would perpetuate a distinction in legal protections for 16 and 17-year-olds compared to younger minors. They called for a return to the original bill language, which they believed offered stronger protections.

As the session progressed, the tone remained heated, with accusations of political maneuvering and a lack of genuine concern for victims. Assemblymember Berman attempted to redirect the conversation, highlighting perceived hypocrisy among Republican colleagues regarding their responses to broader issues of child protection.

In conclusion, the Assembly's deliberations on AB 379 underscored deep divisions over how best to address the urgent issue of human trafficking and the protection of minors in California. The outcome of the vote on the amendments remains critical, as it will determine the legislative approach to safeguarding vulnerable youth in the state.