June 23, 2026 · COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY · 4,079 words · 32 speakers · 201 segments
. Thank you. Thank you.
Education is the Technology Committee. NOAA, please call the roll. Chair Cerisi.
Here.
Representative Carroll.
Designation.
Representative Curry.
Designation.
Representative Davidson.
Here.
Representative Doherty.
Here.
Representative Inglis.
Here.
Representative Mazzacco.
Here.
Representative Napoleon Nelson.
Designation.
Representative Powell.
Designation.
Representative Prokopiak.
Designation.
Representative Rivera.
Here.
Representative Rosnock.
Designation.
Representative Takak.
Designation.
Representative Waxman.
Here.
Chair Ortitai.
Here.
Representative Dorsey.
Here.
Representative Day.
Designation.
Representative Gaydos.
Present.
Representative Irvin.
Here.
Representative Ledbetter.
Designation.
Representative Eric Nelson.
Here.
Representative Reichard.
Designation.
Representative Rigby?
Here.
Representative Stare?
Here.
Representative Robich?
Here.
Representative Wallin?
Here.
You do have a quorum. Thank you, and I think Gina Curry is online, so I just want to acknowledge that. We're going to go a little out of order. We're first going to take House Bill 2006 by Representative Schusterman, and there is an amendment to it, but, Alex, please read the summary of the bill, and then we'll get to the amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. House Bill 2006 requires AI companion applications to implement safety features for discussions, including suicidal ideation and self-harm, and provides for transparency that the user is not communicating with a human.
Thank you, and Representative Schusterman's here. So if you want to talk about the bill, then we'll get to the amendment.
Chairman, should I remark on the bill or the?
The bill first, yeah.
Okay, so the bill as amended.
No, fire the amendment. Just talk about the bill, and then we'll get to the amendment so they know what the amendment's about.
Okay. I want to thank both the chairs for bringing this up for a vote. And the revolutionary potential of AI and the positive impacts of this technology will have on businesses, government, and society is undeniable. However, we currently do not have safety protocols and consumer protections in place. We need transparency and safeguards. In my bill, these include but are not limited to prohibiting chatbots from assisting with or encouraging suicide attempts and acts of violence, prohibiting chatbots from interactions that are intended to promote the isolation of minors, not allowing AI to create child sexual abuse materials, and requiring chatbot companies to take reasonable measures to prevent minors from being exposed to sexual content. I want to ensure the residents of our Commonwealth benefit from technology, but that we as legislators also work to prevent tragedies. Many of you might want to know what AI companion is. It's also called a chatbot. It can take the form of your child's favorite soccer player or celebrity. It can act like the perfect friend. Far too many children and adults are creating unhealthy emotional attachments with chatbots and are experiencing terrifying interactions. As a state legislator, I don't see adequate action at the federal level. as AI chatbots continue to advance. Our society is coming to a bipartisan consensus. We need government to step up. I am determined to provide these common sense and reasonable safeguards, as you see in my bill, and I've worked together with stakeholders, the administration leadership, and this committee to bring this bill to this point. Thank you.
Thank you, Representative. And if there is one amendment that we'll be offering up, I'll be offering up Amendment 0-3-7-5-1. Alex, would you please read the amendment?
Amendment A-0-3-7-5-1 is a gut and replace amendment that expands safety protocols required for AI companions, increases disclosure requirements, adds new safeguards for minors, and requires age assurance and verifiable parental consent, and requires de-identified reporting on AI companion operator compliance measures.
Thank you. Are there any questions or comments on the amendment? Representative Verbusch.
Good morning. I just wanted to share some concerns because we started with what was a bill just focused on identifying and preventing suicide with fees of $15,000 per day potentially. And this has just really expanded into a lot more regulation a lot more topics and that fine also increased to a day So at this point I think we need to maybe take a step back and talk about this more before we put together what could be one of the most restrictive bills for AI in the country. So I think we just need to step back and not support this amendment at this
time. Thank you. Anyone else? Representative Gatos. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also concur with
my colleague. I commend the maker of the bill and I commend the maker of the amendment for attempting to address some really important issues about how AI is going to affect our children with these agents. And it is a serious, serious matter that I think deserves a lot more attention than simply putting an amendment and then getting this to go further so quickly. I think speed is important, but I think we also have to take the care to make sure that whatever we're doing is thorough. I was on the Joint State Government AI Task Force. We looked at how different governments or entities of departments are looking at AI. And again, I think it deserves thorough review. And I'd like to see maybe a hearing on this so that it could be absolutely complete and not just knee-jerk. So I'll be a no on this.
Thank you. You want to say something, Representative Schusman?
Yes. Thank you, Chairman. I just want to add, when I introduced the bill, it was probably last September. Since then, AI is moving rapidly. There are best practices from other states that we have rolled into this bill. So the committee has worked with the AI providers, the administration, our leaders, to create the best practices in this bill. So these are thoughtful. And if we don't act now, it's sort of I equate it to something that a lot of people might not equate AI to. remember when we were all talking about how vaping would help people stop smoking? Instead, it created an entire generation that smokes vapes. So if we don't act and start putting in the guardrails, at least for our children, we are at risk of this getting away from us, similarly to what happened with vaping. So I just want to add the comments. We've had everyone at the table. They've expressed their concerns. And we have tweaked accordingly to make sure that we're all meeting in the middle with this amendment. So the amendment is basically strengthening what I currently dropped last September. Thank you. Thank you, Representative
Waxman. Thank you, Chairman. I just wanted to commend the maker of the bill for bringing this forward. You know, I just want to address this conversation about should we be moving too quickly. it is the technology that is moving quickly, right? We have these AI chatbots. They are deployed by these companies right now. They are on everyone's phones right now. They are accessible by computer right now. There are young people, children, who are at risk right now. And so I think that we need to move with the speed of technology. This bill has been circulated for quite some time. There's been stakeholder feedback and different things from the different companies. And, you know, I think it's totally appropriate for us to move forward this morning. I think we should. I think we really are in this building, you know, need to step up to the challenge and the danger that is represented by this new technology. I think this bill does that. And I think any more delay and waiting, I think, will result in potential catastrophe. So we just have to realize that people are at risk right now. Children are at risk right now. And this bill steps into that void. And so I'm looking forward to voting for it. And I urge a yes vote. Thank you, Representative Nelson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Representative, I appreciate the direction that you're wanting to go or the initial, you know, bill in trying to create some safeguards or guardrails. I'm not sure if it would be yourself or chairman to speak on the amendment. How if a chat bot or the entity is in another country and our attorney general shall enforce this act, how does our attorney general have the ability to pursue – I mean 100,000, I agree. That's a it's 100,000 per day is really pretty high. But if Pennsylvania moves forward with our own bill, how do how do we pursue, you know, an entity based in another country?
I think it's a question that when we look at corporations around the world, when there's a lawsuit against a corporation in another country, it goes through the court system. So you'd have to file into an international court and go after them to try and get the money. I'm not a legal scholar. I don't have a law degree, so I can't say it for that. I mean, when we brought up the amendment, when the amendment came to us, it was under legal counsel that this would be able to be enforced. But I don't think it's any different than going after a European or an Asian company based over there from the United States. It's the same type of thing.
I just – is there – does our attorney general have the skill set to pursue international bad actors? If an Iranian entity creates a chatbot that is attempting to promote suicide or drug use or child starvation, any of those things, I mean it's really – it's the federal government that has to pursue that. I just don't – I don't know that Pennsylvania's attorney general is going to have the skill set to go after an international bad actor.
Well, the attorney general also would consult with other attorneys that they might have that, just like anything we see when there's a lawsuit where they're going after a foreign company. And it's not uncommon that American organizations will sue companies in other places or individuals will sue a company in Europe or in Asia or in Africa, wherever it might be. They consult with attorneys from elsewhere. So I don't think this is anything that's so unusual. I just think it's a little bit harder to pursue.
I'll agree with that. It's going to take more time and energy. But when we look at what's on the line and the reason why we'd be doing it, it's something that I believe that each and every one of us believe that we need to do.
But the procedural part of it is where the question comes in. So I hope that answered your question. I see the representative wants to respond. But just let him finish his train of thought before we go any further.
Yeah, and the last part, does Pennsylvania have the capability? Let's say we have an international bad actor that has chatbots that are trying to do bad things, which I think we all don want to have happen Does Pennsylvania have the ability to remove it from the Internet or from the apps I mean as a state do we have the capacity to be able to take something down that is doing – like I understand where you're going for, but is – like do we have the ability to even stop a bad thing and remove it from the Internet?
the attorney general has the authority to be able to do it procedurally i can't speak to how they do it because i'm obviously not in their department but they do have the ability to be able to do it as do every state is it easy i would assume the answer is no i can't tell you it's going to be easy but can they do it yes it will be a challenge yes so it comes down to again do we just give up because it's going to be more difficult or do we really take this on and as we're taking it on Does it push other states to move in the direction with us because the federal government doesn't want to act on anything like this? So that's another question that also comes up.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Representative, you wanted to respond.
I think that's a very timely question, and I just was meeting with the administration and the Department of State to talk about their internal task force, their internal movement to be able to hold people accountable. You are talking internationally. The example we were talking about in another one of my chatbot bills that happens not to be in this committee is some of these bad actors are very close by. So they're in other states, and we are at the ready to act because federally there has been no action. When someone opens their phone and they're interacting, we can figure out who, which company is doing that and which parent company is doing that. A lot of times I worked in the field of video and film where I interacted with the Googles of the world. So I was rolled into Google, in a sense, if they had a contract with me. People would be able to find me if I created something false and then go all the way up to the parent company, the people who paid for that video, that animation, that chatbot. Now we're at chatbots. I miss that part of development. So I do think this is something new, but we're at the ready, and we're starting to prepare ourselves and work with our attorney general, Department of State, to go after bad actors. Thank you.
Representative Gatos, second time.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And follow up to the question that I had earlier is that you mentioned that and the chairman mentioned that you sought the input from various corporations. You said the administration, can you provide a list of any of the entities that you have consulted so that we can understand all the different stakeholders that were brought to the table? Because I'd like to see this be a bipartisan effort and bring everybody to the table instead of rushing this through.
Alex could probably provide that list. We've had many different meetings that included a variety of stakeholders from technology companies to parents, concerned parents and concerned citizens, as well as the administration and leadership.
I get that, but something specific would be helpful instead of just being that way.
Alex will get that to you. Alex will get you the list of who we spoke to.
Thank you.
Chairman Atitai.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, we've had a lot of good debate here so far on this bill, and I'm not opposed to the concept itself. I think the concept is good and it is needed. And the problem that this committee has been tasked with since our inception last year is how do we keep up with a rapidly changing technology that may be different in three months, six months, a year, five years, but still keeping something actually in statute while allowing the guardrails to be there? And I think the amendment, while I'll be voting no today on the amendment and the bill, I think that we can get there at some point. I know there are talks, as you mentioned, Prime Sponsor mentioned. There are conversations happening with the Senate, the administration, I believe with the attorney general. So the parties are together trying to work on agreeable language. And, again, I go back to what I said. Terms and definitions in this space are difficult when you're trying to put definitions on certain terms. when things continually change over and over again. What may be true today may not be true in three or four months from now, which, again, this committee is tasked with trying to come up with something that we can put in a statute that puts these guardrails in place. And I want to make sure that we get it right. That's the first and foremost. I know we want to prevent the suicides and anything harmful happening to children. We absolutely want to prevent that from happening, but we want to make sure we get it right so there aren't unintended consequences. Again, I'm not looking for perfect. I just want to make sure that we get it right. And I know that we're going to continue to work on that language. Again, I'm not opposed to the concept, but am opposed to the language that's in the amendment here today. But hopefully as we move this bill forward, which I'm sure it will pass out of committee today, we can come to an agreement hopefully on the floor and get everyone to a yes. So with that said, I'll ask my members for a no on the amendment and a no on the bill with the hope that we can get there on second on the House floor and hopefully on final. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No, would you call the roll, please?
Chair Cerise.
Yes.
Chair Cerise.
Yes.
Representative Carroll.
Yes, by designation.
Representative Curry.
Yes, by designation.
Representative Davidson.
Yes.
Representative Doherty.
Yes.
Representative Inglis.
Yes.
Representative Mazzocco.
Yes.
Representative Napoleon Nelson, Representative Powell.
Yes, by designation.
Representative Prokopiak, Representative Rivera.
Yes.
Representative Rozenhoek.
Yes, by designation.
Representative Takak.
Yes, by designation.
Representative Waxman.
Yes.
Chair, Ortitai.
No.
Representative Dorsey.
No.
Representative Day.
No, by designation.
Representative Gaydos.
No.
Representative Ervin.
No.
Representative Ledbetter.
No, by designation.
Representative Eric Nelson?
No.
Representative Reichard?
No, by designation.
Representative Rigby?
No.
Representative Stare?
Representative Verobisch?
No.
Representative Wallen?
The amendment passes by a vote of 14 to 12.
Thank you. Now on to the bill as amended. Are there any comments? I'll just share one quick comment. I want to thank the maker of the bill and all the representatives who spoke on behalf of the bill and look forward to working with my co on this as we get it to the floor so we can make sure that we have everything everyone asking for in the bill And as we look at this I just want to share a quick story that was shared with me at a conference we were at where a parent presented where that child commits suicide through a bot that didn't tell them to do it, but just reinforced the way that they were feeling. And it didn't do anything that you would say, well, it told them, you know, like we saw the stories out of Florida where the child was told to take their own life. But it just reinforced their feelings because there were no guidelines around what was happening. And while I understand that we still have more to work on, I also agree with my colleague, Representative Waxman, that says it's a technology that's surpassing us so fast that we can't keep it in check. And sometimes we need to act quickly to slow it down. And then, like you said, Chairman, there will be things that won't be in there that we still have to work on, but at least it'll slow the process. And I look forward to by the time this bill gets to the floor of working through that and having an amended bill on the floor that everyone could vote for. So with that, again, Noah, I'd ask you to call the roll.
Chair Cerisi?
Yes.
Representative Carroll?
Yes, by designation.
Representative Curry?
Yes, by designation.
Representative Davidson?
Yes.
Representative Doherty?
Yes.
Representative Inglis?
Yes.
Representative Mazzacco?
Yes.
Representative Napoleon Nelson?
Yes.
Representative Powell?
Yes, by designation.
Representative Prokopiak.
Representative Rivera.
Yes.
Representative Rosnock.
Yes, by designation.
Representative Taycac.
Yes, by designation.
Representative Waxman.
Yes.
Chair Ortita.
No.
Representative Dorsey.
No.
Representative Day.
No, by designation.
Representative Gaydos.
No.
Representative Irvin.
No.
Representative Ledbetter.
No, by designation.
Representative Eric Nelson.
No.
Representative Reichard.
No, by designation.
Representative Rigby.
Rigby.
Representative Stare.
Representative Reverbish.
Representative Wallen.
The bill passes by a vote of 14 to 12.
Thank you. House Bill 2006 will be reported as amended from the House Communications Technology Committee. Thank you, Representative. Moving on to House Bill 634 by Representative Cephe of the Faithess. You want to come up and speak about the bill. There is one amendment to the bill, two amendments to the bill, I'm sorry. But why don't we speak about the bill and then get to the amendments.
Alex, would you please explain the bill? Thank you, Mr. Chair. House Bill 634 requires schools to consider implementing a panic alarm system as part of their reviews of their school safety and security practices.
Thank you, Representative. Would you like to speak about the bill?
Thank you, Chairman Cerisi, Chairman Ortiz, did I say right? Awesome. and members of the committee for allowing me to speak on House Bill 634. Several months ago, this committee heard testimony on this legislation. We heard from educators, safety advocates, and most importantly, from Lori Alhadev, the mother of Alyssa Alhadev, who was killed in the 2018 school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Lori sent her daughter Alyssa to school expecting she would come home that afternoon, but unfortunately, she never did. Her testimony was a powerful reminder that school safety is not an abstract policy discussion. It is about real children, real families, and real lives. As a mother myself, that reality hits close to home. Every parent who drops their child off at school should have confidence that their child will return home safely at the end of the day. House Bill 634 is a simple, common-sense measure. it requires school safety and security coordinators to consider the implementation of a silent panic alarm system as part of their safety review process. It does not mandate a device or technology. It simply requires schools to evaluate a tool that can help speed emergency response when every second counts. As legislators, we cannot eliminate every risk, but we can take practical steps to better prepare our schools and better protect our students and educators. So today is not just about a bill. It's about whether we are willing to take practical steps to better protect our students and educators. We've heard the testimony. The facts have been presented before us. And we have an opportunity to take a meaningful step forward. Thank you, both Chairman Cerisi and Chairman Ortizai. And thank you to members of this committee for your thoughtful consideration of House Bill 634. I appreciate your commitment to the safety of Pennsylvania students and educators. So thank you.
Thank you, Representative. There are two amendments. We'll take first Amendment 03728 that I'll offer up.
Alex, please explain the amendment. Amendment A03728 provides additional flexibility for the type of law enforcement that would be intended to respond to the activation of a panic alarm.
Are there any comments on the amendment before we get to the vote? Are there any no votes on the amendment? I'll say the amendment will pass unanimously. On to Amendment A02290 by Representative Day.
Alex, please read the amendment. Amendment A02290 adds language requiring schools that utilize panic alarm systems to coordinate with law enforcement, designate a primary emergency response agency, develop written response protocols, and report panic alarm system information to PCCD as part of their school safety and security survey.
Any questions or comments on the amendment? Are there any no votes on the amendment? The amendment will pass through onto the bill itself as amended. Are there any questions or comments on the bill as amended? Are there any no votes on the bill as amended? Seeing none, House Bill will report as amended, House Bill 634. Thank you so much, Representative. Congratulations. Moving on, we have one more piece of business. We have House Resolution 560 by Representative Pickett. I don't see here.
Alex, would you read what the House Resolution is? House Resolution 560 recognizes the week of June 22nd through 28th, 2026, as Amateur Radio Week in Pennsylvania.
Are there any comments on the House Resolution? Are there any no votes on the House resolution? All right. Well, House Resolution 560 were reported out of committee unanimously. I want to thank everyone, and that is it for the meeting. Meeting adjourned. Thank you.
Thank you.