September 24, 2026 · JUDICIARY · 6,929 words · 5 speakers · 102 segments
Online Carol designation Donahue designation and bitch designation online Hohenstein designation Howard designation Kenyatta designation online Kincaid designation Mays designation P.L.A. Rab designation Sanchez designation online Schusterman designation online chairman Kaufman here representatives Bonner designation Borowitz here ham designation Kerwin clunk designation Krupa here Kuzma designation Ledbetter designation
Margettis? Here. Pugh? Here. Rigby? Here. Mr. Chairman, a quorum is present.
Thank you, Secretary. Having a quorum, we will proceed with today's agenda. Just everyone give me a second. So we are going to skip the first bill. Well, I think Representative Warren, not skip it, we're just going to go over it for the time being. Representative Warren, I believe, was coming today. So we're going to do the second bill on the agenda, Representative Hambridge and Fritz's co-prime bill, House Bill 2699. Counsel, please provide a brief description of the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. House Bill 2699 by Representative Hamage amends provisions in Title 23 related to the child fatality and near fatality reviews by expanding eligibility criteria for membership on the review teams. This bill takes effect in 60 days, and there is one amendment.
Counsel, please provide a brief description of Amendment A04227.
Yes, Mr. Chairman. Amendment A04227 by Chairman Briggs clarifies that the chairperson of the team shall determine on a case-by-case basis the involvement of additional individuals. Based on their specific expertise, these additional individuals may include the child, school teachers, mental health providers, guardian ad litems, primary care providers, among others. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, counsel. The question is, will the committee agree to the amendment on that question? Are there any comments or questions on the amendment? Chairman Kaufman, you're in order on the amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for bringing up this bill. This bill, as it is, is a very good bill. I do have concerns with the amendment A04227. The Pennsylvania Children and Youth Administrators, they've expressed concern that this amendment's mandatory language, which requires the inclusion of an extensive list of participants, could create significant challenges for county child welfare agencies responsible for implementing and enforcing the provisions of this act. Just for example, if one or more of the enumerated participants are not in attendance at a required review, the county agency could ultimately be cited for non-compliance despite having no authority or ability to compel those individuals to participate. Because there are no mechanisms available to require or compel the participation of these individuals, participation should remain optional as provided in the underlying bill. And these enforcement provisions make it problematic, and for those reasons, I urge a no vote on the amendment. and if the amendment is added, will be a no on the bill. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman. Are there any other comments on the bill? Seeing none, what's that? I'm sorry, on the amendment. So the question is we're going to consider the amendment. Chairman Kaufman spoke in opposition. I'm supporting the amendment, and also I know Representative Hanbridge is open to continue conversations on this bill and all of her work that she does. So, Secretary, please call the roll on the amendment. All Democrats will be voting yes. And all Republicans will be in the no. Thank you. So we're on. The question is House Bill 2699 as amended. Will the committee report the bill? Are there any comments on the bill as amended? I think we covered everything. So we were going to go to a roll call. unless Representative Hambridge, if you wanted to add anything.
No, just thank you for running the bell. I really appreciate it, and I think we can help people more.
Thank you, Representative Hambridge. So, Secretary, please call the roll. All Democrats will be voting yes. All Republicans will be voting no. Thank you. House Bill 2699 passes and will be reported as committed. So we are now continuing to wait for Representative Warren. So we will now jump to House Bill 2744. Chair calls up House Bill 2744. Council, please provide a description of the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. House Bill 2744 by Chairman Briggs clarifies the intent of the General Assembly in passing Act 44 last session with respect to that bill's provisions regarding technical probation violations. A technical probation violation is something like missing an appointment, traveling out of state without prior approval, or failing to pay fines, costs, and restitutions. Technical probation violations are not allegations of new crimes. on technical parole violations. Act 44 introduced a recidivist sentencing structure so that a first and second technical probation violation would not result in a probation revocation, resentencing, and the possible imposition of jail time. This bill adds language to this section of Act 44 to clarify that the graduated sentencing scheme for technical probation violations introduced by Act 44 hinges on the number of violation hearings as opposed to the number of technical violations alleged in an individual hearing. The bill takes effect in 60 days and there are no
amendments. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you Council. The question is will the committee report the bill House Bill 2744? Are there any comments on the bill? Representative Krupa, you are in order on the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to be a no on this bill. I think that any crafty defense attorney is going to make sure that there's continuances requested so that as many alleged violations are rolled into one hearing. I think that this should be something that the sentencing court has a little bit more discretion in rather than reducing it to however many violations are alleged in one particular hearing. I appreciate the intent behind this bill, but I will be a no. Thank you. Thank you. Any Chairman Kaufman on the bill?
Thank you. In the interest of time, I'm going to dispense with my remarks. Representative articulated them well and far more succinctly than I would have, so I'm going to be a no, as will all Republicans on this bill. Thank you.
That's a shame. This, I think, is a really solid bill to try to underline the intent of what Act 44 did last year over a couple sessions of debate regarding trying to, you know, somebody has a violation, they have to have the opportunity to learn from their mistake before they get the second or third penalty. So we're just trying to kind of emphasize what the original intent of this was. It is late in the session, but I do anticipate if we can't get this done in the next few weeks, working on this topic a lot next session. So I'm going to call it up. I called it up. We're going to be voting on it. House Bill 2744.
Secretary, please call the roll. All the Democrats will be voting yes. And all Republicans are in the negative.
House Bill 2744 passes and will be reported as committed. Next on the agenda is the first bill we were going to do. I'm going to be calling up House Bill 1097 introduced by Chair Warren. Chair Warren has, I believe, joined us for some brief remarks on his bill. When you are situated, you are in order.
Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for listening at first. Sorry, I was a few minutes delinquent. So this bill passed in the House Judiciary Committee last session, and since that time there's been a few things reported in the news. This bill would end live pigeon chute contests in Pennsylvania. A couple things have been reported in the news. One, that we are reputedly the only state that does not explicitly illegalize or indirectly illegalize pigeon chutes. And secondly, I've said that there was only one pigeon chute contest in Pennsylvania, that being in Bucks County, where I'm from. Hence, I was a natural person to sponsor this bill. But apparently in the past month or so, there was yet another live pigeon chute contest here in Dauphin County. And I don't think Pennsylvania wants to be the tourist spot for live pigeon chutes. And I'd respectfully request that, as we did two years ago, that the Judiciary Committee vote yes in support of this bill. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Chairman Perry. Council, anything to add on the bill?
Mr. Chairman, House Bill 1097 by Representative Warren amends Title 18 to prohibit pigeon shoots in the Commonwealth, rather for amusement or as a test of skill. The bill takes effect in 60 days, and there are no amendments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Council. The question is, will the committee report the bill, House Bill 1097? Are there any comments on the bill?
Yeah.
Representative Borowitz, you are in order on the bill.
I just have a question for Chairman Warren, I believe it is. Did you vote for the constitutional amendment to allow the killing of babies till birth that occurred in the House in December? I don't believe there was such a constitutional amendment. To allow abortion on demand all the way till 40 weeks in December? Did you vote for that bill and that constitutional amendment? I'm not sure that is the topic of the bill.
So I'd be recognizing you on House Bill 1097.
No, I have no comments other than that. I find it not humorous that the whole party of the Democrat Party in December right before Christmas voted on a constitutional amendment to allow the killing of unborn human babies in the womb until 40 weeks. And this is what this chairman is concerned about. Thank you.
Chairman Kaufman on House Bill 1097.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm in my 22nd year of service here in the House of Representatives. this bill has been around I think all of those years it's been here and throughout those years these events have diminished in Pennsylvania have become culturally less popular and acceptable and are far less prevalent now than they were back then but as I've served these last many years I've never walked down the street of Chambersburg in Oregon had someone come up to me and ask me to deal with this issue. And in a time we are right now in Pennsylvania we have we under the Supreme Court mandate on two separate issues felony murder as well as skill games here in Pennsylvania We have huge issues from electricity prices energy prices to data centers moratorium on data centers Huge issues that Pennsylvanians on a daily basis, property taxes, coming to me and asking me that we should deal with. and you know I hear regularly from people well you know we we can walk and chew gum at the same time no actually this legislature cannot walk and chew gum at the same time we have passed approximately 170 pieces of legislation out of this committee over 100 of them sit and await action on the House calendar. And that is exactly what will happen with this. We are wasting legislative time today dealing with something that will never be voted on the House calendar. While we will be, in a few minutes, we will be neutering the Beagle Bill, the great Beagle Bill that was reported out of the Senate unanimously. We will be neutering the best parts of that Beagle bill while attempting to pretend that we're protecting pigeons. So we're going to be voting for pigeons here and then neutering the beagle bill so it has very little teeth left in it. So at this point, I will be voting no, as many of my colleagues. I think we have important issues to deal with for Pennsylvanians. This may be one someday, but this is not the one today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Any comments other than the long-winded that we spent too much time talking about this bill? A comment? Anyone else before we go to a vote?
I think it's an important bill. I know Chair Warren's been advocating for a long time. There was one that you said was Philadelphia. It's Bucs. Now there's two. You know, I agree with Chair Warren. I don't want Pennsylvania to be the destination for these activities. I think they're wrong, and they should be limited. And, Secretary, please call the roll. All the Democrats will be yes. Chairman Kaufman?
No.
Representatives Bonner? Representative Bonner will be abstaining due to a conflict as disclosed to the chairman. Understood. Representative Borowitz? No. Ham? No. Kerwin? Clunk? No. Krupa?
No.
Kuzma? No. Ledbetter? No. Margettis? No. Pugh? Rigby.
Mr. Chairman, this bill passes a vote of 14 to 11. Thank you. This bill passes. It will be reported to the floor. Congratulations, Chair Warren.
Thank you, Chair.
Next on the agenda, the Chair will call up House Bill 2752 by Representatives Burgos and Young. The Council will please provide a description on House Bill 2752.
Mr. Chairman, House Bill 2752 by Representatives Burgos and Young. amends Title 18, Chapter 30, which is human trafficking, and Section 3021, which is an asset forfeiture to require individuals convicted of human trafficking to forfeit property used in or derived from the offense and prioritizes the use of forfeited assets to pay restitution to victims. The bill takes effect in 60 days. There are no amendments.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, counsel. The question is, will the committee report the bill? Are there any comments on House Bill 2752? Are there any negative votes on 2752 before we go to roll?
Representative Raab would like to be a no vote. All the other Democrats will be yes. And all Republicans are yes.
Thank you. House Bill 2752 passes and will be reported as committed. it. Next on the agenda is House Bill 2758, introduced by a bunch of representatives, Representative Kenyatta, P.L.E., Hanbridge, Friel, and Warren. The chair is going to be recognizing Representative Kenyatta, who's on Zoom, and then we're going to go to Representative P.L.E. for some comments on the bill. Representative Kenyatta, you're in order. Thank you so much,
Mr. Chairman, for bringing this bill up. I guess it was just a couple of weeks ago where this body sat in Congress Hall in Philadelphia, not just to celebrate the 250th anniversary of our great nation, but more importantly, to celebrate our system of self-governance. And I think in this moment, this legislation is about ensuring that, about ensuring that that process of self-governance, which requires and allows people to vote in elections to make their voices heard, to choose their leaders and to choose the directions of their communities, that that's something we want to protect here in Pennsylvania. You know, over 90 years ago, the election code was passed. And in that section, it is crystal clear about the ways in which law enforcement can engage in our polling locations on election day. The statute currently speaks to the fact that law enforcement agents, unless they're calling to deal with a specific disturbance, cannot be within 100 feet of a polling location. Now, unfortunately, because of rhetoric and actions coming out of Washington, D.C., there are a lot of voters who are concerned. And so our legislation today really is about clarifying what Pennsylvania law is first and about providing additional clarity to federal agents and to voters about what is and isn't allowed under our law. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, as clearly as I can, in Pennsylvania, we have safe, free, and fair elections. A part of that safety is ensuring that people can show up on election day and not feel intimidated because there's law enforcement surrounding their polling location without a true law enforcement need to be there. And the idea that federal agents can come in or that federal agents are not included in that, we want to demystify that. Right now, federal agents are included in that. But because of the confusion that has come out of recent actions, we want to make sure that we are being as crystal clear as possible about what can and cannot happen in Pennsylvania as it relates to our elections. This legislation will clarify that, will make sure there's no possible confusion, and that anyone operating here in Pennsylvania, even if they are federal agents, have to follow the laws of this Commonwealth, and we want to be clear as possible about what those laws are. So I'm going to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing this up and an opportunity to speak on the
legislation. Thank you, Representative. Representative Piele, introductory comments on the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I speak on behalf of HP 2758 and hope for the support of all my colleagues because this is not a partisan issue. The right to legally vote without fear, obstruction, or intimidation is fundamental to our democracy. And in Pennsylvania, this is not a new commitment. It's an ongoing one. For generations, our laws and election officials have worked to protect voters and ensure that Pennsylvanians can participate in free and fair elections despite wars, depressions, and even pandemics. This legislation reinforces that work. It provides the additional clarity and reassurance around protections that every Pennsylvanian has valued and upheld for years. And at a time where there is so much uncertainty and heated rhetoric surrounding elections, our responsibility is to be clear about the rules, protect the integrity of the process, and continue to give voters confidence that they can exercise their right to vote without interference. This is not about reinventing Pennsylvania's election system. It's about reaffirming the principles that have been part of our Commonwealth's traditions for generations and making sure those protections remain clear and effective. Mr. Chairman, the hour is upon us and the choice is clear that we legislators must once again heed that sacred oath that we took to support, obey and defend the Constitution and all the processes it entails. As President Roosevelt once said, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. We have it within our power today to allay those fears together as Democrats and Republicans and continue our centuries-old journey of freedom and liberty and the republic for which it stands. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Representative. Counsel, anything to add on House Bill 2758?
Yes, Mr. Chairman. The bill also includes, there's a clarification, but there's also provides a civil remedy for individuals that have been aggrieved by a law enforcement officer at the polling places to bring a civil action. The bill takes effect in 60 days. There's one amendment.
Please provide a brief description of Representative Peele's amendment A04260.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment changes the effective date from 60 days to immediately.
Thank you. Counsel, will the committee agree to the amendment, Amendment A-4-2-6-0? Are there any questions or comments on the amendment? Representative Krupa, you're in order on the amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I mean, we can certainly tell that we're on the eve of an election to try to create some kind of mass hysteria that our law enforcement officers at any level are going to have a systematic, widespread attempt to interfere with our right to vote at the polling places is just absurd. If this is America, we have our United States Constitution, we are blessed with the Pennsylvania Constitution. If some random rogue police officer decides to interfere with an individual's right to exercise their right to lawfully vote on Election Day, there are remedies under Section 1953 in the Civil Rights Act. But to do this knee-jerk reaction for political brownie points at this time of year is just that. It's for political goodwill. It's absurd. It's insulting to our law enforcement officers. And everybody here should be a no. Thank you.
Any other comments on the bill or on the amendment? Representative Borowitz, what's on the amendment?
it's just almost laughable that the new what patriotic Democrat Party that's acting like they actually care about our Constitution now care about the integrity of elections if they cared about the integrity of elections they'd want voter ID right they wouldn't want illegals voting and they certainly wouldn't want mass mail-out ballots that have been proposed by the Democrat Party so this is the unwanted that they don't want accountability in elections That's the purpose of this bill. And again, they're showing their hand all while claiming to be patriotic. It's laughable at best. Thank you.
Any other comments on the amendment? Secretary, please call a roll on amendment A04260.
All Democrats will be yes. All Republicans will be in the no.
Thank you. Amendment passes. Question recurs. Will the committee report the bill as amended? Any comments on the bill as amended? Representative Rigby, you are in order on the amendment.
MR. Thank you, Chairman. I sorry on the bill MR If I can get clarification let say there an incident in the polling place a fight breaks out and 911 dispatches police to see it Are we permitting the police to come in to do their lawful duties? It's kind of a gray area. I just want clarification that they are allowed when they are dispatched if there is an incident.
Counsel will answer this.
Counsel? Mr. Chairman, that's already an existing law. We're not changing that, where if law enforcement is summons to a polling place, they're allowed to be in there. But that's already in current law that we're not changing.
Anything else, Mr. Rigby? Representative Rigby, any other comments?
I was looking for it in this bill. I just didn't see it. So I'm missing something somewhere. If the clarification is in another bill, then – It's in the underlying law.
Because I just want to make sure we're not prohibiting them from doing their job.
Absolutely. Representative Pugh on the bill as amended. Yes, I have a question also on the bill. So in Luzerne County, we decided to send election machines out without paper, and we have a nickname for it up there, Papergate. law enforcement actually had to deliver the paper into each ward with a weapon and their badge on to make sure that the elections could proceed i i'm one that does not like loopholes i don't see where that loophole is closed they're not being dispatched there for 9-1-1 or to settle the piece but they are entering within that 100 foot range so if somebody doesn't want them there they could
be fined. I'm sorry,
counsel, please. Mr. Chairman, it's the same except there's an exception to the 100-foot rule. It's been in the election code for quite a long time that if they're summonsed or asked to be there, they could be there legally. So like in the case from Luzerne County, it seems like there was necessity for them to be there. So there's no issue with that. But after their existence in the polling place, after their time there for that purpose ends, then it's the 100-foot rule. And like Representative Kenyatta said, the 100-foot rule has been on the books for like 100 years. So this is not new. This is not new to Luzerne County. Everybody knows that if the election officials ask a law enforcement officer to come in for whatever purpose, they have a right to be there. and there's no loophole here. That's just existing law, existing exception.
Okay, understood. And like you said, the 100-foot rule's been on the books for 100 years and been there forever. And so the part of the law enforcement coming in is covered under the election law that's been there forever. So the lack of words sometimes causes fear in people. So if we're amending something that's been there for 100 years versus something that is already on the election law, I think it would be clearer to actually include it in something that we're amending. That's all. Thank you.
I mean, that's the way the LRB drafts these bills. They don't rewrite the whole law and then insert the amendment. They reference to where the amendment language is going in. But I mean, I've had that challenge as well. So any other comments on the bill as amended, Chair, anyone else before we go to the chair? Chairman Kaufman, you're in order.
Under Title 44, Section 7152, elected constables and their deputies are mandated by Pennsylvania statute to be present at polling places and preserve and keep the peace during elections. this is required under law, and I'm not sure where this is provided for. This appears to create a specific conflict, and if it doesn't create a conflict, well, I'm very concerned that this would create vagueness in folks' mind.
Any closing comments? Representative Kenyatta, I see your camera on.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just say briefly, I appreciated some of the questions that were made. And unlike some of the other comments, I'm not going to question anybody's patriotism or really respond to some of the language. But this is actually about addressing some of the vagueness that voters feel and about ensuring that this law that has been on the books for 90 years is as clear as possible and that people can show up to the polls on Election Day with no confusion, no fear in their hearts, and only with their God-given light to exercise their vote and to make their voice heard. And so, as the gentleman from Chester County said, this is a bipartisan bill. This is not about benefiting any political party. And frankly, it's not about politics. It's not about goodwill. It's about assuaging the fear and concern that is being shared with my office and with others. And frankly, there is federal litigation right now on this very issue to respond to some of the comments that have been made at the federal level about what intentions might be. And so we want to make sure that our law, which is on the books, is as clear as possible. And that's what this language does, provides clarity and also provides a remedy for any voter that has their rights infringed upon to go before a court of law and to provide evidence about what happened. And I know myself and everybody on the Democratic side of the aisle, not only do we care about having free and fair elections, we want to make sure those elections are free and fair. Frankly, even for folks who aren't going to vote for, you know, the candidates that I like or prefer. And that's what this is about, providing additional clarity. And I'm happy that we can do so today with this legislation. Thank you.
Thank you. I think the clarity is definitely important, and the private right of action, I think, is important to add, too. I just wanted to address a little bit about the constables. The constables don't have arrest power. They are there to enforce the conduct and activity of the election. That is their role in the election code. But I don't think anyone in my community thinks that they are going to be arrested for anything from a constable. So I don't know if that's confusion. But I just wanted to mention that the bill's been amended. It's in front of us. We are going to bring it up for a vote. I don't see where it is in my script, but what's the number? House Bill 2758 as amended.
Secretary, please call the roll. Chairman Briggs. Yes. Representatives Abney. All the Democrats will be yes. Chairman Kaufman. All Republicans are no.
House Bill 2758 passes and will be reported as amended. Thank you, representatives. Next on the agenda, I will be calling up Senator Mastriano's and Senator Commita's bill, Senate Bill 381. I did ask Senator Mastriano if he wanted to say any opening comments, but he graciously declined to keep the meeting going. Thank you for that, and it's great that you are here, sir. Counsel, please provide a brief description of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, Senate Bill 381 by Senator Mastriano and Commita establishes Chapter 58A titled Animal Experimentation Sale and Certain Testing Prohibited in Title 35 to Prohibit the Use of Commonwealth Funds for Certain Research on Cats and Dogs, restricts the sale of animals for non-compliant breeders, requires adoption and reporting of research animals, bans cosmetic animal testing of all animals after 2027, with limited exception. Mr. Chairman, the bill takes effect in 180 days, and there is one amendment.
Council, please provide a brief description of Amendment A04284.
Mr. Chairman, the Briggs Amendment takes private entities out of the definition of animal testing facility in subchapter. A, the amendment provides guidelines to protect cats and dogs when Commonwealth funds may be used to support research. The amendment makes it clear that all animal testing facilities, including private facilities, must comply with the animal adoption standards. And the amendment deletes portions of the bill that would regulate breeders that breed for the use in research that are already strictly regulated by the federal government and currently none exist in the Commonwealth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. The question is, will the committee agree to the amendment on that question? Are there any comments on the amendment? Chairman Kaufman, on the amendment, you're in order.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senate Bill 381 was a well-done, well-thought-out bill that passed unanimously in the Senate. And now today in this amendment, this amendment guts, it takes out some of the best provisions of this legislation. And I'm going to read through them because I think the people of Pennsylvania need to know what is being stripped out of the bill today. It requires animal testing facilities receiving Commonwealth funds to comply with Pennsylvania's animal cruelty laws and the whistleblower law removed. Requires an animal to remain available for adoption for at least 30 days before it may be euthanized. The attending veterinarian retains sole authority to determine whether the animal is suitable for adoption. That provision was removed in this amendment that we're going to be considering. Makes a facility or other person that fails to perform a duty under the research provisions ineligible for Commonwealth funding for one year. That provision being removed. Prohibits dealers and kennels from selling dogs or cats bred by kennels with serious or repeated adjudicated federal animal welfare violations. That's being removed. Requires the Secretary of Agriculture to revoke a kennel or dealer's license following a conviction for specified federal animal welfare or animal crushing offenses. That's being removed. It requires persons in kennels breeding dogs or cats for research to maintain detailed acquisition, care, transfer, and disposition records for two years. That's being removed. I'm sorry that these provisions are being removed from what was a very good bill. I don't know all the reasons why that is happening, but out of great deference to my friend and Senator Masterano and his effort to get something done on this issue and my friends at PA Humane, I'm going to be supporting the amendment and the bill. but I'm very frustrated and sad that we can't pass out a clean bill today to exactly what the Pennsylvania Senate did.
Well, I appreciate your support for my amendment. That's a ringing endorsement there that you just said. I just want to – I was going to save this for the full vote, but there is – I just want everyone to clarify. This is kind of some long history that I'm going to share what is actually included in this amendment.
First, I want to thank all the stakeholders who worked over the summer to carefully craft this amendment. I want to thank Phoebe for coming. She's adorable. And over the last months, I've met Phoebe, I think, in my office once or twice, and the advocacy really is important. We were able to I think find a really important balance on this amendment with the support of the humane folks and also the research side of things There is such important work in Pennsylvania with regards to world-class research institutions. I really thought their voice was really important in this dialogue to make sure we did something right. This is largely very federally regulated. A lot of the things that were in the list are federally regulated. Some things that we didn't get to, I think we will in the future, but I think they have to be done through the dog law. So this bill will make Pennsylvania the 18th state to grant dogs and cats an opportunity to be adopted into a loving home after the experiments are over. And importantly, this applies to all research facilities in the state. This bill will prohibit the sale of cosmetics that have been newly tested on animals. This language aligns Pennsylvania with 12 other states and 45 countries that already have passed laws to end cruel and unnecessary animal testing for cosmetic products and ingredients. This bill will require animal testing facilities to publish a link to the United States Department of Agriculture Animal Care Public Search Tool, and it can spit you a spot on their website. This tool will allow the public to look up the research facilities' annual reports, inspection reports, and any other enforcement actions taken by USDA. This amendment will make the bill prevent the expenditure of any Commonwealth funds for dog and cat experiments unless the facilities are complying with federal research oversight provisions, including ensuring the research protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and conducted under the oversight of an attending veterinarian. That's more expansive than what Chairman Kaufman said was removed. And finally, this bill will allow the Attorney General to initiate a civil action for violations. I believe this amendment will make Pennsylvania a national leader in protecting animals used in research. I know at times we felt like we would not see this day by many sides, but I appreciate everyone's hard work and commitment to stay in the conversation and making sure we get something good done for Pennsylvania and their animals. I urge all the members to vote yes on the amendment. Are there any other comments on the amendment?
Secretary, please call the roll on the amendment.
All the Democrats will be yes. Chairman Kaufman.
Yes.
Representatives Bonner. Yes. Borowitz. Ham. Yes. Kerwin. Clunk. Yes. Krupa.
Yes.
Kuzma. Yes. Ledbetter. Yes. Margettis. Yes. Pugh. Yes. Rigby. Mr. Chairman, the amendment passes unanimously.
Great. Thank you. The amendment passes. The question recurs, will the committee report the bill as amended? Are there any comments on the bill as amended? it. Seeing none, we are going to just pause. I do want to thank all participants in getting something done for animal welfare and safety. And I think this is a good product. It would have been much easier if I just introduced the bill under my own name and started, you know, not rewriting a bill. But under, you know, Senator Mastriano is moving on and this has been his baby for a long time, and I don't want to do that to him and Senator Comita. So drafting is hard, but sometimes you've got to start fresh, and I think people are willing to do that. So the question is, will the committee support Senate Bill 381 as amended? Secretary, please call the roll. All Democrats will be yes.
All Republicans are yes.
Senate Bill 381 as amended passes and will be sent to the floor with that recommendation. Thank you, Secretary, and congratulations, Senators, and all the advocates. Big day. So we're on to a couple resolutions. I will be calling up House Resolution 594 by Representative Webster. Representative Webster shared that he had a conflict, a speaking engagement, and would not be able to join us. Counsel, please provide a brief description of the resolution.
Mr. Chairman, House Resolution 594 by Representative Webster directs the Joint State Government Commission to conduct a study of Pennsylvania parole process and offer recommendations for reform. The report is due within 18 months and shall be submitted to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. There's one amendment.
Council, please provide a brief description of Amendment A04-221.
Mr. Chairman, the Briggs Amendment removes a resolved clause that would have made this study difficult to complete. This amendment was drafted in consultation with the JSGC. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Council. Will the committee agree to the amendment? Are there any questions on the amendment? A04-221. Any comments? Any negative votes on the amendment? Seeing no negative votes, if the Secretary could report it as passing unanimous. We are on the resolution as amended. The question recurs, will the committee report the bill as amended? Are there any comments on the resolution as amended? Are there any negative votes on the resolution as amended? So we will do a roll call.
All the Democrats will be yes on the resolution as amended. Chairman Kaufman.
Yes.
Representatives Bonner. Yes. Borowitz. Yes. Ham. Yes. Kerwin. Yes. Clunk. Yes. Krupa. Kuzma. Yes. Ledbetter. Yes. Margettas. Yes. Pugh. Yes. Rigby. Mr. Chairman, the resolution passes a vote of 25 to 1.
Thank you. Secretary, House Resolution 594 passes and will be reported as amended. Thank you. Our final action is House Resolution 618, introduced by Representatives Doherty and Flick. The chair is Representative Doherty here. Oh, I see Representative Doherty on teams. I will recognize you for some brief remarks on your resolution. When you're ready, you're in order.
Thank you, Chairman Briggs, Chairman Kaufman. I'd really like to thank my co-sponsor, Representative Flick, on this, as well as former Rep and Judge Tom Merck and his advocacy on this issue. This resolution is pretty simple. This is not a D or R issue. This is an MH issue, and it's just a study to see what mental health treatments are being conducted in our county jails throughout this Commonwealth. I respectfully ask for a yes vote on this resolution. Thank you.
Thank you, Representative. And I remember your local judge, Judge Mert, very well when he was in the House. He's a colleague of ours for a long time. The question is, will the committee report the resolution? Are there any comments on the resolution? Chairman Kaufman, you're in order.
I have issues with some of the holdings of the resolution, that the mental health treatment is either shoddy or non-existent, not the exact words. It concerns me because I do believe that many of our corrections institutions attempt to do their very best, and some of them do very well in how they handle it. But I do believe it needs study, so I'm not going to hold the study hostage hostage to the less than stellar language of the resolution. So with that, I'll be a yes.
Thank you. And we can talk about some of that. I'm not sure if, I don't, I think, I know we don't want to do amendments on the floor on resolutions. I don't know what that policy is, but possibly Representative Dockery and I can talk with you when we come back next week. So any other comments on the bill, on the resolution? I apologize. Did I see it? Okay. So the question is, will the committee report the resolution, House Resolution 618? Are there any negative votes on the resolution? Seeing none, if the Secretary could please report it, it passes and will be reported as committed. Just a couple quick comments. You can leave if you want. I do want to, this may be, you know, I'm not sure, but I do want to thank all the members of the committee, Chairman Kaufman, his staff, my staff, all the hard work during this legislative session. Chairman Kaufman mentioned it. We have passed 180 pieces of legislation. 30% have been bills introduced by the minority party, which I'm proud of. I guess we could have cleaned up our list and made less bills. But I think the minority party had important bills that should be addressed as well. I think on a lot of issues, we learned to work together. I do appreciate everyone for that. There have been some difficult meetings, and we have taken on some of the most controversial issues facing the Commonwealth. For the most part, we have done so in a very civil manner. I have enjoyed getting to know the members of the committee. Hope we can continue to grow on that relationship into next session. We all fight for what we believe in, and we're all trying to do what we think is right for our communities. I just hope it can be done professionally and respectfully. Just a quick reminder. I think a notice has been out. We will have a joint informational meeting with the Transportation Committee on Monday, 9 a.m., in this room, to learn about automated license plate reader systems. It is an important topic. there's a lot of bills on that subject that has been referred to our committee I have not I need to learn more about automated license plate readers I think the hearing will do us all good to if you can't come to read the testimony or watch the video thank you members this meeting stands adjourned
Thank you. Thank you.