June 17, 2026 · JUDICIARY · 9,998 words · 10 speakers · 138 segments
Here. Carroll. Designation. Donahue. Designation. Hanbage. Here. Hohenstein. Here. Howard. Kenyatta. Designation. Kincaid. Mays. Designation. P.L.E. Rabb. Designation. Sanchez. Designation. Schusterman.
Chairman Kaufman. Here.
Representatives Bonner. Here.
Borowitz.
designation ham designation kale designation Kerwin clunk designation
Krupa Kuzma designation Ledbetter Pugh Rigby mr. chairman a quorum is present
thank you having a quorum we will be proceeding with today's agenda we do have a robust agenda and many of our members have conflicting meetings this morning I did talk to a number of them. I'm going to do my best to take the bills as members become available. Generally, we will try to give each member with a bill under consideration by the committee an opportunity to advocate for their legislation, and I'll continue that practice today. First, we're going to go all over the place on the agenda. The chair will be calling up Senate Bill 1293 by Senator Judy Ward for the purpose of re-referring the bill to the Education Committee. This bill will create a freestanding act that deals exclusively with educational institutions and student athletics. In order to keep the meeting moving and keep the discourse civil, I ask that members please refrain from personal attacks or impugning the motives of other members. As a reminder, the discussions are limited to the re-referral and not on the substance of the bill. Members will have an opportunity to comment on the re-referral. I urge the members to keep your comments precise and succinct. After all, a reminder, good social media content is usually only 30 to 45 seconds. I appreciate the members' respect for the rules, and with that, on the question of re-referral, the chair will recognize. uh pugh group uh representative pew for comments on the re-referral
thank you chairman and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on this today i do oppose referring this bill out of the judiciary committee they've been bouncing bills around now for a while. We've had materials submitted to us from other organizations like the LGB Alliance USA Foundation where it discussed the importance of women-only spaces and that same-sex attracted individuals depend upon single-sex spaces to protect their boundaries. One statement that really resonated with me was at the end of their bill. One should not be able to use gender identity protections as a way of eroding personal spaces. The point that these concerns are real, they are sincerely held, and they've been voiced by people who have spent decades advocating for our civil rights. Women have fought for generations for our freedom to vote. for our right to an equal education, for employment opportunities and yes for Title IX which opens the door for millions of girls and women to compete in athletics on a level playing field Those gains were not accidental They were achieved through decades of effort, sacrifice, and advocacy. Today, female athletes believe those hard-won protections are being weakened. This is not merely a Pennsylvania debate. Even states like California, which have generally taken a very different approach on issues that we do here, have taken steps to acknowledge the concerns of women that work tirelessly to obtain. This debate is not about hostility toward anyone. It is about fairness. It is about safety. It is about preserving opportunities that generations of women have tirelessly worked to obtain. For those reasons and more, I respectfully ask this committee not to delay this matter any further and allow it to move forward with a healthy debate and vote out of this committee. We owe it to the women who fought so hard for so many years for women's rights. They deserve it. Let's find the courage our ancestors had and finally bring this subject to a debate and vote on the House floor. Thank you.
Thank you, Representative. We're going to go to Representative Krupa. And I did give Representative Pugh a little bit of latitude. This is on the motion to re-referral and not the substance of the bill. Representative Krupa, you are in order on the re-referral.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In discussing the merits of this motion, I think it's important to first acknowledge the obvious. This issue has already been referred, debated, if not in committee, in the Senate, in social media for sure. And it's moved multiple times, and yet here we are again. It feels a lot like deja vu, another trip around the legislative merry-go-round. I fully understand that our remarks today must be directed to the motion to re-refer and not the underlying legislation itself. However, in order to determine whether this committee has proper jurisdiction, we necessarily have to discuss, at least in general terms, what this legislation does. This legislation addresses participation in athletics based on biological sex and the legal rights and protections associated with that issue. And that's exactly why re-referral is not appropriate. This legislation implicates Title IX. Title IX is not merely an athletic issue. It involves questions regarding who is protected by that law, how that law is interpreted, what rights it guarantees, and what obligations it imposes upon schools and educational institutions. These are all fundamentally legal questions. Questions involving privacy rights are legal questions. Questions involving liability and the obligation of educational institutions are legal questions. They are Judiciary Committee questions. If legislation involving the interpretation and application of Title IX privacy rights and legal protections for women and girls does not belong before the Judiciary Committee, then I'm hard-pressed to identify what does. And that's why re-referral is not appropriate. But there's another reason that re-referral is not appropriate, and that's the harm that's caused by further delay. I've lost track of how many times this legislation on this issue has been referred in one bill form or another. Re-referred, re-referred, re-referred. That repeated referral stopped looking like thoughtful deliberation a long time ago This bill keeps moving the committees keep changing and the people of Pennsylvania are left wondering who is responsible for this circus Does anybody intend on making a decision? At this point, not this point, a long, long time ago, it's obvious that this has become a legislative shell game. The bill was placed under one committee, then another, then another, and the public again is left wondering who's in charge of the circus. is not appropriate when we have young women and girls that are left lurking in the shadows because of our refusal to take action. It's one of the reasons that this delay is most troubling. Every time it's delayed, every time we decide not to decide, more young women are left without answers and without the protection this legislation seeks to address. When I first heard Riley Gaines describe her experience competing against biological male William Thomas. It wasn't the story about the race that has stuck with me. It wasn't about who touched the wall first. It wasn't about the trophy. It was about the locker room. And she told and talked about competitive swimmers wearing highly specialized racing suits that fit like a second skin. They're designed that way. And anybody familiar with that sport, and I was not, but the swimmers talk about the effort, the great effort it takes to get in and out of those swimsuits, before competition, after competition, in the locker rooms, in changing areas. Athletes inevitably find themselves in moments of vulnerability. Riley Gaines has publicly described being expected to change clothes and share locker facilities with a biological male. a fully intact biological male. Think about that, not as a legislator, not as a Democrat, not as a Republican. Think about it as a parent, as a grandfather, as a citizen. Imagine your daughter being told, in order to participate in a women's sport, she must accept changing and undressing in the presence of a biological male. And in the reverse, that she must be present when that biological male disrobes in front of her. Imagine her expressing discomfort. Imagine her raising concerns about that privacy. And imagine being told that if she doesn't like it, she doesn't have to compete. The message was that simple. Accept it or don't compete.
Representative, please suspend. Please keep it on the re-referral. I am trying to give people some latitude, but you've gone rowdy gains. I mean, you've really gone quite far. So if you could wrap it up, please thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And if I've gone in the weeds on this issue, I don't think it's the weeds at all. I think I'm describing exactly why re-referral is inappropriate, because further delay, particularly when this Judiciary Committee has sound reasons to continue to hold the jurisdiction that is appropriately here and to vote on this issue, this argument goes directly to why re-referral is inappropriate.
Thank you, Representative. Representative Hohenstein on the motion for re-referral.
So typical of the majority chairman's actions in this committee, so typical. It's not American.
Representative Hohenstein on the re-referral.
Thank you, Chair. I coached girls' soccer. I coached my kids for close to 15 years. This is not a bill about protecting girls I know we had a lot of latitude and folks have spoken to what they believe it actually is I'll tell you what I see it doing. This bill attacks trans kids and kids who don't conform to the
Yes, point of order. Well, I gave you six or seven minutes to kind of go down the road, and I did ask you to rein it in, and he did it. I will give him a little bit of latitude, and then I will rein him in as well. Thank you. Representative.
Thank you, Chair. To the degree I'm speaking on any specific intention of the bill, it is only because it has already been raised by the other speakers here. And I'm providing an opposing point to say this bill goes after a very, very small segment of people who don't conform to what a lot of people believe is the norm. For me, personally, I've never in 15 years of coaching had any issues. And I coached girls who were on boys teams. I coached kids who didn't conform with gender norms on all of the different teams that I coached. This isn't about that. this is about whether we are going to say to our kids, all of our kids, you are here in front of us, you are here for learning, for participating in sports, we will be here to protect you. As to referral of this bill, Chair, I will stand with the Chair on whatever decision we see fit, but I also know that this is an issue that has been dividing us, and it shouldn't divide us further.
Thank you, Representative. Before we go to roll call, we're going to go to Chairman Kaufman for closing comments on the motion to re-refer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I oppose the re-referral today. I have to say in my 22 years here in the Pennsylvania General Assembly, I've never seen quite the shell game as we're seeing with this and every other bill. While we are re-referring this bill this morning, three like bills were referred to our committee by the health committee this week. And I believe that some of those bills were already in the Judiciary Committee at some point. The re-referral is simply, I mean, it's not even cued anymore. a blatant attempt to disregard the will of the voters in Pennsylvania who wholeheartedly support legislation like we are attempting to re-refer today. It puts young ladies in jeopardy that are in sports in Pennsylvania. Recently, I was visited by a mom here in Pennsylvania who shared stories of her daughter and pleading for us not to re-refer yet again. Recently, a young girl named Kaylee Keller, who was a wrestler in Washington, filed a lawsuit against the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association. She filed this lawsuit due to what unfolded during her wrestling match because Washington, very similar to Pennsylvania, has failed to act on this issue. Per the suit, Kaylee unknowingly wrestled a biological male in a girls' tournament. During that match, the biological male placed his fingers through the spandex clothing, digitally violating Kaylee, and held that position for several seconds. Her mother was filming her match, and on the video you can see Kaylee's facial expression turned to terror as she screamed to her mother that her opponent's fingers were inside of her. To the end of that match and the assault she was experienced, she let her opponent pin her because she wanted it to be over. When she later found out that her opponent was a biological male, she felt violated all over again. We have done so much work at the state level here in Pennsylvania to expand opportunities for female sports. Most recently, we saw a bipartisan effort to get girls wrestling sanctioned. If we cannot put the most basic protections into law by passing this bill out of this committee or any other of the other committees that has been bounced around to, all of the work has been for nothing, and we have failed the girl athletes of this Commonwealth. I vote no on re-referral. I urge a no vote on re-referral. It's time that we deal with the merits of these bills and stop playing a cute shell game in front of the people of Pennsylvania. Thank you, Chairman. A reminder of the members, a yes vote is in favor of the motion to re-refer. A no vote is opposed to the motion. Secretary, please call the roll.
Chairman Briggs. Yes. Representatives Abney. Carol. Donahue. Yes. Hanbage. Ohenstein. Howard. Kenyatta. Designation yes. Kincaid. Mays. Yes. P.L.E. Rab. Designation yes. Sanchez. Designation yes. Schusterman. Chairman Kaufman. No. Representatives Bonner. No. Borowitz. No. Ham? No. Kale? No. Kerwin? No. Klunk? No. Krupa? No. Kuzma? No. Ledbetter? No. Pugh? No. Rigby? Mr. Chairman, the re-referral passes a vote of 14 to 12.
Thank you, Secretary. The motion to re-refer Senate Bill 1293 to the Education Committee passes. Thank you. Next on the agenda, I will be calling up Senate Bill 779 by Senator Pacozi and Senator Street.
Counsel please provide a brief description of the bill and then the underlying amendment Mr Chairman Senate Bill 779 by Senators Picozian Street immense Title 18 to establish penalties for unlawful towing and storage facility practice This bill replicates Act 110 of 2012 in Title 18 to empower state and local law enforcement agencies to enforce the rules related to tow truck operations and storage practice. unlawful towing and unlawful towing and towing storage facility practice include failure to meet operational requirements improper towing conduct unlawful motor vehicle retention and fees. A first time offense for failure to meet operational requirements is a summary punishable of up to a $500 fine. A second or subsequent violation is a summary punishable up to a fine of $1,000. for violations of improper towing conduct or unlawful motor vehicle retention and fees. It's a misdemeanor of the third degree punishable by a fine of not more than $2,500 or imprisonment of not more than one year or both. A second or subsequent violation is a misdemeanor of the second degree punishable by a fine of not more than $5,000 or imprisonment of not more than two years or both. Additionally, for a third or subsequent violation, law enforcement may impound a tow truck. The bill takes effect in 60 days, and there's one amendment. Council, you please provide description of the Briggs Amendment A-03561. Amendment A-03561 by Chairman Briggs adjusts the penalties to remove the summary and misdemeanors. It elevates the fines and provides all tow truck operators with an opportunity to work by making it clear that nothing in this bill precludes a municipality from enacting a rotational towing ordinance, and that allows municipal personnel and law enforcement to summons tow truck operators in accordance with the ordinance. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Council. The question is, will the committee adopt the amendment? There's been a lot of work on this amendment. I want to thank the staff and the various stakeholders to come up with an agreement on this. I think it addresses a lot of concerns. Are there any comments on the amendment? Representative Kincaid on the amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the work on this amendment. I had serious concerns with this bill as it was initially introduced. The towing industry is a pretty significant second-chance hiring industry, and adding criminal offenses to violations of towing law would have the effect of really derailing the ability for people to get their lives back on track after a criminal conviction. So I appreciate the removal there and the work to actually be able to allow towing companies to have an equal shot at being able to respond to an accident scene rather than it being something that would go to just the most well-known towing companies simply because they are known. by the creation and encouragement of a rotational towing ordinance. So I appreciate all of the work on this. I think this makes this bill something that is not actually going to crater the towing industry in western Pennsylvania, and I appreciate that. Thank you.
Thank you, Representative. Thank you for your interest in this. Any other comments before we vote on the amendment? The question is we will be considering Amendment A Are there any negative votes on that amendment Seeing none thank you for supporting the amendment It passes Are there any comments on the bill as amended? Seeing no comments, is there any negative votes on the bill as amended? Secretary, please call the roll.
Chairman Briggs. Yes. Representatives Abney. Carol. Donahue, Anbidge, Owenstein, Howard, Kenyatta. Designation, yes. Kincaid, Mays, Pieli, Rabb. Designation, yes. Sanchez. Designation, yes. Schusterman. Chairman Kaufman. Yes. Representatives Bonner. Borowitz. Yes. Ham. Yes. Kale. Yes. Kerwin? Clunk? Yes. Krupa? Kuzma? Yes. Ledbetter? Yes. Pugh? Rigby? Mr. Chairman, this bill passes a vote of 24 to 2.
Thank you, Secretary. Senate Bill 779, as amended passes, and will be reported to the floor. Thank you, members. Next on the agenda, I'm going to be recognizing Representative Boyd. I'll be calling up House Bill 1381. Representative Boyd is able to join us before her 10 o'clock, multiple meetings at 10. When you're ready, you're welcome to provide some brief remarks.
Thank you, Chairman. House Bill 1381 came out of the Juvenile Justice Task Force that took place between 2019 and 2021. Only two, I believe, of the recommendations of that task force have been introduced in this body. So I did bring the executive summary of that task force in case anyone wanted to please review it. Again, there were incredible recommendations based on a group put together by the governor, the Supreme Court, both houses and both parties. so I would ask that we continue to push for this Juvenile Justice Task Force outcome. But I'm here today to ask for your support for House Bill 1381, which would raise Pennsylvania's minimum age of juvenile court jurisdiction from 10 to 13 years old. The bill recognizes a simple reality. A 10-year-old child is fundamentally different from a teenager. Children at that age are still developing emotionally, socially, and cognitively and often lack the maturity to fully understand the consequences of their actions or navigate court proceedings. Pennsylvania currently allows children as young as 10 to enter the juvenile system. The United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child recommends a minimum age of criminal responsibility, no lower than 12. And while that recommendation is not binding in the United States, it reflects a universal recognition that very young children are better served through supportive interventions and over formal court involvement. House Bill 1381 does not eliminate accountability. It simply ensures that younger children receive age-appropriate interventions through their families, schools, behavioral health providers, and community-based services. It's also a fiscally responsible reform. Court involvement detention probation supervision and out placements are very expensive Directing younger children towards more effective community supports can improve outcomes while making better use of taxpayer dollars So for these reasons I respectfully ask for an affirmative vote on House Bill 1381 Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Representative Boyd. Counsel, anything to add on the bill?
The provisions of this bill would apply prospectively, and the act takes effect in 60 days. There are no amendments. Thank you.
Thank you, counsel. The question is, will the committee report the bill, House Bill 1381? Are there any comments on the bill? Chairman Kaufman on the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. has this committee held hearings on this issue on this bill? I'm just curious because this is something this is a very significant policy change that is not something that I have great familiarity with
so we did not have a hearing on this specific bill last session we did vote this language out part of a larger bill that was introduced by Representative Miller. We did have a robust conversation on that bill.
Okay. Well, I...
It was part of the work group that we all designated members to, the Juvenile Justice Reform Commission. It was one of their recommendations.
I apologize. No, that's fine. I appreciate it. And I can say that I don't necessarily oppose it. This is such a significant policy change that, you know, we got the bill last week. I'm not prepared to vote in the affirmative on this legislation today, so I'll be opposing it. Hopefully more study will get me to a point where I can support it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Representative. Any other comments on the bill?
Thank you, Secretary.
Representative Schusterman, you are recognized on the bill.
Yes, I just wanted to make a comment on the Juvenile Justice Task Force. It was a bipartisan, bicameral task force, and it was something that was our own Representative Howard sat on that task force. A lot of the recommendations already went through the House. three bills went through the House and are awaiting in the Senate. So this is an additional recommendation from the task force. Thank you.
Thank you, Representative. Secretary, please call the roll. I will be yes.
Representatives Abney. Carroll. Donahue. Designation, yes. Hambridge. Hohenstein. Howard. Kenyatta. Designation yes. Kincaid. Mays. Pieli. Rabb. Designation yes. Sanchez. Designation yes. Schusterman. Chairman Kaufman. No. Representatives Bonner. Borowitz. No. Ham. No. Kale. No. Kerwin. Clunk? No. Krupa? Kuzma? No. Ledbetter? No. Pugh? Rigby? Mr. Chairman, this bill passes. A vote of 14 to 12.
Thank you, sir. Secretary, House Bill 1381 passes and will be reported to the floor as committed. Thank you, Representative Boyd, for joining us, and congratulations. Next on the agenda, again, I said we were going to go all over the place. The chair will be calling up House Bill 2344 by Representative Ortiz. Representative Ortiz, you will be recognized for comments on your bill, followed by counsel. Representative, you're in order.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also just want to start off by thanking both of you for a meeting with my constituents, Courtney and Stacey, last week. I appreciate you taking the time. Who was the inspiration behind this domestic violence bill package? This is one of the bills there. This bill addresses coerced debt. This is debt a victim was forced, threatened, or manipulated into taking without their genuine consent. Through fraud, intimidation, duress, or nonconsensual use of their personal information, When a survivor escapes an abusive relationship, that debt follows them. It damages their credit, limits their housing options, and can trap them in poverty. Pennsylvania law currently offers no clear remedy for that. This bill is an attempt to change that. I know we have an amendment. Right now, as the bill stands without the amendment, we have the Treasury developing the standardized coerced debt dispute petitioning and posting it. I think we're going to change it to the AOPC. Since they have experience in designing these forms, it makes sense. so I'll ask for a yes on that amendment. But a survivor completes that petition, submits it directly to the creditor. The petition requires basic account information, a statement that was not made, that was not willingly authorized in documentation from a qualified third party. That third party can be law enforcement, licensed medical or mental health professionals, domestic violence advocates, or a member of the clergy. That list is broad deliberately because survivors don't always go file police reports. The creditor then has 10 days to make a good faith determination. If the creditor finds the debt is coerced, they must immediately stop all collection activity, halt any wage garnishment, return payments already collected, and contact every consumer reporting agency to have the negative information deleted from their credit report. The debt doesn't disappear. I want to make that very clear. It doesn't disappear. It transfers. The creditor then can pursue the actual perp who caused the debt and go after them. If the creditor denies the petition, the survivor has two years to challenge in court. A judge who finds the survivor's favor can order all the same relief and may also award attorney's fees. This bill creates a straightforward process. It protects victims, or I'm sorry, protects survivors and holds perpetrators financially accountable. With that, I'm happy to take any questions and would ask for a yes vote. Thank you.
Thank you, Representative. Counsel, anything to add?
Chairman, the bill takes effect in 90 days and there is one amendment. You are in order to provide the description on the amendment introduced by Chairman Kaufman, A-03695. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Amendment 03695 by Chairman Kaufman moves the responsibility for the creation of the coerced debt dispute petition from the Treasury to the AOPC. Thank you, counsel.
So the question is, will the committee adopt the amendment? Are there any comments on the amendment? Any negative votes on the amendment? Seeing none, the amendment passes, and I will be now calling up House Bill 2344 as amended. The question recurs, will the committee report the bill as amended? Are there any comments on the bill as amended?
Sorry. Representative Kincaid you are in order on the bill as amended Thank you Mr Chairman I just have a question so maybe council would be in the best place to answer this While I know this is geared towards domestic violence, from what I'm reading, it does seem like it would apply to more than just domestic violence victims, and I'm not opposed to that. I think that's actually good. So I just wanted to sort of confirm that, that I have had constituents who have come to my office and talked to me about how their parent or their grandchild actually used their name to be able to put debts into their names and had them sign on to things that they didn't really understand. So would those kinds of situations also be covered under this?
Counsel, you're in order.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, the definition of coerced debt encompasses both debt that was incurred because of domestic violence offenses as well as debt which was incurred due to other undue influences, misinformation, fraud, intimidation, or the non-consensual use of the debtor's personal identifying information. Great. Thank you.
Sorry. Thank you, Representative and Council. Any other comments on the bill before we go to a vote? I just want to thank the Representative for bringing this bill up. I know you're working on a package of bills, and it was really moving when both Chairman and I separately met with your constituents to hear such awful experience she has to deal with. So I was happy that you talked about this bill. We had already been talking about it and was, you know, glad we were able to kind of move it quickly. But Chairman Kaufman, any comments? Are there any negative votes on House Bill 2344 as amended? Representative Bonner, you are in order on the bill as amended.
Oh, negative vote.
Okay, so we are going to do a roll call, and just to try to move this along, all Democrats will be yes, and then we'll go to Chairman Kaufman. Chairman Kaufman. Yes.
Representatives Bonner. Borowitz. Yes. Ham. Yes. Kale. Yes. Kerwin. Yes. Klunk. Yes. Krupa. Kuzma. Yes. Ledbetter. Pugh. Rigby. Mr. Chairman, this bill passes a vote of 24 to 2.
Thank you, Secretary. House Bill 2344 passes and will be reported as amended. Thank you, Representative Ortitai. Next on the agenda, I will be calling up House Bill 2033 by Representative Davidson. I will recognize Representative Davidson for remarks on his bill and then go to counsel. Representative Davidson, you are in order.
Thank you, Chairman Briggs, Chairman Coffin, both for considering another one of my bills in your committee. I appreciate the consideration and ask for an affirmative vote today on House Bill 2033 to address a public health issue that has come up right here in Dauphin County. Under current law today, county jails are only inspected by the Department of Corrections once every 12 to 24 months, and state facilities are audited internally. But our concern we have learned that facilities across the Commonwealth including here in Dauphin County have been serving food or meals without having been properly inspected by food safety experts So House Bill 2033 simply shifts the kitchen inspections for our county correctional facilities or our county prisons from the Department of Corrections to the Department of Agriculture. The reason for this is the Department of Agriculture currently inspects our kitchens at our public school districts where our kids eat. And as they have experience in this area and with food safety, I just think it's a better use of the taxpayer dollar and more efficient, also fulfilling our responsibilities to the inmates under the care of our counties. And so with that, I would ask
for an affirmative vote. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative. Good work. Counsel?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The bill takes effect in 60 days and there are no amendments.
Thank you, counsel. The question is, will the committee report the bill, House Bill 2033? Are there any comments on the bill? Chairman Kaufman, on the bill.
Question first. This was being referred to as county correctional. Does this apply to the Department of Corrections as well?
Yes. Yes, I'm sorry. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This moves the.
Under the Department of Ag, the responsibility for the kitchen inspections in both our county correctional facilities and our state correctional facilities.
OK. Remarks on the bill. You're in order on the bill. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think many folks would be surprised to learn that compared with children in our public schools,
inmates are offered a far broader range of nutritional meal options. Every prison in the commonwealth accommodates medical diets, religious dietary restrictions, vegetarian preferences, and other specialized nutritional needs. They offer a range of menu choices that our students don't have access to during the school day. Once again, this committee is demonstrating its concern with accommodating the preference of convicted criminals rather than the needs of hard-working Pennsylvanians. Just consider the regular menu offered to inmates on a single day. Breakfast, fresh fruit, cereal, white bread, wheat bread or toast, margarine pack, half pint of milk, coffee, sugar. Lunch, chicken riblet, soy barbecue, potato salad, vinaigrette coleslaw, barbecue sauce, whiter wheat bread, brownies, and a fortified beverage pack. Dinner, country fried steak, tofu oat burgers, whipped potatoes, beets, gravy, white bread, wheat bread, fruit, and a fortified beverage pack. And that's just the standard menu. The Department of Corrections also presents a range of therapeutic diets to inmates offering six small meals instead of the traditional three. They accommodate gluten-free diets, lactose-restricted, low fiber, low sodium, and more than a dozen others. In addition to the daily housekeeping and sanitation inspections at each SCI, there are annual, quarterly, monthly, and weekly inspections conducted by numerous individuals, including executive staff, food service division personnel, and SCI managers and supervisors. For these reasons, I see no need and oppose House Bill 2033. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Representative Kincaid on the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I actually think this is good timing. I thought it was important to remind everybody that it is not just the inmates that are consuming this food it is also the corrections officers and the staff at the facility They not allowed to bring their own meals to these facilities so they are restricted to the same meals that the inmates get as well. So when we're talking about food safety, which is not the same as the meals offered, it is whether or not those meals are safe to consume, we are also talking about the safety of the staff and workers in these facilities. So making sure that these facilities are in compliance with the rules of how we are supposed to be handling food, that it is not contaminated, that we are not causing outbreaks of food poisoning is important not only to the inmates in these facilities but also to the staff and i think that that is an important thing that we need to remember and and while the sei facilities are regularly checked i think that it is important to reiterate what my colleague stated that there are not these level of checks in our county facilities, and that needs to change. Because fundamentally, when people are in our custody and control, how we treat them says much more about us than it does about them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much, Representative Kincaid. Representative Carroll on the bill?
Yes. Thank you, Chairman. First and foremost, I would like to thank the gentlemen from Dauphin County for bringing this bill in front of us. I also would like to say for some reason when it comes to people who are incarcerated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, we don't believe that they deserve dignity somehow. This bill simply mentions just some of the most basic needs of any human. The need to make sure that the food is stored properly. The fact that staff should be forced to wash their hands before serving people food, the fact that the food should be delivered properly, and that these people who are in states custody should be fed the same way that folks who have their freedom. I sometimes in this building struggle to listen to some of the disparating comments and also understand as to why do we believe because a person has been convicted of a crime that they do not deserve some of the most basic necessity and needs. I want to thank you, Chairman, for bringing this bill up for consideration, and I look forward to voting for this. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Carroll. Just to kind
of put a pin on it, and I think Representative Kincaid and Carroll share my views on this, Department of Agriculture is highly skilled in doing this. They do it in our schools, as Chairman Kaufman talked a lot about the school menus, but they are trained on providing this level of inspection, and I think it is appropriately to have someone other than the department doing it. So I am a supporter of this. Secretary, please call the roll on Senate House Bill 2033. All the Democrats will be yes. Chairman Kaufman? No. Representatives Bonner? Borowitz? No. Ham? No. Kale? No. Kerwin? No. Klunk? No. Krupa? Kuzma? No. Ledbetter? No.
Mr. Chairman, this bill passes a vote of 14 to 12.
Thank you. House Bill 2033 passes and will be reported as committed. Congratulations, Representative Davidson. I will be calling up Representative Metzger's bill, House Bill 2035. We will hear from Chairman Metzger. Thank you for joining us and then go to Council for a brief description. Chairman Metzger, you are in order on your bill.
Thank you. Thank you, Chairs, and I appreciate the committee's time. I'll try and give you something a little more boring to deal with than some of your other issues today. This bill is simply a validation exercise of recording documents. So whenever documents get recorded, sometimes there's errors in that validation process. process. This would just verify that those documents that were recorded prior to 2020 are valid documents from here on out. One of the questions that I do get on this issue is, does it validate fraud? No, the answer is no. Fraud is still fraud. And if someone fraudulently records a document, that's still a fraudulent document. This is only if there's a minor error in that validation process. So if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer those.
Thank you, Chairman. Council, any additional information?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, the bill takes effect in 60 days and there are no amendments.
Thank you, Council. The question is, will the committee report the bill, House Bill 2035? Are there any comments on the bill? This might be easy. Any negative votes on the bill? Seeing none, congratulations Chairman. House Bill 2035 passes and will be reported as committed. Thank you for joining us. I didn't see you earlier, so I thank you for coming and good luck on the floor.
Thank you to the committee and much respect for the process.
A little bit, just again, continuing going out of order. I will be calling up House Bill 2136 by Representative Kincaid. A good member of the committee, Representative Kincaid, is with us. You may make some remarks on your bill.
Representative Kincaid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill comes out of conversations that I have had specifically with people in the disability community. I've had numerous conversations with advocates and family members of people who have disabilities, in particular autism, and who are incarcerated, struggling to have their diagnosis recognized and, you know, receiving the kinds of supports that they need in incarceration. there was an incident where an inmate who had been diagnosed with autism prior to his incarceration actually ended up dying because he did not get the supports that he needed and he decompensated significantly and ended up having multiple strokes and dying This bill simply requires the Department of Corrections to recognize diagnoses that inmates come in with and in their review of these inmates when they are coming in. They are not entitled to say that that diagnosis does not exist. And staff, which again, I have heard from families of these individuals who have said that they have been told by staff that they are not autistic enough. And so they are not entitled to the kinds of supports that they would otherwise receive. And so this simply requires that, you know, as they are being processed and they are incarcerated, that their diagnoses are acknowledged and respected and treated accordingly. Because fundamentally, when we do not treat people's medical diagnoses, when we do not provide them with the medical care that they require, they actually become more expensive to care for. So this is a simple requirement that we cannot simply ignore somebody's diagnosis because it is inconvenient because they are incarcerated. And while I understand that the Department of Corrections has some concerns about this, and I'm certainly willing to address You know, how changing diagnoses may be considered. I think that the evidence of what has been happening to date really just supports the need for this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Representative. Counsel, anything to add on the bill?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, there is an exception in the bill that allows a health care practitioner who made the diagnosis to provide the department a written statement recommending the removal of diagnosis made prior to the incarceration of the individual. Upon receipt of the written statement, the department may remove the diagnosis of the medical condition in question. The bill takes effect in 60 days, and there are no amendments.
Thank you, counsel. The question is, will the committee report that bill, House Bill 2136? Are there any comments on the bill? Chairman Kaufman, on the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under this bill, the medical professionals who are actually responsible for treating inmates inside of our correctional facilities would be stripped of the ability to exercise their own independent medical judgment. In response to something that was said, the Department of Corrections no longer removes autism diagnoses from inmates. medical, but it's important to note that medical diagnoses aren't permanent labels. Medicine involves and conditions improve and symptoms resolve. Physicians routinely reassess prior diagnoses and modify treatment plans based on their own examination and professional judgment. That's how the practice of medicine is supposed to work. This bill would require DOC to continue recognizing a diagnosis even when its own physicians conclude that the diagnosis is inaccurate, outdated, or completely wrong. Consider the well-known case of Gypsy Rose Blanchard. Her mother sought treatment from numerous physicians and subjected her to medical care for conditions she didn actually have If DOC is prohibited from questioning or reevaluating an inmate medical diagnosis as required by this bill, an individual in a similar situation would continue receiving treatment for illnesses they don't actually have, potentially causing them significant harm. In effect, this bill substitutes a legislative mandate for medical decision making. We don't tell a judge that he or she must follow the legal conclusions of a previous judge when that judge committed a legal error. We don't require a building inspector to honor a prior safety inspection. This bill would place physicians in a uniquely constrained positions, and for those reasons, I'll be opposing House Bill 2136. Thank you, Chairman.
Are there any other comments on the bill, House Bill 2136? Seeing none, the secretary could please call the roll. I will be a yes.
Representatives Abney, Carroll, Donahue. Designation yes. Hanbage, Hohenstein, Howard, Kenyatta. Designation yes. Kincaid, Mays. Designation yes. Pieli, Rabb. Designation yes. Sanchez. Designation yes. Schusterman? Designation yes. Chairman Kaufman? No. Representatives Bonner? Borowitz? No. Ham? No. Kale? No. Kerwin? No. Clunk? No. Krupa? Kuzma? No. Ledbetter? Pugh? Rigby? Mr. Chairman, this bill passes a vote of 14 to 12.
Thank you, Secretary. House Bill 2136 passes and will be reported as committed. Next on the agenda, I am going to be calling up House Bill 1731 by Representative Guzman. Representative Guzman had a conflict this morning and is unable to join us. Counsel, please provide a brief description of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, House Bill 1731 by Representative Guzman requires debt collectors and debt buyers to provide specific documentation when filing legal action, including proof of debt ownership, itemized balances, and original account details. For example, a debt collector or debt buyer may not commence a legal action to collect a consumer debt unless the complaint includes the name of the original creditor and the last four digits of the original account number, an itemization of the amount owed, proof of ownership of the debt, including a chain of title of the debt, a copy of the original contract, or charge-off statement demonstrating the consumer's liability. No court may enter a default judgment in a consumer debt action unless the plaintiff files an affidavit of fact based on personal knowledge, all required documentation, and proof the consumer was properly served and notified of their consumer rights. Legal actions to collect consumer debt must be commenced within three years of the date of the last payment or charged by the consumer. Each consumer debt lawsuit must include a separate notice of consumer rights stating the consumer's right to dispute the debt, the right to request documentation, and where to seek legal help or assistance. This language is modeled after the law in New York. The bill will take effect in 90 days, and there is one amendment. Counsel please provide a description of the Briggs Amendment A03345 Mr Chairman the amendment places the language of the bill in Title XII
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Counsel. The question is, will the committee adopt the amendment, Amendment A03345? Are there any comments on the amendment? Are there any negative votes on the amendment? Okay. Any negative votes on the amendment? Okay.
Secretary, please record the amendment as passing unanimously.
Thank you. The amendment passes. The question recurs, will the committee report the bill as amended? Comments on the bill, Chairman Kaufman? Any comments on the bill as amended? Secretary, please call the roll.
Chairman Briggs? Yes. Representatives Abney, Carroll, Donahue. Designation, yes. Hambridge, Hohenstein, Howard, Kenyatta. Designation, yes. Kincaid, Mays. Designation, yes. Pieli, Rab. Designation, yes. Sanchez. Designation, yes. Schusterman. Designation, yes.
Chairman Kaufman? No.
Representatives Bonner? No. Borowitz? No. Ham? No. Kale? No. Kerwin? No. Klunk? No. Krupa? Kuzma? No. Ledbetter? Pugh? Rigby? Mr. Chairman, this bill passes. A vote of 14 to 12.
Thank you very much. bill passes and will be reported as amended. 1731 passes and will be reported as amended. I did want to mention we were trying to get this agenda tight. It's 11 bills. We did have another bill on it, which we're going to be bringing up at a next meeting or two in June, which is the hand-bidged bill, House Bill 801, which is similarly a Uniform Law Commission bill on a similar topic. So just wanted to flag that. Next on the agenda, let's do Representative Rab's bill, House Bill 131. So, what is that? I've got to flip to the right page. I'll call up House Bill 131 by Representative Rabb. Council, Representative Rabb is unable to join us.
Council, please provide a description on the bill, House Bill 131.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
House Bill 131 by Representative Rabb amends Act 57 of 2020 to provide accountability for law enforcement agencies that fail to comply with the requirements of the Act and further increase transparency by providing PCCD, together with both chambers, oversight over the state interdepartmental law enforcement misconduct database, which was activated in 2021 as part of the Act. The bill further requires law enforcement agencies to justify their decision to hire a law enforcement officer with disciplinary history and in certain cases such as where the prospective officer has had substantiated complaints of excessive use. use of force alleged against them, issue a public notice 14 business days ahead of the prospective hiring. The bill takes effect in 60 days and there are no amendments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, counsel. The question is, will the committee report the bill, House Bill 131? Are there any comments on the bill? Chairman Kaufman on the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Time and time again this session, we've considered legislation in this committee that dilutes criminal penalties, diminishes accountability, and erodes longstanding policies designed to protect the public at large. Now with this bill, we're treating law enforcement officers as if they are the problem. Instead of recognizing the difficult and dangerous work performed by the men and women who put on a badge every day, we continue to impose new restrictions, new mandates, new reporting requirements, and new liabilities upon them. We scrutinize the actions of police officers while simultaneously excusing the conduct of those who break the law. Then we wonder why departments are struggling to recruit and retain qualified officers. This bill goes well beyond accountability. It creates a system that punishes agencies and municipalities for innocent administrative mistakes. A law enforcement agency that fails to upload every relevant separation record can be stripped of eligibility for state funding for equipment, hiring, and overtime expenses. In other words, a clerical error or a disagreement over what constitutes a relevant record could result in a police department losing all access to funding for patrol vehicles, protective equipment, officer training, and overtime coverage. I could go on. I have more. In the essence of time and moving this along, I'll just conclude by saying at a time when many communities face serious public safety challenges and law enforcement agencies are struggling to recruit and retain personnel, we should be supporting our police, not creating additional bureaucratic hurdles and punitive funding mechanisms. And I'll be opposing this bill.
Thank you. Chairman, this is a follow-up from a bill under your leadership that we're very proud to – Yes, you're absolutely right. It was done under my leadership. And this, I think, is trying to go a little bit further. So I understand you won't support this bill, but this is about transparency and accountability when departments hire their officers. I am with you. Most officers are great neighbors, great friends, great civic leaders that are doing a very difficult job. There are some that are not, and that's what this bill is trying to highlight on. So I am supporting this. I will encourage Representative Raab to continue working on it. We moved it out of committee last year, and I know he will continue doing so. So the question is, will the committee report the bill, House Bill 131? Secretary, please call the roll.
Chairman Briggs. Yes. Representatives Abney. Designation, yes. Carroll. Donahue. Yes. Ambage. Hohenstein. Howard. Kenyatta. Yes Kincaid Mays Yes No Rab Yes Sanchez Yes Schusterman? Yes.
Chairman Kaufman? No.
Representatives Bonner? No. Borowitz? No. Sorry. Ham? No. Kale? No. Kerwin? No. Klunk? No. Krupa? Kuzma? No. Ledbetter? Pugh? Rigby? No. Mr. Chairman, this bill passes a vote of 14 to 12.
Thank you. House Bill 131 passes and will be reported as committed. I will be calling up. It's like a. It's like a. Yeah, I'm trying to find. House Bill 2281. Counsel, please provide a description of the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. House Bill 2281 by Chairman Briggs modernizes our record-based juror exclusion. The Commonwealth is one of only a handful of states that places a permanent bar on individuals with past felony and some misdemeanor convictions from serving on juries. This bill would amend this provision of law to restore an individual's right to serve on a jury after they have completed serving their sentence. This bill takes effect in 60 days, and there is one amendment. Counsel, please provide a description of the amendment A-03652. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Amendment A-03652 by Chairman Briggs clarifies that serving a sentence means being on probation or parole supervision.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. So the question is, will the committee adopt the amendment A-03652? Are there any comments on the amendment? so i i i'm taking an attempt to try to address a concern um that was raised to me regarding uh a little bit extra um work needing to uh before folks can serve on juries and i i think this amendment helps address that any negative votes not on the amendment no no negative votes uh unanimous vote for the amendment, the Briggs Amendment unanimous, just so everyone is clear of that. I'm sorry. Seeing no further vote, please record it as unanimous. So next, the amendment passes and question recurs, will the committee report the bill as amended? Are there any comments on the bill as amended? Chairman Kaufman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Recognizing the profound
responsibility entrusted to jurors, it has been the longstanding policy of this Commonwealth that a juror should satisfy heightened standards of integrity before sitting in judgment of others. An extensive criminal record tends to be a fairly accurate indicator of whether an individual respects the law or the institutions responsible for administering justice. In fact, absent a thorough background investigation into every single prospective juror, a criminal record is really the only objective measure that's available to assess whether an individual possesses the integrity and respect for the law necessary to faithfully carry out their duties as a juror. As drafted, this bill would permit individuals convicted of some of the most serious crimes imaginable to serve on juries once they've completed their sentence. It would allow convicted human traffickers and child rapists to sit in judgment of other sexual predators. An individual convicted of ethnic intimidation could sit in judgment of minority defendants despite an established history of racism and bigotry. Individuals convicted of crimes rooted in deception and dishonesty like perjury fraud or theft could serve as jurors in case where the outcome depends heavily upon the jury ability to assess witness credibility If jurors are entrusted with the responsibility of faithfully applying our laws then at a minimum we should expect those individuals to have demonstrated a willingness to obey the law themselves. For these reasons, I'll be opposing House Bill 2281.
Representative Kincaid on the bill as amended.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I always find it entertaining when I get a jury summons because I know without a doubt that I will not be selected because I have a law degree, because I have experience in the criminal justice system as a defense attorney. And so preemptory challenges exist and are often used by prosecutors in order to keep me and people like me with the experience that I have off of those juries because I have a professional experience that could potentially result in either jury nullification or actually not a conviction. So I think to say that somebody who has a history, a criminal history in some capacity, would automatically end up on a jury is sort of discounting the entire jury selection process. and certainly a question could be put onto the form that you fill out when you are in the jury room that says, have you been convicted of a crime? And then the attorneys selecting the jury would be able to ask about that criminal history and whether or not they believe that it would impact the ability for 12 peers of the defendant to be able to weigh effectively the evidence that, you know, whether or not this person is guilty or not. And I trust in the ability for prosecutors and defense attorneys to be able to look at potential jurors and say this person is not going to be an effective and unbiased person to weigh this evidence. And for the exact same reason, you know, when people fill out these forms and they say, I give more credibility automatically to police officers because they are police officers. Those folks often do not end up on juries. So there are a multitude of reasons for why people are not selected for juries. And to say that the people who are selecting these jurors are incapable of weighing that information and making that decision, I think really does a discredit to our attorneys in Pennsylvania. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Representative. Any other comments on the bill as amended? So just real quick, I mean, we believe in paying your debts to society and you've served your time and you move on. I think this is one of the parts of that. We restore the right to vote. We should do whatever we can to allow them to serve on jurors. We one of what three or four states that has a lifetime exclusion to this I don think that is something that we should be proud of Rep Kincaid talking about jury of your peers I mean that is what we are trying to address And I would be open to having more conversations on both sides about, you know, tightening this up a little bit if that would get a favorable support for it on the floor. But at this point, I'm very happy with a yes vote, and I will be encouraging all the members to be voting yes. So, Secretary, please call the roll call on House Bill 2281 as amended.
Chairman Briggs. Yes. Representatives Abney. Yes. Carroll. Donahue. Yes. Hambridge. Hohenstein. Howard. Kenyatta. Yes. Kincaid. Mays. Yes. P.L.E. Rab. Yes. Sanchez. Yes. Schusterman. Chairman Kaufman. No. Representatives Bonner. Borowitz. No. Ham. No. Kale. No. Kerwin. No. Clunk. No. Krupa. Kuzma? No. Ledbetter? No. Pugh? Rigby? No. Mr. Chairman, this bill passes. A vote of 14 to 12.
House bill passes and we'll report it to the floor. Thank you, members, as amended. Finally on the agenda, I will be calling up House Bill 733 by Representative McNeil. I was trying to wait for Representative McNeil to arrive. I don't see her, so council
please provide an explanation on the bill. Mr. Chairman, House Bill 733 by Representative McNeil amends Title 23, Section 1503 to clarify that an individual of a religious order, body, or institution authorized by the rules and customs of that order, body, or institution to perform a marriage ceremony. The bill takes effect in 60 days, and there is one amendment.
Council, please provide a brief description of Amendment A-0364, wait, 3640.
Mr. Chairman, Amendment 03640 by Chairman Briggs modernizes Section 1503 of Title 23 in its entirety to permit members of religious orders, ministers, priests, rabbis, active or former governors, lieutenant governors, members of the General Assembly, state and federal judges, mayors of cities and boroughs, and chief executives of home rule municipalities to solemnize marriage within the Commonwealth. The amendment also creates uniform exceptions to prohibit individuals convicted of felonies, those removed from office or resigned to avoid removal, and individuals who are not currently residents of the Commonwealth from solemnizing marriage. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, counsel. The question is, will the committee adopt the amendment A-03640? Any comments on the amendment? Chairman Kaufman, on the amendment.
I'm going to keep this brief on the amendment and the bill. I definitely do not want to get roped into solemnizing marriages. I'll be opposing the amendment. And I have not heard from constituents that we need more people to solemnize marriages. I'll be opposing the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Any other comments on the amendment? Secretary, please call the roll on Amendment 03640.
Briggs is a yes. Representatives Abney?
Yes.
Carol? Donahue.
Yes.
Hambage. Hohenstein. Howard. Kenyatta.
Yes.
Kincaid.
Yes.
Mays? Yes. Pieli? Rabb? Yes. Sanchez? Yes. Schusterman?
Chairman Kaufman? No. Representatives Bonner?
Borowitz? No. Ham? No. Kale? No. Kerwin? No. Klunk? No. Krupa? Kuzma? No. Ledbetter? Pugh? Rigby?
No.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment passes. The vote of 14 to 12.
Thank you. Amendment passes, and the question recurs, will the committee report the bill as amended? Are there any comments on the bill as amended? Secretary, please call the roll on the bill as amended.
Chairman Briggs?
Yes.
Representatives Abney?
Yes.
Carroll? Donahue?
Yes.
Hambage? Hohenstein, Howard, Kenyatta, yes, Kincaid, Mays, yes, P.L.E., Rab, yes, Sanchez, yes, Schusterman, Chairman Kaufman, no, Representatives Bonner, Borowitz, no, Ham, no, Kale, no, Kerwin, no, No. Clunk. No. Krupa Kuzma No Ledbetter Pugh Rigby No Mr Chairman the bill passes a vote of 14 to 12 Thank you Secretary of the House Bill 733 passes and will be reported as committed
Just real quick before we adjourn, I was a little disappointed early on. I am going to watch the video. Based on a couple of our members on the committee receiving death threats, being put on hit lists, being stated that we're un-American, to hear a colleague of ours in this room say we are un-American. I am going to listen to exactly what was said, but those comments are insightful. They're trying to inspire hate, trying to divide us, and it's just not what this committee's work is about. If that's what she meant, I will watch the video and plan my next steps accordingly. But I just wanted to flag that as something that was disappointing to hear. This meeting stands adjourned. Thank you, members. .