SACRAMENTO — The California State Assembly on April 20 adopted substitute floor amendments to Assembly Bill 379 after an extended and at times emotional debate over whether the law should classify purchasing a 16- or 17-year-old for sexual purposes as a felony.

Assemblymember Schultz, who offered the floor amendments, said the changes were drafted to "deliver a product that truly does ensure that California continues to care for the safety and well-being of every single child," and urged colleagues to support the amendments.

The debate centered on whether the amendments preserve criminal penalties and protections for 16- and 17-year-olds. Assemblymember Maggie Krell, the legislator who framed the original bill, argued the state must treat minors who are bought for sex as victims and said, "If you're 17 years old on a street corner and an old man comes up and purchases you for sex, that's rape. The exchange of money doesn't change that." Krell said she did not object to removing her name from the bill but insisted the law must clearly protect minors.

Assemblymember De Maio opposed the amendments and said they "pay lip service" by striking language that would make it a felony to purchase a 16- or 17-year-old; he told the chamber the change "takes away the ability of prosecutors to actually prosecute and punish individuals who purchase 16 and 17 year olds." De Maio led a motion under Assembly Rule 88 to consider the bill in its original form, arguing the legislative process had "broken down." That motion did not carry as proposed; the majority leader offered a substitute motion that governed how the bill would proceed on the floor.

Speakers on both sides cited existing law and prior bills. Several members referenced Penal Code section 288.3 and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act during remarks; Assemblymember Schultz said those laws already criminalize contacting a minor for sexual purposes in some circumstances. Others said recent committee changes and earlier legislation had carved out distinctions that left 16- and 17-year-olds less protected.

The Assembly first approved a substitute motion brought by the majority leader to take up the Schultz amendments on the floor; the roll call on that procedural substitute was Ayes 55, Noes 17. Later, a motion by Assemblymember Macedo to lay the amendments on the table failed (Ayes 21, Noes 53). The chamber then adopted the floor amendments on a recorded vote of Ayes 55, Noes 21. Immediately after adopting the amendments, the clerk announced that, pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2, AB 379 (as amended) was re-referred to the Appropriations Committee.

Members repeatedly said they wanted to center survivors and protect minors, but they disagreed sharply about whether the substitute amendments would achieve those goals or whether they weakened the bill. Assemblymember Tongipa recounted personal and community experiences with trafficking and urged the body to treat purchasing a minor as a felony. Assemblymember Calra and others defended the amendments as providing prosecutorial discretion in a range of fact patterns, including cases that might involve peers.

The floor action does not complete the bill's legislative path. Re-referral to the Appropriations Committee means AB 379 must clear that committee and then later be considered again by the full Legislature and the governor. The amendments adopted on April 20 and the committee referral set the bill's next procedural step in the legislative process.

Votes at a glance: substitute motion to take up Schultz amendments — Ayes 55, Noes 17 (passed); motion to lay amendments on table — Ayes 21, Noes 53 (failed); adoption of amendments on second reading — Ayes 55, Noes 21 (adopted); AB 379 re-referred to Appropriations Committee under Assembly Rule 77.2.

Background: AB 379 was discussed on the Assembly floor as members debated the proper criminal response to adults who solicit or purchase sexual acts from minors aged 16 and 17. Speakers cited Penal Code section 288.3 and California's statutory alignment with the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act. The bill has been the subject of previous committee action and public testimony, and the amendments adopted on the floor reflected one set of revisions to the original text.