Anti-sex trafficking of minors bill moves forward with amendment after heated debate
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KGET) — California lawmakers became engaged in a heated discussion after Democrats in the Assembly forced amendments to exclude 16- and 17-year-olds on the bill against the sex trafficking of minors.
Assembly Bill 379, which originally intended to make it a felony to solicit and purchase any minor under the age of 18 for sex, received forced amendments by Democratic leaders earlier this week to exclude cases when minors aged 16 or 17 are purchased for sex.
Democratic leaders said they were concerned about 16- and 17-year-old victims getting arrested for being forced to take part in illegal activity by traffickers.
State Sen. Shannon Grove introduces bill for additional protection for sex trafficking victims
They also added a new amendment saying, 'It is the intent of the legislature to adopt the strongest laws to protect 16- and 17-year-old victims and strengthen protections in support of survivors of human traffickers.'
At the Assembly meeting on Thursday, Republicans and some Democrats said this amendment doesn't propose any clear action.
That's when things got heated in the legislature.
'Wake up and realize you are on the wrong side of this issue,' Assemblymember Carl Demaio (R-San Diego) said.
Never miss a story: Make KGET.com your homepage
Some Democrats argued including trafficking victims between the ages of 16 and 17 could have unintended consequences.
'There could be a situation in which there's a 18-year-old and 17-year-old that are in high school together,' Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D-San Jose) said. 'There is a wide range of conduct that prosecutor should be able to use their ability for discretion.'
In the end, the majority of Democrats agreed to reject the Republican proposal to bring back the bill's original protections of 16- and 17-year-olds and instead approve their new amendments.
Assembly Bill 379 now heads to the Assembly Appropriations Committee with the amendment.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
21 minutes ago
- New York Times
Live Updates: Tensions Flare Between Protesters and Law Enforcement in L.A.
News Analysis National Guard troops in Los Angeles on Sunday. Gov. Gavin Newsom of California has formally asked the Trump administration to remove them. It is the fight President Trump had been waiting for, a showdown with a top political rival in a deep blue state over an issue core to his political agenda. In bypassing the authority of Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, a Democrat, to call in the National Guard to quell protests in the Los Angeles area over his administration's efforts to deport more migrants, Mr. Trump is now pushing the boundaries of presidential authority and stoking criticism that he is inflaming the situation for political gain. Local and state authorities had not sought help in dealing with the scattered protests that erupted after an immigration raid on Friday in the garment district. But Mr. Trump and his top aides leaned into the confrontation with California leaders on Sunday, portraying the demonstrations as an existential threat to the country — setting in motion an aggressive federal response that in turn sparked new protests across the city. As more demonstrators took to the streets, the president wrote on social media that Los Angeles was being 'invaded and occupied' by 'violent, insurrectionist mobs,' and directed three of his top cabinet officials to take any actions necessary to 'liberate Los Angeles from the Migrant Invasion.' 'Nobody's going to spit on our police officers. Nobody's going to spit on our military,' Mr. Trump told reporters as he headed to Camp David on Sunday, although it was unclear whether any such incidents had occurred. 'That happens, they get hit very hard.' The president declined to say whether he planned to invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act, which allows for the use of federal troops on domestic soil to quell a rebellion. But either way, he added, 'we're going to have troops everywhere.' Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, posted on social media that 'this is a fight to save civilization.' Mr. Trump's decision to deploy at least 2,000 members of the California National Guard is the latest example of his willingness and, at times, an eagerness to shatter norms to pursue his political goals and bypass limits on presidential power. The last president to send in the National Guard for a domestic operation without a request from the state's governor, Lyndon B. Johnson, did so in 1965, to protect civil rights demonstrators in Alabama. Image President Donald Trump in New Jersey on Sunday. On social media, he, his aides and allies have sought to frame the demonstrations against immigration officials on their own terms. Credit... Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times But aides and allies of the president say the events unfolding in Los Angeles provide an almost perfect distillation of why Mr. Trump was elected in November. 'It could not be clearer,' said Newt Gingrich, the former Republican House speaker and ally of the president who noted that Mr. Trump had been focused on immigration enforcement since 2015. 'One side is for enforcing the law and protecting Americans, and the other side is for defending illegals and being on the side of the people who break the law.' Sporadic protests have occurred across the country in recent days as federal agents have descended on Los Angeles and other cities searching workplaces for undocumented immigrants, part of an expanded effort by the administration to ramp up the number of daily deportations. On social media, Mr. Trump, his aides and allies have sought to frame the demonstrations against immigration officials on their own terms. They have shared images and videos of the most violent episodes — focusing particularly on examples of protesters lashing out at federal agents — even as many remained peaceful. Officials also zeroed in on demonstrators waving flags of other countries, including Mexico and El Salvador, as evidence of a foreign invasion. 'Illegal criminal aliens and violent mobs have been committing arson, throwing rocks at vehicles, and attacking federal law enforcement for days,' wrote Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary. Mr. Newsom, whom the president refers to as 'Newscum,' has long been a foil for Mr. Trump, who has repeatedly targeted California and its leader as emblematic of failures of the Democratic Party. 'We expected this, we prepared for this,' Mr. Newsom said in a statement to The New York Times. 'This is not surprising — for them to succeed, California must fail, and so they're going to try everything in their tired playbook despite the evidence against them.' Image Law enforcement officers and members of the California National Guard engaged protesters in downtown Los Angeles on Sunday. Credit... Gabriela Bhaskar/The New York Times On Sunday, the governor sent a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth formally requesting that Mr. Trump rescind the call-up of the National Guard, saying federal actions were inflaming the situation. He was echoed by other Democratic officials, who said the mounting demonstrations were the result of Mr. Trump's own actions. The president and his aides 'are masters of misinformation and disinformation,' Senator Alex Padilla of California, a Democrat, said in an interview. 'They create a crisis of their own making and come in with all the theatrics and cruelty of immigration enforcement. They should not be surprised in a community like Los Angeles they will be met by demonstrators who are very passionate about standing up for fundamental rights and due process.' Republicans defended Mr. Trump's moves, saying he was rightfully exercising his power to protect public safety. 'The president is extremely concerned about the safety of federal officials in L.A. right now who have been subject to acts of violence and harassment and obstruction,' Representative Kevin Kiley, Republican of California, said in an interview. He added: 'We are in this moment because of a series of reckless decisions by California's political leaders, the aiding and abetting the open-border policies of President Biden.' Trump officials said on Sunday that they were ready to escalate their response even more, if necessary. Tom Homan, the president's border czar, suggested in an interview with NBC News that the administration would arrest anyone, including public officials, who interfered with immigration enforcement activities, which he said would continue in California and across the country. Image Protesters in Pasadena, Calif., on Sunday. Credit... Alex Welsh for The New York Times Mr. Trump appears to be deploying against California a similar playbook that he has used to punish universities, law firms and other institutions and individuals that he views as political adversaries. Last month, he threatened to strip 'large scale' federal funding from California 'maybe permanently' over the inclusion of transgender athletes in women's sports. And in recent days, his administration said it would pull roughly $4 billion in federal funding for California's high-speed train, which would further delay a project that has long been plagued by delays and funding shortages. 'Everything he's done to attack California or anybody he fears isn't supportive of him is going to continue to be an obsession of his,' Mr. Padilla said. 'He may think it plays smart for his base, but it's actually been bad for the country.' White House officials said there was a different common denominator that explains Mr. Trump's actions both against institutions like Harvard and immigration protests in Los Angeles. 'For years Democrat-run cities and institutions have failed the American people, by both choice and incompetence,' Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said in a statement. 'In each instance,' she added, 'the president took necessary action to protect Americans when Democrats refused.'
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Hegseth returns to Capitol Hill to defend Trump's defense budget plan
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth will appear before Congress this week for the first time since his tumultuous confirmation to discuss the fiscal 2026 military budget, even though the full White House request for his department has yet to be released. Hegseth is scheduled to appear before both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees on Tuesday and before the House Armed Services Committee on Thursday. All three hearings are intended to be focused on funding issues for the next fiscal year. But questions from lawmakers are unlikely to stay only on that topic. Democratic lawmakers have already discussed plans to grill Hegseth on his use of non-secure messaging platforms ahead of overseas airstrikes, policy decisions ending outreach programs to women and minority recruits and the high-profile dismissals of multiple defense officials in recent months. The defense secretary will be accompanied by Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine in his first post-confirmation testimony, as well. Caine replaced Gen. CQ Brown after the latter was fired by President Donald Trump in February for unspecified reasons. Last week, Senate leaders said they didn't expect specifics on the president's defense budget plan for several more weeks. But lawmakers said they need to press forward on the issue now to have any hope of reaching a funding deal by October, the start of the new fiscal year. Senate Armed Services — 9:30 a.m. — G-50 Dirksen Navy/Marine Corps Budget Navy Secretary John Phelan, Acting Chief of Naval Operations Adm. James Kilby and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Eric Smith will testify on the fiscal 2026 budget request. House Armed Services — 10 a.m. — 2118 Rayburn Middle East/Africa Posture Gen. Michael Kurilla, head of U.S. Central Command, and Gen. Michael Langley, head of U.S. Africa Command, will testify on current challenges and the fiscal 2026 budget request. House Appropriations — 10 a.m. — H-140 Capitol FY2026 Defense Budget Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine will testify on the fiscal 2026 budget request. Senate Foreign Relations — 10 a.m. — 419 Dirksen Pending Nominations The committee will consider several pending nominations. Senate Appropriations — 2 p.m. — 192 Dirksen FY2026 Defense Budget Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine will testify on the fiscal 2026 budget request. House Appropriations — 3 p.m. — 2359 Rayburn FY2026 VA/Military Construction Budget The full committee will mark up its draft of the VA appropriations bill for fiscal 2026. House Armed Services — 10 a.m. — 2118 Rayburn Navy/Marine Corps Budget Navy Secretary John Phelan, Acting Chief of Naval Operations Adm. James Kilby and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Eric Smith will testify on the fiscal 2026 budget request. House Veterans' Affairs — 11 a.m. — 360 Cannon Pending Legislation The subcommittee on economic opportunity will consider several pending bills. House Armed Services — 3:30 p.m. — 2118 Rayburn Army Munition Industrial Base Department officials will testify on challenges and strategy with the Army munitions industrial base. Senate Armed Services — 9:30 a.m. — G-50 Dirksen Central Command Gen. Michael Kurilla, head of U.S. Central Command, will testify on current challenges and the fiscal 2026 budget request. House Armed Services — 10 a.m. — 2118 Rayburn FY2026 Defense Budget Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine will testify on the fiscal 2026 budget request. Senate Foreign Relations — 10 a.m. — 419 Dirksen Pending Nominations The committee will consider several pending nominations. Senate Appropriations — 10:30 a.m. — 192 Dirksen Army Budget Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll and Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George will testify on the fiscal 2026 budget request.
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Speaker Johnson teases follow-ups to the ‘one big, beautiful bill'
The 'one big, beautiful bill' may not be so singular, after all. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is teasing follow-up legislation to the megabill of President Trump's tax cut and spending priorities that Republicans can push though using the same special budget reconciliation process that requires only GOP votes. That tool can be used once per fiscal year, with the current fiscal year ending on Sept. 30. So after Republicans are done with the 'big, beautiful bill,' the GOP trifecta has, in theory, two more shots to muscle through party-line legislation before the next Congress comes into power after the midterms. Johnson floated plans for a second reconciliation bill while rebutting concerns from deficit hawks on the budget impact of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — which includes an extension of tax cuts and boosts to border and defense funding, with costs offset in part by new requirements on low-income assistance programs like Medicaid and food aid. 'Everyone here wants to reduce spending,' Johnson said Friday morning on CNBC. 'But you have to do that in a sequence of events. We have a plan, OK? This is the first of a multistep process.' 'We're going to have another reconciliation bill that follows this one, possibly a third one before this Congress is up, because you can have a reconciliation bill for each budget year, each fiscal year. So that's ahead of us,' Johnson continued, also pointing to separate plans to claw back money based on recommendations from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). 'We're also doing rescissions packages. We got the first one delivered this week from the White House, and that will codify many of the DOGE cuts.' The promise of another reconciliation bill is somewhat surprising given the crux of the debate that dominated the early weeks of the year: Should Republicans divide up their agenda into two bills, passing the first quickly to give Trump an early win on boosting funding for border enforcement and deportations? Or would putting all of Trump's priorities into one bill — which would contain both bitter pills and sweeteners for different factions of the razor-thin majority — be a better political strategy? Trump eventually said he preferred 'one big, beautiful bill,' a moniker that became the legislation's official title in the House last month. It's not clear what would be in a second piece of legislation. Multiple House Republicans who spoke with The Hill were unaware of plans for more reconciliation bills and were not sure what could be included in them. 'I think we need to see what's left on the table after the first one,' Rep. Michael Cloud (R-Texas) said. And to muster through multiple reconciliation bills is a delicate prospect. If members know more reconciliation bills are coming, that complicates the argument that everything in the current package — even policies some factions dislike that others love — need to stay in one megabill. The Speaker declined to elaborate on what might be in such a package when asked in a press conference last week. 'I'm not going to tell you that,' Johnson said. 'Let's get the first one done.' 'Look, I say this is the beginning of a process, and what you're going to see is a continuing of us identifying waste, fraud, abuse in government, which is our pledge of common sense, restoring common sense and fiscal sanity. So we have lots of ideas of things that might be in that package.' Republicans had started planning for the current legislative behemoth months before the 2024 election so they would be prepared to quickly execute on their policy wish list if they won the majority. 'This isn't something we just drew up overnight. So, we'll go through that same laborious process,' Johnson said. But some members have ideas of what else they'd like to see. Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) said that he'd hope a second bill would do more to tackle rolling back green energy tax credits and make further spending cuts. Ultimately, though, it will be Trump's call, Norman said: 'I know when the president gets involved, it adds a lot of value.' And Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas) speculated that passing the 'big, beautiful bill' would inspire members to keep going with another bill. 'People like the feeling of winning,' Pfluger said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
