PA Senate Floor Journal — 2026-06-01

The time of recess having expired, the Senate will come to order.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Cambria, Senator Langerholc. Senator LANGERHOLC. Mr. President, I request temporary Capitol leaves for Senator Farry, Senator Gebhard, Senator Martin, Senator Phillips-Hill, and Senator Kim Ward, and a legislative leave for Senator Brown.

Senator Langerholc requests temporary Capitol leaves for Senator Farry, Senator Gebhard, Senator Martin, Senator Phillips-Hill, and Senator Kim Ward, and a legislative leave for Senator Brown. Senator Tartaglione requests temporary Capitol leaves for Senator Boscola, Senator Costa, and Senator Hughes. Without objection, the leaves will be granted.

The bill will be placed on the Calendar. SB 1287 and HB 1963 -- Without objection, the bills were passed over in their order at the request of Senator LANGERHOLC. SB 803 (Pr. No. 851) -- The Senate proceeded to consideration of the bill, entitled: An Act providing for the establishment of first-time homebuyer savings accounts for first-time homebuyers in this Commonwealth; establishing the First-time Homebuyer Savings Account Program and the First-time Homebuyer Savings Account Fund; and imposing duties on the Treasury Department. Considered the second time and agreed to, Ordered, To be printed on the Calendar for third consideration. Upon motion of Senator LANGERHOLC, and agreed to by voice vote, the bill just considered was rereferred to the Committee on Appropriations. SB 806, SB 907 and SB 923 -- Without objection, the bills were passed over in their order at the request of Senator LANGERHOLC. HB 993 (Pr. No. 3229) -- The Senate proceeded to consideration of the bill, entitled: An Act amending Title 51 (Military Affairs) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in general provisions, providing for consolidated annual report; in veteran-owned small businesses, providing for veteranowned business logotype; and imposing a penalty. Without objection, the bill was passed over in its order at the request of Senator LANGERHOLC. Pursuant to Senate Rule 9, the bill was laid on the table. SB 1105 -- Without objection, the bill was passed over in its order at the request of Senator LANGERHOLC. SB 1235 (Pr. No. 1513) -- The Senate proceeded to consideration of the bill, entitled: An Act amending Title 61 (Prisons and Parole) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, further providing for Pennsylvania Parole Board. Considered the second time and agreed to, Ordered, To be printed on the Calendar for third consideration. SB 1259 (Pr. No. 1626) -- The Senate proceeded to consideration of the bill, entitled: An Act amending Title 61 (Prisons and Parole) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, further providing for investigation of circumstances of offense and for parole procedure. Considered the second time and agreed to, Ordered, To be printed on the Calendar for third consideration. SB 1261 (Pr. No. 1625) -- The Senate proceeded to consideration of the bill, entitled: An Act amending Title 35 (Health and Safety) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in Commonwealth services, further providing for assistance to fire companies and EMS companies; and, in grants to fire companies and emergency medical services companies, further providing for definitions, for publication and notice, for award of grants, for consolidation incentive, for publication and notice and for award of grants, repealing provisions relating to COVID-19 Crisis Fire Company and Emergency Medical Services Grant Program, to Emergency Medical Services COVID-19 Recovery Grant Program, to expiration of authority relating to COVID-19 Crisis Fire Company and Emergency Medical Services Grant Program and to expiration of authority relating to Emergency Medical Services COVID-19 Recovery Grant Program and further providing for annual reports. Considered the second time and agreed to, Ordered, To be printed on the Calendar for third consideration. JUNE 1, Upon motion of Senator LANGERHOLC, and agreed to by voice vote, the bill just considered was rereferred to the Committee on Appropriations. HB 1261, SB 1278, SB 1321, SB 1324 and HB 1442 -- Without objection, the bills were passed over in their order at the request of Senator LANGERHOLC. HB 2017 (Pr. No. 2556) -- The Senate proceeded to consideration of the bill, entitled: An Act amending the act of July 10, 1984 (P.L.688, No.147), known as the Radiation Protection Act, in general provisions, further providing for definitions; and, in fees, further providing for nuclear facility and transport fees. Considered the second time and agreed to, Ordered, To be printed on the Calendar for third consideration. SENATE RESOLUTION No. 245, ADOPTED Senator LANGERHOLC, without objection, called up from page 8 of the Calendar, Senate Resolution No. 245, entitled: A Resolution supporting the bipartisan Federal Veterans Traumatic Brain Injury Adaptive Care Opportunities Nationwide Act of 2025 and urging the Congress of the United States to pass the measure to expand and improve care for Pennsylvania veterans with chronic mild traumatic brain injury, including through innovative neurorehabilitation strategies that promote mental health and prevent suicide. Will the Senate adopt the resolution?

The resolution is adopted. Senator MARTIN, from the Committee on Appropriations, reported the following bills: SB 45 (Pr. No. 1627) (Rereported) An Act amending Titles 18 (Crimes and Offenses), 23 (Domestic Relations), 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure), 44 (Law and Justice), 61 (Prisons and Parole) and 63 (Professions and Occupations (State Licensed)) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in human trafficking, further providing for definitions, providing for the offense of promoting prostitution, for the offense of living off of prostituted persons and for the offense of patronizing prostitution and further providing for grants; in public indecency, further providing for prostitution and related offenses; establishing the Prevention of Human Trafficking Restricted Account; in child protective services, further providing for definitions; in sentencing, further providing for sexual offenses and tier system; in DNA data and testing, further providing for definitions; in interstate compacts, further providing for supervision of persons paroled by other states; and, in powers and duties relating to the Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, further providing for consideration of criminal convictions. SB 1277 (Pr. No. 1632) (Rereported) An Act amending the act of December 1, 1977 (P.L.237, No.76), known as the Local Economic Revitalization Tax Assistance Act, further providing for title of act, for construction, for definitions and for deteriorated areas; providing for ordinance and resolution limitations; further providing for exemption schedule and for procedure for obtaining exemption; and providing for public registry. SB 1313 (Pr. No. 1651) (Rereported) An Act amending Title 34 (Game) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in hunting and furtaking licenses, further providing for residents. Senator YAW, from the Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy, reported the following bill: SB 1236 (Pr. No. 1547) An Act amending the act of June 22, 1937 (P.L.1987, No.394), known as The Clean Streams Law, in other pollutions and potential pollution, further providing for potential pollution. Senator BAKER. Mr. President, I move that the Senate do now proceed to consideration of the bill reported from committee for the first time at today's Session. The motion was agreed to by voice vote. The bill was as follows: SB 1236. And said bill having been considered for the first time, Ordered, To be printed on the Calendar for second consideration. The following announcements were read by the Secretary of the Senate: TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 2026 12:00 P.M. STATE GOVERNMENT (to consider Senate Bills No. 599, 857, 1088, 1150 and 1183) 12:30 P.M. AGRICULTURE AND RURAL AFFAIRS (to Room 461 consider Senate Bill No. 866) Main Capitol 12:30 P.M. LABOR AND INDUSTRY (to consider Senate Room 8E-B Bills No. 142, 908 and 1269) East Wing (LIVE STREAMED) SB 1279 (Pr. No. 1756) (Amended) (Rereported) An Act providing for issuance of housing construction permits by executive agencies, for designation of Commonwealth Housing Regulatory Compliance Officer and for timelines for permits related to housing construction; and imposing duties on the Office of Transformation and Opportunity. SB 1281 (Pr. No. 1589) (Rereported) An Act amending the act of July 31, 1968 (P.L.805, No.247), known as the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, in planned residential development, providing for expedited high density housing approval. Off the Floor APPROPRIATIONS (to consider Senate Bills 1236; and House Bills No. 2403, 2404, 2405, 2406, 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 and 2411) Room 8E-A East Wing (LIVE STREAMED) Rules Committee Conference Room Off the Floor RULES AND EXECUTIVE NOMINATIONS Rules Committee (to consider Senate Resolution No. 321; and Conference Room certain Executive Nominations) WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 2026 10:15 A.M. TRANSPORTATION (to consider House Bills Room 461 Main Capitol 10:30 A.M. Room 461 PROFESSIONAL LICENSURE (to consider Main Capitol Senate Bills No. 1260 and 1353; and House Bill 10:30 A.M. FINANCE (to consider Senate Bill No. 576; and House Bills No. 852 and 853) Room 8E-A East Wing (LIVE STREAMED) THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 2026 11:30 A.M. LABOR AND INDUSTRY (public hearing on Carlow University 3333 5th Avenue nursing workforce shortages and the role of Pittsburgh private universities in developing a talent pipeline)

Senator Martin has returned, and his temporary Capitol leave is cancelled. JUNE 1, (Continued)

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Philadelphia, Senator Tartaglione. Senator TARTAGLIONE. Mr. President, I rise today because it has been 7,268 days since Pennsylvania last raised the minimum wage. Mr. President, everywhere you look, the cost of living is going up. Families are paying more for groceries, more for rent, more for childcare, more for transportation, more for healthcare, but wages for many Pennsylvanians have not kept pace. Our minimum wage remains stuck at $7.25 an hour, exactly where it has been for nearly two decades. This is why I continue to fight for Senate Bill No. 19, which will finally raise Pennsylvanians' minimum wage to $15 an hour. And while Pennsylvania continues dragging its feet, the national conversation has already moved far beyond us. Federal lawmakers have recently introduced legislation that would gradually raise the Federal minimum wage to $25 an hour. Meanwhile, Pennsylvania still ranks among the States refusing to modernize its laws. Mr. President, this is hurting our workers, our economy, and our competitiveness. Young workers leave Pennsylvania for neighboring States with higher wages and greater opportunity. Businesses struggle to fill jobs because wages simply are not keeping up with reality. Raising the minimum wage is about fairness and economic growth. When workers earn more money, they spend more money in their communities. Local businesses benefit; families become more stable; communities become stronger. And as we approach the budget deadline, we have a responsibility to address the affordability crisis facing working families across the Commonwealth. The House has passed minimum-wage legislation three times. Governor Shapiro has made it a priority every year since taking office. Now it is time for the Senate to stop standing in the way and finally raise Pennsylvanians' minimum wage. Thank you, Mr. President.

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Montgomery, Senator Collett. Senator COLLETT. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the United States Supreme Court and to be honest with my colleagues and with the people of Pennsylvania about what I believe we are watching unfold. On April 29, in a case called Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision that legal scholars are already calling one of the worst Supreme Court rulings of the past century. And here is what it did in plain English. Federal courts had ordered Louisiana to draw a second Blackmajority congressional district after finding that the State's existing map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by packing Black voters into a single district. Louisiana complied. Then, a group of non-Black voters turned around and sued the State, arguing that the very map the Federal courts had ordered was itself unconstitutional racial discrimination. Louisiana was trapped between two contradictory court orders, and the Roberts Court used that trap to gut what was left of the Voting Rights Act. The court struck down the map. It ruled that drawing a remedial Black-majority district to comply with the Voting Rights Act is itself unconstitutional discrimination against White voters, and it imposed a new legal standard that makes it almost impossible going forward for minority voters to challenge maps that dilute their political power. The law that protects Black and Latino and Asian American voters from having their votes erased turned into a weapon against the very communities it was written to protect. To understand what was just lost, you have to understand what was won. In 1965, when the Voting Rights Act became law, there were six Black Members of the United States House of Representatives, six. There were no Black Members of the United States Senate. In the entire American South, just 72 Black officials held elected office at any level of government. That was the legacy of the First Reconstruction's failure: a hundred years of poll taxes and literacy tests and Klan violence, of Black Americans physically prevented from casting a ballot. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 cemented the Second Reconstruction realized by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964, and the adoption of the 24th Amendment in 1964. Today, there are 67 Black Members of the United States Congress, including 62 in the House and 5 in the Senate. Across this nation, more than 10,000 Black Americans now hold elected office at every level of government from city council, to State House, to the United States Capitol. That is what the Voting Rights Act made possible. That is the multiracial democracy this court is now dismantling. And it is worth remembering Congress has had to defend the Voting Rights Act from this court before. In 1980, in a case called Mobile v. Bolden, the Supreme Court tried to narrow Section 2 by ruling that minority voters had to prove intentional discrimination, an almost impossible standard. Congress refused to accept it. In 1982, on a bipartisan basis, Congress amended Section 2 to make its intent unmistakable, a results test, not an intent test. Effects, not motives. Forty-three years later, the Roberts Court has now reimposed almost exactly the standard Congress overrode. They reversed the legislature, and, in some ways, what they did is worse than if they had simply struck the Voting Rights Act down outright. If the court had openly overruled Section 2, the country would have understood the moment for what it was. There would have been one clean line in the history books, and the public would have responded. Instead, the majority did something more cynical. Justice Alito wrote an opinion that pretends to leave Section 2 standing while quietly emptying it of meaning. The court invented evidentiary hurdles that minority voters cannot clear. It invited States to defend racially discriminatory maps simply by claiming--after the fact-that they were merely engaging in partisan gerrymandering, which the court told us in Rucho is none of the Federal court's business. The protection still exists on paper, it just does not function anywhere it was ever needed. Justice Kagan saw exactly what was happening, she read her dissent aloud from the bench, a rare and somber act. She wrote that this decision, quote, "renders Section 2 all but a dead letter" and called it the latest chapter in the majority's, quote, "now-completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act." The cynicism is the point. A clean overruling could have been answered by Congress. A quiet evisceration disguised as a technical clarification gives the court cover while, in real life, the consequences arrive within hours. And, colleagues, the consequences arrived within hours. Within 24 hours of the Callais ruling, the governor of Louisiana suspended an active congressional primary--voters were already casting ballots--so the legislature could redraw the map and eliminate the Black-majority district the courts had ordered. Within 48 hours, the governors of Tennessee and Alabama called special legislative Sessions to do the same. Mississippi prepared to redraw its State Supreme Court districts. South Carolina is being lobbied to wipe out its sole Black-represented seat. The President of the United States went on social media and told Republican-controlled States they should demand new maps, predicting his party could pick up more than 20 House seats by erasing minority districts across the South. Here is what has happened since, State by State: in Florida, the legislature met in a special Session on the same day the ruling came down. Within hours, it had passed a new congressional map. The governor signed it. Florida's map is now in litigation under the State Constitution, but it is in effect. Over 1.7 million Black voters in Florida now cast ballots under a map drawn for the explicit purpose of diminishing their political power. In Tennessee, what observers described as nearly record legislative speed, the General Assembly passed a new map that carves up the city of Memphis, shredding the only majority Black congressional district in the State. The governor signed it. That district was held by a Democrat. Under the new map, Republicans have a strong prospect of winning all nine of Tennessee's congressional seats. The NAACP has filed suit. The map is being enforced in the meantime. In Alabama, the legislature passed a measure authorizing the governor to suspend the congressional primary, even though voters had already cast ballots. Alabama was operating under a court order from the Supreme Court's own 2023 decision in Allen v. Milligan, which required it to maintain its current map through 2030. The State went back to Federal court and asked that order to be lifted, citing Callais. As of this week, that effort has been blocked, but the court order designed to last until 2030 is now a live target. In Mississippi, where the primary had already concluded, the governor pre-announced a special Session on the State's Supreme Court districts before Callais even came down, setting a date exactly 21 days after whatever ruling arrived. They had the calendar ready before the ink was dry. That Session was called off in midMay, after a Federal appeals court vacated the order that had JUNE 1, required those districts to be redrawn. But the governor has since said he expects Mississippi's congressional, legislative, and Supreme Court lines all to be redrawn before the 2027 elections. The pause is about timing, not intent. In Georgia, the governor has insisted the current map stays for 2026 but has already acknowledged that Callais mandates changes for 2028. Legislators have called for a special Session to discuss redistricting, and a State Supreme Court election this spring is being watched as an early indicator of how far Georgia's courts will push back on what comes next. In South Carolina, the Republican-dominated legislature moved to discuss eliminating the State's only Democratic-held congressional seat, which is also its only district where Black voters hold meaningful electoral power. And, in Virginia, the Democratic governor attempted a countermove, advancing a voter-approved redistricting referendum. The Virginia Supreme Court blocked it, ruling the approval process had been flawed because it occurred after early voting had already begun. The United States Supreme Court declined to step in. Democrats' clearest opportunity to respond in kind was foreclosed before the midterms, leaving the existing maps in place for 2026. By one count, the redistricting activity since Callais has created or is expected to create 14 additional Republican-leaning House seats, with 6 potential Democratic gains as States like California respond in kind. Protesters have filled the Capitol buildings in Montgomery and Nashville, civil rights lawyers are in court, but the maps being challenged are in effect. The elections are approaching, and the enforcement mechanism that protected minority voters for 60 years is gone. This is not theoretical. This is happening right now. States are suspending live elections to redraw maps in real time for the explicit purpose of eliminating the representation that the Voting Rights Act made possible for 60 years. Justice Kagan warned us this would happen. It started before the ink was dry. And the Supreme Court is not finished with this term. Major decisions are still to come, including the case challenging birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment based on an executive order issued by President Trump. Based on the oral arguments in April, most observers expect the court to rule against the President's executive order. And when that decision comes down, you may hear a chorus of commentators tell us this proves the Roberts Court is moderate. That it is balanced, that the institution still works. I want to be very clear with my colleagues today. If this court upholds birthright citizenship, a guarantee written into the plain text of the 14th Amendment in 1868 and settled by the court itself in 1898, that does not make this court moderate. That makes it a court that declined, in a single instance, to overturn 128 years of completely settled constitutional law. The bar for praise cannot be, did the court refuse to do something nobody before this generation ever imagined doing. Because when you look at this court's record across the last 15 years, the pattern is impossible to miss. This court is not moving in moderate increments; it is dismantling a multiracial democracy in calibrated steps. Accelerating where it can, pausing where the political backlash would be too great, and always, always moving the law in one direction: backwards. Let me walk through what that pattern looks like, case by case, because each of these decisions answered a question, and the answers, when you line them up, tell a single story. In 2010, the question in Citizens United was whether corporations and unions could spend unlimited money in our elections. For 100 years, the answer had been "no." Chief Justice Roberts' Court said "yes" and unleashed the flood of dark money that now distorts every campaign in America. In 2013, the question in Shelby County v. Holder was whether the Federal government could keep requiring States with documented histories of racial voter suppression to get pre-approval before changing their election laws. The answer for nearly 50 years had been "yes." This court said "no." Within 24 hours, Texas implemented voter ID laws that had previously been blocked. Within weeks, polling places were closed across the South. Within years, the right-wing apparatus discovered it could pass nearly any voting restriction it wanted, and no one at One First Street would stop it. In 2019, the question in Rucho v. Common Cause was whether Federal courts could do anything about extreme partisan gerrymandering. The answer was now "no." Politicians could draw whatever maps they wanted, no matter how distorted, no matter how brazen, and the Federal courts would not intervene. This is the precedent that Callais now uses as a shield, telling States they can defend racially discriminatory maps simply by relabeling them as partisan maps. In 2022, the question in Dobbs was whether half of the American population still had a constitutional right to make decisions about their own bodies. For 50 years, the answer had been "yes." This court said "no." It stripped a right two generations of women had built their lives around. And in the States that rushed to ban abortion, women began to die. Some of those deaths were ruled preventable by the State's own maternal mortality review boards. In others, the physicians' licensing board has disciplined the doctors for the delays in care that cost these women their lives. We are still counting the cost in mothers lost, and the experts who keep that count tell us the true number is higher than anyone has confirmed. That same year, the question in Bruen was whether States can meaningfully regulate firearms in public spaces. To answer that question, the court relied on an interpretation of the Second Amendment that, until very recently, was rejected across the political spectrum. Chief Justice Warren Burger, a President Nixon appointee, a conservative, and the man who led the Supreme Court for 17 years, said publicly in 1991 that the rewriting of the Second Amendment as an unlimited individual right was "one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public [people] by special interest groups that I have seen in my lifetime." End quote. That was a Republican Chief Justice calling the entire jurisprudential project a fraud. And in Bruen, that fraud became the law of the land. The court invented a new historical test that has thrown gun safety laws across the country into chaos and tied the hands of legislatures trying to respond to mass shootings. In 2024, the question in Trump v. United States was whether a President could be criminally prosecuted for official acts. For 240 years, the answer was simple: no one is above the law. This court invented a sweeping presidential immunity that appears nowhere in the Constitution, and we are watching the consequences of that fabrication play out in real time. And now, in 2026, the question in Callais was whether what little remained of the Voting Rights Act could still protect Black voters from having their political power diluted by racially discriminatory maps. The answer for 60 years was "yes." This court now says "no." That is not a court of law. That is a political project carried out in robes. It has made a mockery of stare decisis, of congressional authority, of the Reconstruction amendments, and of the public trust. It has stopped pretending to be a court of law. It is functioning as the most powerful arm of one political movement in this country, a movement that, when it loses at the ballot box, expects this court to deliver the wins it could not earn from the voters. So here is what I am asking of my colleagues, and of every Pennsylvanian listening today. It is time for every American who cares about constitutional democracy, who cares about what it means to live in America, who chooses renewal over resignation, to recognize that a self-governing people must also be a self-correcting one, and to start talking--openly and seriously--about Supreme Court reform. About term limits, about expansion, about a binding ethics code with real enforcement, about every option Article III gives Congress, because Congress has many, and Congress has used them before in history. This conversation is overdue. It has been treated as impolite or radical for too long. It is neither. It is the basic constitutional response of a co-equal branch when an unelected branch begins exercising power it does not have. I came to this body both as a lawyer and as a nurse. And, in nursing, we are taught to name the diagnosis honestly, even when it is hard, because pretending otherwise does not protect the patient, it only delays the treatment. The diagnosis is plain. Our democracy is being battered, decision by decision, by a court that no longer functions as a court of law. The longer we are afraid to say it out loud, the harder the recovery will be. Thank you, Mr. President.