( The SPEAKER. The Chair is about to take requests for

Transcription

1 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 1986 SESSION OF TH OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY No. 27 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES I LEAVES OF ABSENCE The House convened at 11 a.m., e.s.t. ( The SPEAKER. The Chair is about to take requests for leaves of absence. THE SPEAKER (K. LEROY IRVIS) The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Lawrence, Mr. IN THE CHAIR Fee. Do you have any requests? PRAYER Mr. FEE. Mr. Speaker, 1 do not see any leaves at this time. The SPEAKER. The Chair will return to leaves. If the gen- REV. DR. DAVID R. HOOVER, chaplain of the House tleman does have a request, indicate so to the Chair and the of Representatives, from McConnellsburg, Pennsylvania, Chair will return to the order of business. offered the following prayer: Mr. FEE. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the minority leader. Do you have some requests? Mr. RYAN. Mr. Speaker, I would request leave for the gentleman from Lehigh, Mr. SNYDER, for today's session only. The SPEAKER. The Chair hears no objection to the granting of the leave, and the leave is so granted. Almighty and Everlasting God, as humble and deeply grateful stewards of Thine, we draw near to Thee at the beginning of this day's session. Look down upon this assemblage as representatives of Thine who are called to carry out Thy will. Bestow upon them Thy heavenly benediction and bless them as workmen of Thine. Fill them with the competency of Thy divine wisdom in carrying out Thy truth in all of life. Guide them in the accomplishments of the greatest good for the people of this great Commonwealth, and use them and their talents to bring forth the most beneficial programs for their constituency. This we ask in Thy blest name. Amen. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (The Pledge of Allegiance was enunciated by members.) JOURNAL APPROVAL POSTPONED The SPEAKER. The Journal for Tuesday, April 15, 1986, not yet being in print, the approval of that Journal will be postponed until it is in print, unless there be objection. The Chair hears no such objection. BILLS REMOVED FROM TABLE The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the majority leader. Mr. MANDERINO. Mr. Speaker, I move that HB433 and SB 1343 be lifted from the tabled calendar and placed on the active calendar. Will the House agree to the motion? Motion was agreed to. I WELCOME The SPEAKER. The Chair welcomes to the hall of the House, as guests of the entire Beaver County delegation, Doctors Boal, Baskas, Segal, and Shetty. Welcome to the hall of the House. We are delighted to have you here. MASTER ROLL CALL The SPEAKER. The Chair is about to take the master roll call for The members proceed The following rollcall was recorded: PRESENT-I98 Acosta Dietz Lashinger Rieger Afflerbach Dininni Laughlin Rabbins Angstadt Distler Lescavitz Roebuck Argall Dombrowski Letterman Rudy Arty Donatucci Levdanrky Ryan Baldwin Dorr Linton Rybak Barber Duffy Livengoad Saloom Durham Llovd Saurman Battista Belardi Belfanti Birmelin Black Blaum Bortner Bowley Bowser Boyes Brandt Broujos Evans Fargo Fattah Fee Fischer Flick Foster Fox Freeman Freind Fryer Callen ~ucik McCall McClatchy McHale McVerry Mackowski Mniale Manderina Manmiller Markosek Mayernik Merry Scheetz Schuler Semmel Serafini Seventy Showers Sirianni Smith, B. Smith, L. E Snyder, C. Staback Stairs

2 772 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE APRIL 16, Bunt Gamble Michlovic Steighner Burd Cannon Micazzie Stevens Burns Geist Miller Stewart Bush George Moehlmann Stuban Caltagirone Gladeck Morris Sweet Cappabianca Codshall Mowery Swift Carlson Greenwood Mrkonic Taylor, E. Z. Cam Gruitza Murphy Taylor, F. Cawley Gruppa Nahill Taylor, J. Cessar Hagarty Noye Telek Chadwick Haluska O'Brien Tigue Cimini Harper O'Dannell Trello Civera Hasay Olasr Truman Clark Hayes Oliver Van Horne Clymer Herman Perzel Veon Cohen Hershey Petrarea Vroon Colafella Honaman Petrone Wambach Cole Howleft Phillips Wass Cordisco Hutchinson Piccola Weston Cornell ltkin Pievsky Wiggins Coslett Jackson Pistella Wilson Cowell Jarolin Pitts Wagan COY Johnson Patt Wozniak Deluca Josephs Pressmann Wright, D. R. DcVerter Kasunic Preston Wright, 5. L. DeWeese Kennedy Punt Wright, R. C. Daley Kenney Raymond Yandrisevits Davies Kosinski Reber Dawida Kukovich Reinard Irvis, Deal Langtry Richardson Speaker ADDITIONS-0 NOT VOTING-0 EXCUSED-3 Book Gallagher Snyder. D. W. LEAVES ADDED-I Evans BILL AND VETO MESSAGE TABLED The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the majority leader. Mr. MANDERINO. Mr. Speaker, I move that the line-item veto of HB 66 be placed on the tabled calendar. Will the House agree to the motion? Motion was agreed to. CALENDAR BILLS ON SECOND CONSIDERATlON The following hills, having been called up, were considered for the second time and agreed to, and ordered transcribed for third consideration: HB 247, PN 264; and HB 124, PN 138. *** The House proceeded to second consideration of HB 667, PN 3245, entitled: An Act amending Title 71 (State Government) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, adding provisions relating to credited service as a retirement incentive and the accrued liability contribution rate. Will the House agree to the bill on second consideration? BILL RECOMMITTED The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the majority leader. Mr. MANDERINO. Mr. Speaker, I move that HB 667 be recommitted for a fiscal note to the Committee on Appropriations. Will the House agree to the motion? Motion was agreed to. * 11 The following bills, having been called up, were considered for the second time and agreed to, and ordered transcribed for third consideration: HB 2305, PN 3182; and SB 1259, PN BILLS ON THIRD CONSIDERATION The House proceeded to third consideration of HB 2059, PN 3096, entitled: An Act making an appropriation to the Department of Agriculture to assist in the eradication of Avian Influenza and Pseudorabies. Will the House agree to the bill on third consideration? BILL RECOMMITTED The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the majority leader. Mr. MANDERINO. Mr. Speaker, I move that HB 2059 he recommitted to the Committee on Appropriations. Will the House agree to the motion? Motion was agreed to. * * : The House proceeded to third consideration of HB 2174, PN 2967, entitled: An Act amending the act of March 10, 1949 (P. L. 30, No. 14), known as the "Public School Code of 1949," providing for the ownership of land and buildings by intermediate units. Will the House agree to the bill on third consideration? Mr. DOMBROWSKI offered the following amendments No. A1299: Amend Sec. 2 (Sec A), page 2, lines I and 2, by striking out "leases or debt service payments" and inserting [leases] lease agreements, loan agreements, mortsages, security agreements, or any other contracts, instruments or agreements, Amend Sec. 2 (Sec A), page 2, line 7, by striking out "leases or debt payments" and inserting [leases] lease agreements, loan agreements, mortgages, security agreements, or any other contracts, instruments or agreements,

3 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE Amend Sec. 2 (Sec A), page 2, line 17, by striking out "lease or debt service payment" and inserting [lease] payment under any such lease agreement, loan agreement, niorrgage, ie:ur:ty.iprr'cer'jm uther contmlt, in\trumcnt or agreenlcnl \mend Scc. 2 (SC~ A), page 2, line% I8 and 19, h! \trik-.... Caslen Amend S ~ Z S ~ A), C. page 2, lines 20 and 21, by strik- ing out "leases or debt service payments" pay-ments" and inserting I [ledml lsaae agreements, agreemenis, loan 3grcemcnt*, mort- gages. $r'curitv agreelnznti, or any other :onira$!:!, instruments orakeements, agreements, Amend Sec. 2 (Sec A), page 2, line 22, by inserting brackets before and after "lease" Amend Sec. 2 (Sec A), page 2, line 23, by striking out "or debt service Amend Sec. 2 (Sec A), page 2, line 23, by inserting after "requirements" under any lease agreements, loan agreements, mortgages, security agreements, or any other contracts, instruments or agreements Will the House agree to the amendments? Erie, Mr. Dombrowski. Mr. DOMBROWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment was recommended by the counsel for the Public School Building Authority. It brings into the bill and the School Code certain language that was adopted in Act 26 of Without this language in the bill, HB 2174 would not be effective. I urge an affirmative vote. On the question recurring, Will the House agree to the amendments? The following roll call was recorded: YEAS-182 Afosta Dininni Laughlin Reinard Afflerbach Distler Lescovitz Richardson Angstadt Dombrawski Letterman Rabbins Argall Dorr Levdansky Roebuck Any Duffy Linton Rudy Baldwin Durham Livengood Ryan Barber Evans Lloyd Rybak Barley Farga Lucyk Saloom Batti~to Fattah McCall Saurman Belardi Fee McClatchy Scheetz Belfanti Fischer McHale Schuler Birmelin Flick McVerry Semmel Black Foster Mackowski Seventy Blaum Fox Maiale Showers Bonner Freeman Manderino Sirianni Bowley Fryer Manmiller Smith, B. Bowser Gallen Markosek Snyder. G. Boyes Gamble Mayernik Staback Brandt Geist Merry Stairs Broujos George Michlovie Steighner Bunt Gladeck Micozzie Stewart Burns Godshall Miller Stuban Bush Greenwood Moehlmann Swift Caltaglrone Gruitza Morris Taylor, E. 2. Cappabianca Gruppa Mowery Taylor, F. Carlson Hagany Mrkonic Taylor, J. Carn Haluska Murphy Telek Cawley Cessar Chadwick Cimini Civera Clymer Cohen Colafella Cole Carnell Harper Hasay Hayes Herman Hershey Honaman Howlett Hutchinson ltkin Jackson Jarolin Nahill Noye O'Brien O'Donnell Olasr Oliver Perzel Petrone Phillips Piccola Pievskv Tigue Trello Truman Van Home Veon Vroon Wass Weston Wiggins Wilson Woxan COY losephs pistella ~oiniak Deluca Kasunic Pitts Wright, D. R, DeWeese Kennedy Pott Wright, 1. L. Daley Kenney Pressmann Wright, R. C. Davies Kosinski Preston Yandrisevits Dawida Kukovich Punt Deal Langtry Raymond Irvis, Dietz Lashinger Reber Speaker NAY S-0 NOT VOTING-19 Book DeVerter Johnson Snyder, D. W. Burd Donatucci Petrarca Stevens Clark Freind Rieger Sweet Cordisca Gallagher Serafini Wambach Cowell Gannan Smith. L. E. EXCUSED-0 The question was determined in the affirmative, and the amendments were agreed to. Will the House agree to the bill on third consideration as amended? Mr. LASHINGER offered the following amendments No. A1464: Amend Title, page I, line 6, by removing the period after "units" and inserting ; and further providing for contracts with private residential rehabilitative institutions and for day treatment Drograms. Amend Bill, page l;by?nserting between lines 17 and 18 Section 2. Section A(b) of the act, amended December 17, 1982 (P.L.1378, No.316), is amended to read: Section A. Contracts with Private Residential Rehabilitative Institutions.-* * * (b) The actual cost, not to exceed one and one-half times the tuition charges of the school district in which such private residential rehabilitative institution is located, shall be borne by the school district of the child's residence. If the school district of residence of the child cannot be determined, the costs shall be borne by the Department of Education. The department shall effectuate necessary procedures for the transfer of funds from the school district of residence to the school district or intermediate unit in which ~~~~~ the ~ nrivate residential rehabilitative institution is located. ~ r In effectuating the transfer of funds, the department may deduct the appropriate amount from the basic instructional subsidy of any school district which had resident students that were provided educational services by a private residential rehabilitative institution. * * * Amend Sec. 2, page 1, line 18, by striking out "2" and inserting 3 Amend Bill, page 2, by inserting between lines 25 and 26 Section 4. Section 1310(c) of the act, amended December 17, I982 (P.L.1378, No.316), is amended to read:

4 ~~~ ~~-~ ~ -~ Section Assignment of Pupils to Schools.-* * * (c) The actual cost, not to exceed one and one-half times the tuition charges of the school district in which such day treatment program is located, shall he borne by the school district of the residence, If the school district of residence of the child cannot he determined, the costs shall be borne by the Department of Education. The department shall effectuate necessary proce- dures for the transfer of funds from the school district of residence to the school district in which the day treatment program is located. In effectuating the transfer of funds, the department may deduct the appropriate amount from the basic instructional suhqidv of B ~ schnnl Y district which had resident sttndcnts who.-..- ~~,.~-.., -~-~-.~ ~~~.~ ~ ~~. --- were provided educational services by an approved children and I youth agency. *** Amend Sec. 3, page 2, line 26, by striking out "3" and inserting 5 Will the House agree to the amendments? Montgomery, Mr. Lashinger, on the amendment. Mr. LASHINGER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, very briefly. MY amendment will change the method of reimbursement to those schools that are known as PRRl's or private residential rehabilitative institutions across the Commonwealth. To give you some indication of what this House did 5 or 6 years ago, it was about 6 years ago that we were faced with a crisis in our local school districts where children who were found to be court-adjudicated delinquent were still in need of a placement after they came through our juvenile court system across the Commonwealth, in need of an educational placement. Some of those educational placements were back into our local school districts. If you will remember, most of our local school districts found that because of the unusual student profile, the fact being that most of these students had the worst profile for a young student, they could not be integrated back into the local school districts and there were needs for placement in these various PRRl's. For your information, some of these PRRl's include the Lutheran Home, which is north of Pittsburgh; Holy Family, which is in Pittsburgh. There is a program in the northeastern part of the State known as St. Michael's. Montgomery County has New Life Boy's Ranch, St. Gabriel's Hall. Delaware County has the Sleighton School and Glen Mills. There is a program here in central Pennsylvania serving Lancaster, York, Dauphin, and Cumberland Counties known as the ARK program or the A-R-K program. We are changing the formula from 100 percent of the tuition charge of that school district to 1 1/2 times the normal tuition charge of that school district. What has happened across the Commonwealth is the administrators of the various programs in the PRRl's have found that the current method of reimbursement is not sufficient. They have threatened to back out of the programs if we do not increase the reimbursement level. We are therefore increasing it by 50 percent today. The fiscal impact on the Commonwealth is a mere $75,000, according to our Appropriations Committee staff. The LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE APRIL 16, impact on the local school districts, again according to our staff, is $2 million, most of that money being borne in the urban areas, the Philadelphia and Allegheny County areas, hut we are advised that that increase in funding can he picked UP through the basic education subsidy formula of those respective districts. So the total overall cost is $2,075,000. F~~ the reason that most of our districts have advised us that they cannot accept these students or they do not have placements for these students, 1 would ask that the House adopt the amendment. With one further caution, Mr. Speaker: Some have been advised that somehow this affects I neaativelv HB 2174 by their various intermediate units. Inter- - estingly enough, it is those same intermediate units who are telling you that this has some effect on this other legislation that are telling us that they do not have placements for these children. So it is ironic that the intermediate units who are making phone calls over the past 24 or 48 hours to slow this amendment down are the same groups that are advising us that they do not have placements. The concern of the intermediate units who are calling you is not with the substance of the amendment; their concern is a procedural concern. It is a concern that the bill itself, HB 2174, needs to move quickly through both chambers. I have advised those 1 ~ that ' have ~ made those,,hone calls that they also have a need for this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY Allegheny, Mr. Cowell. Mr. COWELL. Mr. Speaker, point of parliamentary inquiry. Do we have a fiscal note for this amendment? Mr. Speaker, do we have an official fiscal note for this amendment? The SPEAKER. There is no indication that there is a fiscal note. Mr. LASHINGER. Mr. Speaker, may 1 respond. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we have advised the Democratic staff that we were requesting a fiscal note. Our staff prepared the fiscal note that I just announced to the House. To the best of my knowledge, we have not gotten any word that there is a dispute between the figures that our Appropriations Committee staff came up with and those figures that Representative Pievsky's staff has come up with. So we did make this known to the Democratic side of the aisle yesterday, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman, Mr. Cowell, yield for amomenttomr.pievsky? Mr. COWELL. Yes. The SPEAKER. The gentleman so yields. Mr. PIEVSKY. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there is a little dispute between the fiscal note that the minority put out and the one that we are working on presently that is not even prepared as yet, although Mr. Lashinger did come to me and request a fiscal note. Mr. Lashinger said that there was a $75,000 cost as far as the State

5 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE was concerned. We came up with a $100,000 cost as far as that goes. There is also $2,250,000 for the school district cost with this amendment. I also understand that there is some other cost involved and that we are unable to get the figures as yet from the Education Department. The SPEAKER. The summation of that therefore is that there is no fiscal note attached. Mr. PIEVSKY. Not at this time from the majority party. The SPEAKER. Mr. Cowell, under the rules, this amendment may not move forward unless there is no objection. Now, if there is objection to its moving, then, of course, it cannot move forward. The House will be at ease to let Mr. Cowell and Mr. Dombrowski talk to Mr. Lashinger. BILL PASSED OVER TEMPORARILY The SPEAKER. We will mark the bill over temporarily, Mr. Dombrowski. We will return to it; we will come back to it. Mark it over temporarily. REMARKS ON VOTE Dauphin, Mr. Wambach. Mr. WAMBACH. On the Domhrowski amendment 1299 to HB 2174, I am looking at the voting record and I am not recorded. I would like to be recorded in the affirmative. The SPEAKER. The gentleman's remarks will be spread upon the record. BILLS ON THIRD CONSIDERATION CONTINUED The House proceeded to third consideration of HB 1625, PN 3246, entitled: An Act amending Title 42 (Judiciarv and Judicial Procedure) of the ~ennsylvania consolidated statutes, providing for a manager, coach, um~ire or referee and non~rofit association nep-. ligence standard in the conduct of certain sports programs. Will the House agree to the bill on third consideration? Mr. FLICK offered the following amendment No. A1538:.. -.., and inserting immediately Amend Sec. 2. oaee 4. line 19. bv strikine out "in 60 davs" Will the House agree to the amendment? Chester. Mr. Flick. on his amendment. Mr. FLICK. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a very simple amendment. It would place this legislation in a position to be enacted into law immediately as it is signed by the Governor, rather than 60 days, which is contained in the legislation. I would urge an affirmative vote. I On the question recurring, Will the House agree to the amendment? The following roll call was recorded: Afflerbach Angstadt Argall Arty Baldwin Barley Battista Belardi Belfanti Birmelin Black Blaum Bartner Bawley Bawser Bayes Brandt Broujos Bunt Burd Burns Bush Caltagirone Cappabianca Carlson Carn Cawley Cessar Chadwiek Cimini Civera Clark Clymer Cohen Cordisco Carnell Coslett Cowell Dietz Dininni Distler Dombrowski Dorr Duffy Durham Fargo Fattah Fee Fiseher Flick Foster Fox Freeman Preind Fryer Gallen Gamble Geist George Gladeck Godshall Greenwood Gruitza Gruppo Hagarty Haluska Harper Hasay Hayes Herman Hershey Honaman Howlett Hutchinson ltkin Jackson Jaralin Johnson Kasunic Kennedy Kennev YEAS-188 Letterman Levdansky Linton Livengood Lloyd Lucyk McCall McClatchy McHale McVerry Mackawski Maiale Manderino Manmiller Markosek Mayernik Merry Michlovic Micorzie Miller Moehlmann Morris Mowery Mrkonic Murphy Nahill Noye O'Brien O'Dannell Olasz Oliver Perzel Petrarca Petrone Phillips Piccala Pievsky Pistella Pitts POtt Pressman" Preston Punt Robbins Roebuck Rudy Ryan Rybak Saloom Saurman Scheetr Schuler Semmel Serafini Seventy Showers Sirianni Smith, B. Smith. L. E. Snyder, G. Staback Stairs Steighner Stevens Stewan Stuban Sweet Swift Taylor, E. 2. Taylor, F. Taylor, J Telek Tigue Trella Truman Van Horne Veon Vroon Wambach Wass Weston Wilson Wogan Wozniak Wright, D. R -. Wrisht. J. L. DeWeese Kosinski Raymond Yandrisevits Daley Kukovich Reber Davies Lashinger Reinard his, Dawida Laughlin Richardson Speaker Deal Lescavitz NAYS-2 Josephs Lanary NOT VOTING-8 Acosta Donatucci Gannon Wiggins Barber Evans Rieger Wright, R. C EXCUSED-3 Book Gallanher - Snyder... D. W, The question was determined in the affirmative, and the amendment was agreed to. Will the House agree to the bill on third consideration as amended?

6 776 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE APRIL 16, Mr. REINARD offered the following amendments No. A1578: Amend Title, page I, line 5, by removing the period after "programs" and inserting ; and providing a negligence standard for officers, directors and trustees of nonprofit organizations. Amend Sec. 1, page I, line 9, by striking out "a section" and inserting Will the House agree to the amendments? The SPEAKER. On the amendment, the chair recognizes the gentleman from Bucks, Mr. Reinard. Mr. REINARD. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this amendment is an agreed-to amendment by the prime sponsor of the bill. It is also an agreed.to amendment by the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers. what the amendment does is simply expand [he scope of this legislation to any individual who serves as an officer, director, or trustee of any nonprofit association and apply the same standard of negligence in this bill to those individuals as well. I ask for your support. The SPEAKER. On the amendment, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Erie, Mr. Cappabianca. Mr. CAPPABIANCA. Mr. Speaker, may I question the sponsor of this amendment? Mr. REINARD. That is correct. It brings in your YMCA board of directors, et cetera. Mr. CAPPABIANCA. Right. Let us go a little further. The boards of trustees of hospitals and so forth which are nonprofit would also be exempt? Mr. REINARD. It only applies to the individual board member in the scope of his duties. So if the member serves on that hoard, that is correct. If he also serves as a doctor of that hospital and is on the board, then those duties would not apply. Mr. CAPPABIANCA. Only because the doctor is being reimbursed? Mr. REINARD. Correct, and because the scope of his duties under this legislation only applies to him acting as a director or trustee. That language, by the way, Mr. Speaker, was brought up and was directed by this amendment when we took it and had it reviewed by various nonprofits and also people who are concerned; specifically, the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers, who have agreed to this language. Mr. CAPPABIANCA. Mr. Speaker, I am in the process, under HR 201, of studying nonprofit organizations and what effect they have on the private sector. I did not want to get into the area of liabilities and so forth, but I am unaware and I am unfamiliar-i am not an attorney-but I think we may be opening up a Pandora's box. Either we table this particular amendment with this particular bill or I am going to ask for a negative vote on this amendment. Bucks, Mr. Reinard. Mr. REINARD. Mr. Speaker, this amendment does not in any way apply to the association or the nonprofit; it only applies to the individual who serves on that board. In no way do the actions of the board become free of any type of legal liability. It simply applies to the individual. He must meet a standard of gross negligence set out in this bill in order to have civil suits brought against him. It does in no manner affect his abilities as a Mr. CAPPABIANCA. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to MI. Reinard, I believe he is interpreting what he thinks is in here, but I believe there is more to it than that. 1 am going to ask for a tabling of this particular bill along with his amendment. The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman yield for a moment? Let us hear from the leader, Mr. Ryan, before you lace your motion. The SPEAKER. The gentleman, MI. ~ ~ i indicates ~ ~ he d, The Chair recognizes the minority leader. will stand for interrogation. You are in order, and you may proceed. Mr. CAPPABIANCA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. ~ r speaker,. I thought I understood the original intent of the bill, which was sort of within the purview of athletic sports and so forth, but your amendment now addresses all non. profit boards of directors and so forth, individuals who are not compensated. Do I understand that correctly? Mr. RYAN. Mr. Speaker, I think this amendment is one of the great pieces of legislation we may have an opportunity to address this year. Time and time again we are having called to Our attention the fact that individuals will no longer serve as members of the board of 501(c)(3) corporations - that is your hospital, Your school, Your YMCA, any nonprofit or not-forprofit corporation - because they are scared to death that they are going to become involved in litigation that really comes about by reason of the activities of the paid staff of the hospital, if you please, and they cannot get insurance today for it.

7 1986 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE 777 I heard Mr. Reinard say that they had talked to the Trial Lawyers on this amendment, and it was approved by them, 1 think realistically approved by them. I think anybody who does not support an amendment that excuses from liability, ordinary liability, ordinary negligence rather, board members of 501(c)(3) corporations is doing a disservice to the community-type boards that are found in their districts. 1 think it is an amendment that we really should look at carefully and support, perhaps even expand to other than 501(c)(3)'s. Erie, Mr. Cappabianca. Mr. CAPPABIANCA. Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to Mr. Ryan, please? The SPEAKER. Mr. Ryan indicates he will stand for interrogation. You may proceed. Mr. CAPPABIANCA. Mr. Speaker, with all due respectyou being an attorney, and I have heard you debate many issues on this floor and 1 tend to get confused like a lot of lay members of this General Assembly-since it only pertains to those individuals who are on boards of nonprofits, due to the fact that they receive no compensation, how about forprofits, for-profit corporations that have boards that receive no remuneration? Mr. RYAN. Mr. Speaker, my understanding of this amendment, of course, is that it does not cover them. I think there is a difference between thee and me serving on the board of our local hospital and serving on the board of a for-profit corporation, be it General Motors or be it a local business organization. The local business organization or corporation is in business to make a profit. As part of the cost of doing business, as part of the cost of doing business, to impose and push down onto their customers, of course, or their clients, is the cost of insurance, director's liability insurance. They are not performing a civic function, but rather they are in it for whatever the reason may be. Maybe they are in it for director's fees; maybe they are in it because they are tied in in a business sense; maybe they are in it because it will look good on their resume, whatever the reason may be. But the people who sit on nonprofit corporate boards - your hospital board, your college board, your YMCA board - they are in there because they are community minded, responsible to the community, trying to do a service. 1 think it is these people whom Mr. Reinard is attempting to protect, because today they cannot get insurance to cover their activities no matter what the premium is in some cases. I know personally of cases where responsible businessmen, whose knowledge would be a welcome addition to a board, refused to serve on a board because of possible exposure to litigation, and it is people like this that we need on our boards, and they will not do it; they will not sit on the college board or the hospital board today. This will solve part of that problem, and, incidentally, will go some way toward solving the present crisis, in my opinion, that is existing with insurance generally. Mr. CAPPABIANCA. Mr. Speaker, there is no question that there is- The SPEAKER. This is your second time on this. Do you wish to speak now? Mr. CAPPABIANCA. Can I still stay in the realm of interrogation? The SPEAKER. Yes; you may interrogate if you wish. Mr. CAPPABIANCA. I believe this is a very serious situation, Mr. Speaker, a very serious subject. We have now entered into the area of the fact that we are having problems getting proper liability insurance in this State, and there is no question about that. But there may be an overlapping possibility of unfairness here which I would like to address. As the minority leader has pointed out, there is no question that there are civic-minded individuals who serve for no compensation on all these various boards of nonprofits. The very fact that they are nonprofit, that we, the General Assembly in the- The SPEAKER. Just a moment. Mr. RYAN. Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand what the- The SPEAKER. Mr. Cappahianca, have you stopped interrogating? Are you now speaking for the second time on the amendment? Mr. CAPPABIANCA. Mr. Speaker, 1 am going to yield to Representative Bortner. The SPEAKER. Are you suggesting that by yielding you have not spoken for the second time? That will not work. You have now spoken for the second time. You had better complete your statement. Mr. CAPPABIANCA. I am trying to hire myself a very good solicitor, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER. Fine. He will not get away with it either. PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY York, Mr. Bortner. Mr. BORTNER. Mr. Speaker, point of parliamentary inquiry. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state the point. Mr. BORTNER. Is there a motion to table this bill pending- The SPEAKER. No, because the Chair intervened and suggested that out of courtesy to a leader, that Mr. Cappabianca wait. Mr. Cappabianca acceded to that and did not place the motion. If he wishes to place the motion, the Chair would recognize him for that purpose. That would not be making a speech on the floor. Does he wish to place that motion? Mr. CAPPABIANCA. Mr. Speaker, I will hold off on my motion. The SPEAKER. Now, Mr. Bortner, do you wish to speak to the amendment? Mr. BORTNER. Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman.

8 778 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE APRIL 16, Mr. BORTNER. Thank you. I agree with everything that Mr. Ryan has said concerning the problem, or the crisis, if it is to be characterized that way. I recognize that there is a very serious problem in the area of getting volunteers to serve on these boards. What I have a problem with is proceeding with an amendment that I think goes very far and perhaps not even far enough-i cannot even tell that from the language of the amendment-in dealing with this problem. I feel that we are dealing with something again on a piecemeal basis. The original bill that came before the Judiciary Committee, which provided immunity in a very limited area, was considered after hearing, was debated in the committee, and after a lot of consideration, was passed on to the floor of the House by the committee. It creates a new standard of negligence, and I see that this bill also creates a new standard of negligence. I am not sure whether that is good or that is bad. What 1 feel that I do need is more time to consider this and to decide whether the language is even sharp enough. I notice that it still provides for liability if the standard of care or conduct falls substantially below the standards generally practiced and accepted in circumstances by similar persons. 1 am not sure what that means. I am not sure that that even really creates any immunity. For that reason, I would like to ask, and only for that reason, that this amendment be either defeated so that we can consider this in a substantive piece of legislation, or, if it is felt that it will not take that much time to clarify some of these questions, perhaps to pass over the bill so that we can at least answer those questions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the majority whip. Mr. O'DONNELL. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to question Mr. Reinard or Mr. Ryan. The SPEAKER. Mr. Ryan will stand for interrogation. Mr. O'DONNELL. Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify the legal impact of the bill and the amendment. The bill is limited to sports programs and the amendment reaches all nonprofits, whether or not they are involved with sports programs. Is that correct? Mr. RYAN. Well, if the gentleman has the bill before him, I will accept his remarks. I do not happen to have one in front of me. Mr. O'DONNELL. Well, 1 guess what we better do is ask Mr. Reinardin terms of his legislative intent at least. Mr. RYAN. I think Mr. Reinard has, if I may, responded to that, that the bill may have come out dealing with coaches and sports complexes; however, it is a 501(c)(3)-type bill and he has amended it and expanded its original purpose - as I vote for this amendment, that is what happens. So that would be my purpose. 1 do not think it grants immunity as such. It changes the duty of care and almost, as I look at it quickly, says you have to make a positive step of guilt rather than ordinary negligence as you and I might understand it to be in these cases. Mr. O'DONNELL. Thank you. Mr. Speaker? The SPEAKER. Mr. O'Donnell, you may continue. Mr. O'DONNELL. On the amendment. I would urge the members to vote against this amendment and to recognize the step that is currently before the House. The rationale for the bill that came out of committee was the reasonable man standard, which is the standard that is applied across the board for negligence and for liability in Pennsylvania. It is a standard of care that has to do with the behavior of all the people in Pennsylvania, and when you look at that standard of reasonable care, people are obliged to observe it. We had a real problem with courts interpreting that reasonable man standard in the context of volunteer sports programs. They reached some results which were offensive to common sense and which were strictly ridiculous. HB 1625, the Flick bill, is an attempt to remedy that problem by creating a narrow exception to the rule of the reasonable man, and that narrow exception will permit a lesser degree of care for people who are involved in a nonprofit that is doing a sports program. It is an attempt to protect the umpires and the coaches and all the other folks in Pennsylvania who have volunteered their time in a sports program. The sports programs have been the narrow set of facts in which we have had a real problem; HB 1625 addresses that. We ought to vote for it. However, we now have a much different problem before the House. The Reinard amendment would extend that exception to the reasonable man standard to some other language, which is not at all clear, but it is clear that it is a much lesser standard of behavior for all the folks who are in responsibility in a nonprofit corporation. We are no longer talking about sports; we are now permitting people who run a day-care center to be negligent in the ordinary standard and exempt them from liability because we are lowering their standard. We are permitting people in a whole variety of enterprises that are very, very sensitive in Pennsylvania, we are permitting them to observe a much lower standard of care. That was never the intent of this bill. The impact of that would be tremendous. The exact extent of that impact is not at all clear. There has never been a committee deliberation on this subject. As a matter of common sense, I think Mr. Ryan is correct that there is a liability insurance problem out there and at some point this Assembly is going to have to come to grips with it. But lowering the standard of care for people outside the sports area who are involved in very, very sensitive types of activities is a terrible mistake; it is a huge step, and we certainly should not be doing that by amendment. I urge the members to vote "no." Berks, Mr. Davies. Mr. DAVIES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is there any way at all that I could get another opinion, rather than the two gentlemen who spoke thus far, whether or not the intent- Maybe I better address the question to the maker of the amendment. Is it your intent to expand the legislation to all of the categories that both Mr. Ryan and Mr. O'Donnell referred to, sir?

9 1986 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE 779 Mr. REINARD. Mr. Speaker, Mr. O'Donnell made a couple errors in his presentation to the House, and I would like to clear those up. First off, Mr. O'Donnell said that this would apply to the people who run these organizations. That is incorrect. This amendment only expands it to the individual who serves on that board. The board of any organization by no means is exempt from any suit, and in fact when Mr. O'Donnell brings up the point that this language is unclear, I have problems understanding that. The language of the amendment is the exact same language of the bill. The language of the amendmen1 simply puts in the three words that say "officer, director or trustee." The entire language of the hill as reported out of committee is exactly the same and unchanged. The standard of care that applies to an individual who runs a sports team or is a coach applies to the same standard of care as the individual who runs or sits on the board of the little YMCA; the same organization of the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts; the same organizations of the people who run any other type of nonprofit board which you and I serve on. It does not exempt them from any legal liability; it simply applies the same standard of care that we recognize for a coach to those other volunteers as well. This hill creates a scope that can go forward in legislation instead of tunnel vision. It simply applies to the individual and does in no way, shape, or form apply to an organization as some other members of this House seem to be reading into it. Mr. DAVIES. The second question; a hypothetical, Mr. Speaker: One of these organizations decides on the question to allow females to participate in a rather physical program of a sport with contact that had not been accepted before. An injury ensues as a result of that decision. Is that conduct substantially below the norm or is it not? What guideline do 1 have to make that determination? Mr. REINARD. The provision you are, I believe, addressing is involving the sports segment of this bill. The sports segment of the bill is not the provision of my amendment. However, the language of the bill creates a substantially below standard that that person would have to generally practice, if that answers your question. Mr. DAVIES. All right. Then this in no way pertains to those decisions of the other bodies that have already been referred to in the bill. This only pertains to the other nonprofits other than sports and those pursuits? Mr. REINARD. That is correct. The provision of this amendment simply applies to the individual director or trustee of a nonprofit board that if he is sued, he must be sued over an ordinary care. Under the legislation itself, he has to exceed the standard of language that is set forth by this bill. Mr. DAVIES. All right. Then in making the determination on the sports, 1 have to ask the original sponsor the question about that standard as far as that particular problem. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Lehigh, Mr. McHale. Mr. McHALE. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman, Mr. Reinard, stand for interrogation? The SPEAKER. The gentleman, Mr. Reinard, indicates he will so stand. Mr. McHALE. Mr. Speaker, I have some of the same concerns raised by Representative O'Donnell concerning the standard of care. As I read your amendment, it states, "It shall be insufficient to impose liability to establish only that the conduct of the person fell below ordinary standards of care." I think that language is, in effect, a synonym for negligence. Is that correct? Mr. REINARD. I could not hear you. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Mr. McHALE. The ordinary standard of care- The SPEAKER. Just a moment, Mr. McHale. Please, we will get through this session much more rapidly if you calm down and quiet down a bit. Repeat thequestion, Mr. McHale. Mr. McHALE. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, your amendment says, and I quote, "It shall be insufficient to impose liability to establish only that the conduct of the person fell below ordinary standards of care." It is my assumption-correct me if I am wrong-that the ordinary standard of care to which you refer is negligence. Is that correct? Mr. REINARD. That is correct. Mr. McHALE. So if I understand your amendment correctly, if a person who is an officer of a nonprofit corporation is in fact negligent and if that negligence results in injury to another person, if your amendment becomes law, the injured person will not be able to sue the negligent officer or director. Is that correct? Mr. REINARD. The individual board member or director, unless it exceeds the ordinary standard of care set forth in the legislation. Mr. McHALE. Well, let us take that a step at a time, if we may. Let us assume that the person is simply negligent. If the person is negligent and that negligence injures another person, under the terms of your amendment the injured person will not be able to sue the negligent director or officer. Is that correct? Mr. REINARD. The individual would sue under the enhanced standard of care of the legislation. Mr. McHALE. All right. Well, let us move on to that, because that really is kind of my next question. The enhanced standard that you set forth, that I have never before seen in the law, would you compare that enhanced standard which is phrased as "...the conduct of the person falls substantially below the standards generally practiced and accepted in like circumstances by similar persons performing the same or similar duties..."

10 ~ 780 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE APRIL 16, Now, I am not trying to be evasive. As I read your amendment, it seemed to me that you were in fact trying to provide immunity for simple negligence but that if the standard breached went to your enhanced standard, under that circumstance there could be liability, and I do not understand the difference between simple negligence and what you are calling the enhanced standard. Could you explain that difference? Mr. REINARD. One minute, Mr. Speaker. Mr. McHALE. Surely. Mr. REINARD. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the provision of common usage, and under this legislation the individual would have to prove that the individual board member or director or trustee or, actually, the sports coach, et cetera, deviated from that scheme of common usage in applying their negligence. Mr. McHALE. I am still unclear, and 1 do not mean to belabor the point but I think it is important. If a director or officer is negligent, may he still be sued after the passage of your amendment? Mr. REINARD. Of course, there is nothing that precludes the suit. The recovery depends, however, on exceeding the ordinary standard of care that this bill now seems to set up as far as new language. Mr. McHALE. Well, that is what I am asking. How far beyond the ordinary standard of care? How far beyond simple negligence must this improper conduct be in order to make the person liable? Now, I certainly would not think that you are trying to preclude a suit based on intentional misconduct. It is my assumption that you would still want a person to be liable for any intentional wrongdoing. Is that correct? Mr. REINARD. That is correct. Mr. McHALE. All right. So what I am trying to figure out is, this new standard of care that you are establishing, which seems to fall somewhere between negligence, the ordinary standard of care, and intentional misconduct, where is it in that range? Surely what you must recognize here is that this is an entirely new standard of care, and for purposes of legislative history, I am simply trying to draw out what you envision in terms of a breach of duty that would in fact be sufficient to impose liability. Apparently negligence would not be enough. Mr. REINARD. I think if you look at the legislation on page 2, line 15, beginning there where we talk about "...like circumstances by similar persons or similar nonprofit associations rendering such services,..." if you exceed that standard, that is what we are talking about as far as being into the area where we are not precluding suit at all. Frankly, we are not at all. But that is the area of comparison that we are using, similar-type circumstances. So a similar coach, a similar member on a YMCA board, a similar member of a Girl Scout association compared to another Girl Scout association, and it is exceeding that provision. Mr. McHALE. All right. Mr. Speaker, one final question. I gather from the exception that appears in subparagraph (b) that even though this would immunize the individual director or officer, it is not the! intent of your amendment to immunize the organization itself. Mr. REINARD. Absolutely not. It is specifically stated in the amendment, the very last line of the amendment, where it says, "Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting or modifying any existing legal basis for determining the liability, or any defense thereto, of any nonprofit association," period. We are simply addressing this to the individual member who serves the public as well as the association or the Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, whatever it is. The associations themselves are in no way addressed by this amendment. Mr. McHALE. All right. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That concludes my interrogation. May I speak on the amendment? The SPEAKER. The gentleman is in order and may speak on the amendment. Mr. McHALE. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I can really amplify to any great degree the accurate statements that I believe were made earlier by Representative O'Donnell. I think the members of the House should simply recognize though that what we are doing here reverses 200 years of history of law. We are now facing a negligence liability crisis here in Pennsylvania. In my view, clearly we must take a comprehensive view of our negligence law to determine if there is some way we can improve that system to make it more effective, to make it more fair, both to the person who is injured and to the person who finds himself as a defendant in a lawsuit. But what we are doing here is we are taking a very complex problem, and time after time on a piecemeal basis we are trying to solve that problem with very limited approaches. Not very long ago we passed a bill in this House that allowed the insurability of punitive damages. We have, with the Flick bill, carved out another exception to liability in saying that coaches will be exempt from their own negligence, and we are indicating that there are some good policy reasons for doing so. The Reinard amendment goes one step further, and it says-and 1 hope that I am not contradicting the gentlemanthe Reinard amendment says this: If an officer or a director of a nonprofit corporation is negligent, if he breaches the standard of ordinary care and his negligence injures someone else, under the law, if we pass the Reinard amendment, the injured person, the person who has suffered the abuse of that other person's negligence, will not be able to bring a lawsuit against the wrongdoer. That, 1 think, is a very substantial change in the law, and I believe that on the face of the amendment, that is exactly what this amendment would accomplish. Now, where we get into a gray area is, if the level of misconduct goes beyond negligence to what Mr. Reinard has called the enhanced standard, which I still do not understand, in that gray area there might still be some kind of liability on the part of the wrongdoer. But where that enhanced standard falls between simple negligence and intentional misconduct, I am still at a loss. I do not believe the gentleman was able to adequately explain that.

11

12 782 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE APRIL 16, amendment applies to, and it would only apply to those actions. His actions outside the scope of an officer, director, or trustee would not be covered. Any legal liability incurred would be filed against and would continue through normal sue practice. It only, solely, applies to his actions as a director, officer, or trustee. Mr. COY. Mr. Speaker, when you say "officer," do you mean officer of a board or officer of an organization? Mr. REINARD. President of an association that is anonprofit. A secretary-treasurer of an association that is a nonprofit. Vice president of the local Girl Scouts association is an officer. And only, solely, as their actions as that officer are we talking about. Mr. COY. And the fire chief of a volunteer fire company, Mr. Speaker? Mr. REINARD. As long as it is a 501(c)(3), if he is an officer of that nonprofit association, a vice president of that board, no problem. However, solely as his scope and duties as an officer of the board, not his actions outside the duties of the boardroom itself. Mr. COY. Mr. Speaker, may I speak on the amendment? The SPEAKER. The gentleman is in order and may proceed. Mr. COY. Mr. Speaker, I accept the gentleman's explanation for his interpretation of the amendment, but I think that a reasonable reading of the amendment may lead to another conclusion. I am very concerned about the area of volunteer firefighters. Many of the officers of those types of companies currently have errors and omissions insurance and liability insurance policies which indeed cost these volunteer organizations a lot of money; a lot of funds are expended in that regard. 1 am not sure we are or are not changing the law in this regard, and I really would hesitate to vote in favor of the amendment given the questions in my mind about it. I think Mr. Reinard's attempts and what he is trying to do with this amendment are commendable. 1 think that organizations like hospital boards, like Boy Scout boards, other organizations like that, I think there is a clear and present purpose. The point of my argument is 1 think that we are into areas where we do not have a clear definition on this subject. I think the original bill with its first determination, especially in terms of Little League teams and so on, is commendable; 1 support it. I have cosponsored it, but 1 think that we are into areas in this amendment which need further study. Therefore, I would have to oppose the amendment. Schuylkill, Mr. Lucyk. Mr. LUCYK. Mr. Speaker, just a few questions, please. Mr. Speaker, when you say "officer," please clarify that for me. Do you mean officer of the corporation or officer of the board? Mr. REINARD. First off, Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about an association or an organization; we are simply talking about in the scope of a nonprofit. What I mean by an officer is a president, a vice president, a secretary-treasurer, whatever type of an officer they may be in their scopes and duties as a member of that board - an unpaid, uncompensated member of that board. Mr. LUCYK. So you are talking about a president of a board, not necessarily a president of a nonprofit corporation. It is two different animals here, right? Mr. REINARD. Correct. This applies to members, individuals who serve as an officer, director, or trustee of a board of directors. That is what the sole scope of this amendment is about. Mr. LUCYK. So in other words, if 1 am injured because of negligence of the president or secretary-such if we could really be hypothetical about the whole situation-if I were injured because of negligence of the president of the board of a corporation, I can still bring suit against him but 1 could not bring suit against the president of the board of directors of that corporation? Mr. REINARD. Let me give you a scenario I can address your illustration with. You are on the board of directors as the vice president of the YMCA. You have a board policy that there has to be a lifeguard at all times at the pool. While at the pool somebody has a particular problem while the lifeguard is on duty, and they file a suit against the YMCA and every board member, because they are the board of that YMCA, trying to establish that maybe they should have four lifeguards instead of one. What this does is it protects and applies the same standards of this bill to the individual board member in proving that he must exceed the ordinary care that Representative Flick's bill begins with and addresses in other areas that involve sports, children's activities, et cetera. It does not preclude the suit. It does not preclude a suit against the association at all. It does not even address the association. It only addresses those individuals who serve uncompensated. It simply says they have to establish a degree of negligence over the ordinary type of negligence if you compare their actions to another person on a similar board using similar actions, similar types of behavior. They must exceed that similar type of behavior in order to personally, personally have a suit filed and charged and paid against that individual - for him individually to defend on his own, by the way. Mr. LUCYK. We have nonprofit corporations that run hospitals, that run medical centers, as Mr. O'Donnell said before, day-care centers. Okay; we can absolve from immunity the president of a hoard or the board members of these organizations. Going back again, and maybe you did explain this but I just want this really cleared up because I think it is on the minds of many people here and I do not want to prolong the point or the debate, but the president of a hospital, the officer? Mr. REINARD. Mr. Speaker, this applies, whether he is the president of the hospital or an officer, as long as he is an unpaid member of a board. Mr. LUCYK. He is paid. Mr. REINARD. Then he is excluded. If he is a paid member of the board, he is excluded under this amendment.

13 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE However, whether it be a hospital or day-care center, we are talking about the board that meets typically once a month that does not make the day-to-day activities and actions of that organization, whether it be Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, or your day-care center. They simply establish basic policies. They meet once a month unpaid, uncompensated. These individuals have to experience a degree of care worse and over the ordinary degree of care that any other member of that board in a similar day-care center would have to in order to become negligent under this act. That is simply what we are addressing. Mr. LUCYK. Thank you. Schuylkill, Mr. Baldwin. Mr. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would Mr. Reinard stand for interrogation? The SPEAKER. Mr. Reinard indicates he will stand for interrogation. You are in order and may proceed, Mr. Baldwin. Mr. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since we are dealing with a new standard of care, 1 would just like to clarify the intent of the maker of the amendment. The amendment as drafted would apply to directors serving on a board of directors or a board of trustees for a nonprofit association, and with respect to the term "officers" as drafted in the amendment, is it the intent of the maker of the amendment to include only the president, vice president, secretary, and treasurer? Mr. REINARD. It applies to any individual of a board, first off, by saying "board of directors." So, number one, we are covering board of directors. To specifically clarify it, we are saying it also includes the director who happens to be an officer of that board, if that answers your question. Mr. BALDWIN. No. It is clear that it applies to the board of directors and it is clear that it applies to any member of the board of trustees. What I am trying to determine is the scope of the word "officer" as included in this amendment. Does it go beyond president, vice president, secretary, and treasurer? Mr. REINARD. Of the boards that I personally am familiar with, 1 am not aware of a specific parliamentary order that exceeds what you have outlined. However, the point that I am trying to make here is if the association, the nonprofit association, has 12 members, those 12 members are applied under the term "director." Specifically, a representative who represents a college would not have typically those individuals termed as a board of directors; they are called trustees. So what this amendment is simply doing is applying to the known types of recognized names for individuals who serve without compensation on particular boards. Mr. BALDWIN. If this amendment becomes law, there are going to be courts trying to interpret what these words mean. There is no problem with board of directors and trustees. What I am concerned about is, as Mr. Coy brought up before, in a volunteer fire company, which could be a nonprofit organization and may be a 5Ol(c) organization, they might have in their bylaws provision that there is a fire chief, a foreman, and an assistant foreman. They all have duties; they are all officers of the organization. Do you intend your amendment to go that far? Mr. REINARD. My amendment simply applies to the recognized members of that particular association's board, individual members of the board. If the vice fire chairman is on the board, then he is covered under his actions as a board member. If the vice chairman serves as vice chairman of the association but is not on the board of directors, we are not applying this to that individual. Mr. BALDWIN. Do I understand your intent then to not include an officer of any kind from a nonprofit organization? I WELCOMES The SPEAKER. The Chair at this time welcomes to the hall of the House Helen and Dale Whitman, who are both schoolteachers in the Souderton Area School District in Montgomery County. They are the guests of Robert Godshall and Ray Bunt. Welcome to the hall of the House. We have, as a guest of Representative John Showers and Merle Phillips, a young woman, Maria Galarraga, who is an exchange student from Ecuador. She is here with Mr. and Mrs. Stan Saylor and Amy Thomas. Welcome to the hall of the House. From North East, Pennsylvania, in Erie County, we have Bill Elkins and his daughter, Tammy. They are the guests of Harry Bowser. Welcome to the hall of the House. The House will stand at ease for the usual business until the answer to this question can be found. COAL QUEEN PRESENTED The SPEAKER. During this period of at ease, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Greene, Mr. DeWeese, who will introduce to the floor of the House the current Coal Queen. Mr. DeWEESE. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. From Carmichaels, Pennsylvania, it is my pleasure to introduce Tammy Croftcheck, the 1985 Coal Queen. 1 think that many of you remember-and I think it is a good way to make a comparison about Tammy-somebody once described Gaynor Cawley as a combination of Jackie Gleason and Robert Goulet. What we have here is a unique amalgam of an arresting and tantalizing visage as well as the mental dexterity to give a speech. We have a young lady here from Greene County, Tammy Croftcheck. As you know, Helen of Troy caused a war; the Queen of Sheba caused a lot of commotioil; and although there is no war in the hills of Greene County, when Tammy is around, there is a lot of commotion. The 1985 Coal Queen, Tammy Croftcheck. The SPEAKER. Tammy, you are welcome to speak if you 1 promise not to speak on any legal question beyond the period

14 784 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE APRIL 16, Miss CROFTCHECK. Honored members of the House of Representatives, I welcome the opportunity to address you and wish to thank you for affording me the chance to do so. It is with great pleasure I proudly stand before you as your 1985 Pennsylvania Bituminous Coal Queen. Not only is this a great honor for me, but for my family as well. It is a personal tribute to both of my grandfathers, who, combined, spent almost 80 years of their lives in the coal-mining industry. The Coal Show originated back in 1953 at a time when the mechanization of the coal mines had caused miners to be laid off by the hundreds, making this the most dismal period in Greene County mining history. Through the tenacity and determination of a handful of men wanting to publicize the coal industry and spur the lagging industry, the King Coal Association emerged. Their goal was to plan, promote, and operate the Pennsylvania Bituminous Coal Show. Thirty-two years have gone by with many setbacks and hard times, but through hard work and dedication, the association has survived. Because of their efforts, I recently had the pleasure to tour Dilworth Mine near Carmichaels. Following a safety lecture and training with life support equipment, 1 descended 521 feet into the mine. Following a tour of the longwall operations at Dilworth, I boarded a Consol river division boat and had a 3- hour journey on the barge to Consol's Rabena preparation plant. After arriving at the Rabena Harbor, 1 was given a guided tour of the preparation plant by Superintendent James Lawless. I want to say that it was a great experience, one I will never forget. In closing, I would like to say I am looking forward to my year as the 32d Pennsylvania Bituminous Coal Queen. As Coal Queen, I will continue to proclaim King Coal's past contributions to history and to speak proudly about living in the heart of the coal region and home of the King Coal Association. I want to express my hope and assurance for the future of the coal industry. As your 1985 Pennsylvania Bituminous Coal Queen, I would like to leave you with one final thought: What has been done in the past is just that - past. What will happen in the future from this day forward depends on you and me. Luck, success, and happiness to all of you. Thank you. The SPEAKER. Thank you very much, Tammy. CONSIDERATION OF HB 1625 CONTINUED Bucks, Mr. Reinard, on thequestion. Mr. REINARD. Mr. Speaker, in addressing your question, 1 will try to address it this way: The officer that you speak of would have the established enhanced negligence as applied in the prime sponsor's bill if he is an officer and is acting solely in the scope of an officer of a nonprofit, nonreimbursed status. But once he is acting as an individual or a normal volunteer, then the standard does not apply. Mr. BALDWIN. Do I understand your answer, Mr. Speaker, to mean that the term "officer" in the amendment would include any officer of a nonprofit organization acting in the scope of that officer's duties as defined by that organia at ion as long as he was not compensated for them? Mr. REINARD. As far as those scopes and duties apply to the direction of the board. Mr. BALDWIN. Only as they apply to the direction of the board? Mr. REINARD. He would be acting as an officer of that nonprofit association under the guidelines or premise set out by the board itself and only in the scope of those duties. Mr. BALDWIN. Okay. If there is a nonprofit organization, a 501(c)(3) organization, that does not have a regular meeting place and meets in the home of one of the board of directors, and at one of those directors' meetings, because of a defective condition of, say, a stairway or some other property problem in that director's home, would this amendment in any way shield that director from liability for negligent maintenance of his home because the directors are meeting there? Mr. REINARD. My understanding of an insurance policy, Mr. Speaker, which is a bit broader than maybe many members, would imply that that would come under any suit of his homeowner's liability. There would be nothing in the policy that would exclude that. The only provision under an insurance policy that would be excluded is if it would be a forprofit motive and if the company was unaware of such. Since we are talking about nonprofit status, any individual into that home would apply the same standards of negligence, same standards of liability, that would have to be proved for a recovery under the homeowner's liability portion of his policy. Mr. BALDWIN. All right. 1 am just trying to establish the intent of the amendment, not what insurance coverage is available. You would not intend this amendment to provide any additional protection from liability for a member of the board of directors who happened to he hosting a board meeting in his home? Mr. REINARD. We are only addressing the ordinary board functions. Mr. BALDWIN. And likewise, if it was one of the duties of an officer in an organization to operate a vehicle in the process of that duty, this amendment would not in any way protect that officer from negligence in the operation of a vehicle, would it? Mr. REINARD. That is correct. We also have provisions, under the automobile policy that specifically dictate the provisions that apply to officers and board of directors of nonprofits. It specifically relates in the language and the coverage exists under the automobile policy currently. Mr. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Cumberland, Mr. Mowery. Mr. MOWERY. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am not an attorney, so I am not going to try and interpret the law, but I do feel that it is extremely important that everybody use just plain common sense as far as this amendment is concerned.

15 1986 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE 785 Number one, 1 think that this amendment will help to define exactly what the insurance industry has been concerned about as far as what is a true liability. I think it will help to reduce suits. I think it will require that people think a little more as to whether or not a director or an officer was truly negligent. You know, Mr. Speaker, this is probably one of the most significant votes you can make. We have talked about so many other things on the floor of this House, but none of them really have given relief to the problems that your constituents are faced with. We have had many insurance hearings on the liability and errors and omissions problem in this State. As a matter of fact, we are still having hearings. In my opinion, we know what the problem is, but we have done absolutely nothing at this point to give relief to the problem. In my opinion, when you go back home and you say that you voted for this amendment, you will be a hero in the eyes of most of your nonprofit organizations. I had the opportunity last night, as many of you did, to go to the Pennsylvania Medical Association reception in Hershey. At that reception there were four people, including a member of the Pennsylvania Medical Society, who mentioned to me that they just had their errors and omissions policies canceled and they had no source to go to to obtain the coverage. Now, Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, there may he some legal problems in here-i do not know-but I will tell you, we can get on with making something positive happen here in Pennsylvania by passing this amendment and giving some relief and definition, and giving the people who are giving of their time and talents to these nonprofit associations a chance to serve with the peace of mind of knowing that some kook out there is not going to come up with a lawsuit and they end up with a substantial legal fee to try and defend themselves. Mr. Speaker, this makes sense. This is the first time in all of the discussion we have had on liability coverage that there has been some attempt to give and define exactly what is an officer's or a director's liability. It does not prohibit an association that has done a wrongful deed to someone from being sued. That is basically well covered in the last paragraph of this amendment. I would recommend that we vote for this; we forget the little legal details and the names or whether it is said in this way or that way. And if I were you, I would put a vote on that board for something that is for the first time saying, yes, we as legislators are interested in attempting to narrow the scope, to give the insurance companies a chance to insure something of a known quantity, and to get on with providing the necessary nonprofit facilities and needs that this Commonwealth is going to demand more of because of reductions in Federal subsidies. Please consider this not from the legal viewpoint, because that is something that ultimately all the courts determine. What we want to do today is to vote on an indication that we are aware of our constituency problems and want to do something about it. Thank you. Chester, Mr. Morris. Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to belabor this thing. This is a very complicated bill in this sense and a very complicated amendment. They are exactly the same. It does set a slightly different standard of care for the people who will be benefited by this. I think that both the bill and the amendment are absolutely necessary. 1 agree with Mr. Ryan. Now, the basic problem here is-and I think there may be members who do not understand this-that if you are on the hospital board, you can be held liable, and quite possibly the jury may bring in a verdict against you just because you are on that board and an employee makes a mistake and somebody is badly hurt as a result. Now, that is basically the principal thing that Mr. Reinard is trying to stop. It goes a little further; it would provide a little different standard of care. The doctor, which I was describing where you are responsible for what the employee does, is not removed entirely, but the member of the board has to have taken such action as is described here in order to fall well below the standard of care that normally people who are on these boards have a right to think is okay. Now, Mr. Coy brings up the problem of fire companies and who is an officer and who is not, but taking the broadest definition possible of "officer," I think this is probably an excellent amendment in that case. No one wants to relieve from liability a fire chief who makes a real honer and somebody gets hurt as a result, hut the fire chiefs and the other officers of the fire company should recelve some protection, because they often have to act instantaneously and make the kind of decision which could affect people's lives or property, or health or property. I think they deserve something in addition to the ordinary standards of negligence because of that. I am going to vote for the bill; I am going to vote for the amendment, and I urge everybody else to do so, too. It clearly does one very important thing - it takes the responsibility that under current law can be applied against perfectly innocent people for something somebody else does. It relieves them of that. It is very important. Dauphin, Mr. Piccola. Mr. PICCOLA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the Reinard amendment. I have to disagree just slightly with my good friend, Mr. Mowery, that this is a significant amendment. I really do not think this is an extremely significant amendment in the sense that it is going to affect the liability insurance crisis or give a great deal of relief in the area of any kind of tort reform. When a lawyer drafts a complaint, the first thing he does is draft what is called the caption. In the caption you list the name of the plaintiff, and then you have "versus," and then you list the names of all the defendants that you are going to sue. Well, all this bill is going to do really is reduce the size of the caption, because if a plaintiff has a cause of action against a nonprofit organization, he is <till going to he able to bring that lawsuit; he is just not going to name all of the individual

16 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE APRIL 16, directors of that nonprofit corporation. That is the type of relief we are giving. We are merely encouraging volunteers, people who are not receiving compensation, to serve as officers and directors of these nonprofit corporations. We are doing only that and nothing more. For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, 1 urge that the House adopt the Reinard amendment. Thank you. Chester, Mr. Flick. Mr. FLICK. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Several years ago I watched a movie on TV. It was "The Bad News Bears," and they were going to Houston and they were going to play in the Houston Astrodome, and they were given so many minutes to play. The time lapsed; they were told to leave the field. They did not want to leave the field, and all the fans and everyone got on their side and started saying, let the kids play. Mr. Speaker, let us roll the amendment. Let the kids play ball. The SPEAKER. Not yet. Mr. Cappabianca, you have already had two shots at it. You may not speak again. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Lehigh, Mr. McHale, for the second time. Mr. McHALE. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the problem with this amendment is that it does not protect officers, directors, and trustees. It protects negligent officers, negligent directors, and negligent trustees. There have been a number of statements made indicating that if this amendment becomes law, we will see a reduction in liability suits, and that is correct. The problem with the amendment is that there is absolutely no distinction drawn between the frivolous lawsuit and the meritorious lawsuit. Lawsuits that would have been brought in a frivolous manner will be prevented by this amendment, but so too will legitimate lawsuits that could have been brought by injured parties - innocent people who have been harmed by the negligence of an officer, director, or trustee. In the short term, it will be easy for us to go home and tell our officers, directors, and trustees that they now face less of a risk, and there is no doubt that that will be beneficial to the insurance companies. The risk faced by the insurance companies will be decreased by this amendment. I doubt very seriously that we will see a reduction in premiums, but the risk and the profit will be beneficial to the insurance companies. The real difficulty will not occur in the next 2 or 3 weeks, when we go home and we tell our board members that they now face less of a risk. The real problem will occur 3 or 4 or 5 months from now when we see an injured pe~son who has been harmed by the negligence, the clear negligence, of an officer, director, or trustee, who does not have the opportunity to go to court and seek justice. What this issue boils down to, Mr. Speaker-and I suspect that we will run into this issue again and again and again as we look at the matter of tort reform-is the more basic question that has been alluded to on the floor today of whether or not we trust juries. During the past year, a number of special interest groups have managed to erode our traditional trust in the American jury system. I still trust juries. I still believe that when a victim is injured by someone else's negligence, that victim should have the right to appear before a jury and seek justice. That principle, at least under Federal law, has been part of our Constitution since What we are doing on a piecemeal basis is carving out exceptions to that faith in the jury system. And that may sound like legal gobbledygook to some folks, but the fact is, that has been the basis of our liberty for better than 200 years. I agree with the exception that is being carved out under the Flick bill. There are good policy reasons to provide unusual protection for our coaches, but to expand that to all nonprofit corporations is simply throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It will cut down on the number of liability suits, but among those cases that are eliminated will be many, many meritorious cases brought by injured persons that we will have to face much further down the line after we have had the easier conversation with our board members. I seek a negative vote on the Reinard amendment and an affirmativevote on the Flick hill. The SPEAKER. On the Reinard amendment, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Philadelphia, Mr. Kosinski. Mr. KOSINSKI. Would Mr. Reinard stand for interrogation? The SPEAKER. Mr. Reinard indicates he will so stand. You may proceed, sir. Mr. KOSINSKI. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, do you have this amendment currently in bill form? Mr. REINARD. No, I do not. Mr. KOSINSKI. To my general comments, Mr. Speaker: the interrogation is over. If you would put that in bill form, 1 would be very happy if it is referred to the Subcommittee on Courts of the Judiciary Committee. I would he very, very happy to consider it just like I did HB As chairman of that subcommittee, we sat down with Representative Flick. There are a number of drafting amendments and technical amendments in Representative Flick's bill. After a public hearing, after about two committee hearings, and also after one voting session, we were able to come out with a bill that everybody could live with and a bill that was technically correct. In this particular case you saw the controversy created today by the Reinard amendment on the floor. What I would ask each and every member is to very, very carefully consider what you are voting on. The Flick bill is a good bill. It is only a good bill because we sat down and we fine-tuned it. We made it conform with the present law, and we are able to give protection to the sports associations. The Reinard amendment does need some work. I would be very happy, in concert with the Judiciary chairman, Representative DeWeese, to sit down with Mr. Reinard and come out with a bill acceptable to all parties and one that is technically and legally correct.

17

18 Will the House agree to the motion? The SPEAKER. the Chair recognizes the minority leader. Mr. RYAN. Mr. Speaker, I, of course, oppose the motion. I am a little surprised at it. There are a number of us who have been here for many years. I daresay that no committee is going to pay more attention to a bill or an amendment than was paid to this particular one on the floor here today. There was more participation in the discussion of the Reinard amendment. The chairman of the subcommittee in the Judiciary that handled the original Flick bill said that they studied that long and hard and were satisfied with it, so the gentleman must be directing his remarks to the bill because of the Reinard amendments. We have all participated in these Reinard amendments, and I would be surprised if the committee would do anything less or anything more than what we have done. I oppose the motion. I think we are sending a signal to the volunteers of Pennsylvania who participate in community activities that we are trying to give them a break. I think any vote for a recommittal will signal that we are not in favor of giving them that break, and I would oppose the motion made by the gentleman for all of those reasons. The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the majority whip on the motion. Mr. O'DONNELL. Mr. Speaker, I support the motion to recommit. All the lawyers' arguments that have been rendered over the past hour and all the purportedly commonsensical arguments that have been rendered over the past hour have failed to give this House any idea what the new standard is. The words "substantially below" the old standard; how far below is substantially below? I do not even know if that is up to the ineenuitv - of the Judiciary Committee. but certainlv they deserve a look. The SPEAKER. On the motion, the Chair recognizes the LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE APRIL 16, I think that the move to recommit is a smart move, and I know that Representative DeWeese and I will work in all due haste to sit down with Representative Reinard and to put this bill hack out to the full House. Thank you. On the question recurring, Will the House agree to the motion? The following roll call was recorded: Acosta Baldwin Barber Battisto Belardi Belfanti Bortner Bowley Broujos Caltagirone Cappabianca Cawley Clark Cohen Colafella Cole COY Deluca DeWeese Daley YEAS-77 Dawida Linton Deal Lloyd Dambrowski Lucyk Donatucci McHale Fattah Manderino Fee Michlovic Freeman Mrkonic George O'Donnell Gruitza Olasz Haluska Oliver Harper Petrarca Hutchinsan Pievsky Jarolin Pistella Josephs Pressmann Kasunic Preston Kosinski Richardson Kukovich Rieger Laughkin Roebuck Lescovitz Rudy Levdansky Rybak NAYS-1 16 Seventy Staback Steighner StewaR Sluban Sweet Taylor, F. Telek Tigue Truman Van Horne Veon Wiggins Wozniak Wright, D. R. Yandrisevits Irvis, Speaker Afflerbach Distler Kenney Raymond Angstadt Dorr Langtry Reber Argall Duffy Lashinger Reinard ARY Durham Letterman Robbins Barley Fargo Livengood Ryan Birmelin Black Blaum Bowser Bayes Brandt Fischer Flick Foster Fox Freind Fryer McCall McClatehy McVerry Mackowski Maiale Manmiller Saloom Saurman Scheetz Schuler Semmel Serahni Gallen Markosek Showers Burd Gamble Mayernik Sirianni Burns Gannan Merry Smith, L. E. Bush Geist Micozzie Snyder, G. gentleman from Greene, Mr. DeWeese. Carlson Gladeck Miller Stairs Mr. DeWEESE. I would only say, Mr. Speaker, that in CeSS" Godshall Moehlmann Stevens Chadwick Greenwood Mowery Swift deference to the observations of the subcommittee chairman, cimini Gruppo Murphy Taylor, E. Z Mr. Kosinski, of Philadelphia, if it is the desire of the House Civera Hagarty Nahill Taylor, J. to take this bill and send it to the Judiciary Committee, since the bill in its magnitude is a different bill than it was several hours ago, DeWeese, as chairman, and my cohorts, I think, would be glad to review it again, but we will naturally defer to the will of the House. Thank you. Philadelphia, Mr. Kosinski. Mr. KOSINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just to correct a few statements that Mr. Ryan made. I said that the bill itself was worked on. We worked on it very well. We sat down with Representative Flick. We came out with a very good bill. What I am saying about the amendment attached is we did not have that same type of inquiry and information on the amendment. Cl~mer Hasay Noye Trello Cordisco Hayes O'Brien Vroon cornell Herman Perzel Wambach coslett Hershey Petrone Wass COW~U Honaman Phillips Weston DeVerter ltkin Piccola Wilson Davies Jackson Pitts Wogan Dietz Johnson Pott Wright, J. L. Dininni Kennedy Punt Wright, R. C. NOT VOTING-4 Howlett Morris Smith, B. EXCUSED-4 Book Evans Gallagher Snyder, D. W. The question was determined in the negative, and the motion was not agreed to.

19 1986 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE 789 On the question recurring, Will the House agree to the hill on third consideration as amended? Bill as amended was agreed to. The SPEAKER. This bill has been considered on three different days and agreed to and is now on final passage. The question is, shall the bill pass finally? Aareeahle - to the orovisions of the Constitution. the veas and nays will now be taken. EXCUSED-4 Book Evans Gallagher Snyder, D. W. The majority required by the Constitution having voted in the affirmative, the question was determined in the affirmative and the bill passes finally. Ordered, That the clerk present the same to the Senate for concurrence. REMARKS ON VOTE Acasta Afflerbach Angstadt Argall ARY Baldwin Barley Battisto Belardi Belfanti Birmelin Black Blaum Bortner Bawley Bowser Boyes Brandt Brouios ~unt' Burd Bums Bush Caltaglrone Carlson Carn Cawley Cessar Chadwick Cimini Civera Clark Clymer Cohen Colafella Cole Cordisco Cornell Coslett Cowell COY Deluca DeVerter Daley Davies Dawida Dielz Dininni Laughlin Distler Lescavitz Dombrowski Letterman Donatucci Levdansky Dorr Linton Duffy Livengood Durham Lloyd Fargo Lucyk Fattah McCall Fee McClatehy Fischer McHale Flick McVerry Foster Mackowski Fax Mlale Freind Manderina Fryer Manmiller Gallen Markosek Gamble Mayernik Gannan Merry Geist Micouie George Miller Gladeck Maehlmann Godshall Morris Greenwood Mowery Grultza Mrkonic Gruppo Murphy Hagarty Nahill Haluska Noye Harper O'Brien Hasay O'Donnell Hayes Olasz Herman Oliver Hershey Perzel Honaman Petrarca Howlett Petrone Hutchinsan Phillips ltkin Piccola Jackson Pievsky Jarolin Pistella Johnson Pitts Kasunie POtt Kennedy Pressrnann Kenney Preston Kosinski Punt Kukavich Raymond Langtry Reber Lashinger Reinard I VAYS-8 Cappabianca Freeman Richardson DeWeese Josephs Deal Michlovic Irvis, Speaker NOT VOTING-2 Barber Wiggins Rieger Robbins Roebuck Rudy Ryan Rybak Saloom Saurman Scheetz Schuler Semmel Serafini Seventy Showers Sirianni Smith, B. Smith, L. E. Snyder, G. Staback Stairs Steighner Stevens Stewart Stuban Sweet Swift Taylor. E. Z. Taylor. F. Taylor, I. Telek Tigue Trello Truman Van Horne Veon Vraon Wambach Wass Weston Wilson Wogan Wozniak Wright, D. R. Wright, J. L. Wright, R. C. Yandrisevits The SPEAKER. Why does the gentleman from Schuylkill, Mr. Lucyk, rise? Mr. LUCYK. To correct a vote. The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman. Mr. LUCYK. On the Reinard amendment A1578 to HB 1625, 1 would like to he recorded in the positive. The SPEAKER. The gentleman's remarks will be spread upon the record. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Westmoreland, Mr. Petrarca, to report bills. The House will stand in recess after Mr. Petrarca's reporting of the bills until 2 p.m. Please be prompt, because the Chair-we will get to you, Mr. Taylor, early on-please he prompt, because the Chair will he prompt and will try to run this calendar. STATEMENT BY MINORITY LEADER The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the minority leader. Mr. RYAN. Mr. Speaker, I understand that a hill is about to be reported from the Mines and Energy Management Committee where once again Mr. Petrarca, in my judgment, has abused the committee by amending into a Mines and Energy bill matters that deal with the staffing of the hospitals in Pennsylvania. Prior to its being reported, I would like an opportunity to discuss this procedure with the Speaker and with the committee chairman. The SPEAKER. The clerk will not read the report of the committee. Mr. Taylor, we will take your report after lunch, the same as we will do with Mr. Petrarca. RECESS The SPEAKER. The House stands in recess until 2 p.m. AFTER RECESS The time of recess having expired, the House was called to order. HOUSE BILLS INTRODUCED AND REFERRED No By Representatives HOWLETT, MAIALE, HALUSKA, ARTY, NAHILL, JAROLIN,

20 790 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE APRIL 16, J. L. WRIGHT, KUKOVICH, J. TAYLOR, RAYMOND, TIGUE, LINTON, HERMAN and CIVERA An Act providing for recycling; providing further duties of the Department of Environmental Resources and the Department of Revenue; establishing the Recycling Fund and the Clean Communities Fund; imposing a certain tax; providing for grants and other assistance to counties and municipalities for the recycling of waste material and for litter control; and making appropriations. Referred to Committee on CONSERVATION, April 16, No BY Reoresentatives LESCOVITZ... JOHNSON, KUKOVICH, HALUSKA, GEIST, E. Z. TAYLOR, HERMAN, COLAFELLA, TRUMAN and TRELLO An Act providing for self-insurance for State boards and commissions; declaring certain members immune from civil liability; and establishing the Board and Commission Self-Insurance Fund. Referred to Committee on INSURANCE, April 16, No By Representatives LLOYD, PETRARCA, J. L. WRIGHT, OLASZ, CARLSON, WASS, KUKOVICH, BELARDI, BATTISTO, DIETZ, HALUSKA, COY, MRKONIC, DeLUCA, SWEET, STABACK, MORRIS, BELFANTI, TELEK, TIGUE, JAROLIN, HERMAN, TRELLO, FISCHER, CAWLEY and GRUITZA An Act requiring State heating systems to be fueled by coal. Referred to Committee on MINES AND ENERGY MAN- AGEMENT, April 16, No By Representatives DISTLER, RICHARDSON, BOWSER, TRELLO, MERRY, BELARDI, WOGAN, WOZNIAK, JOHNSON, TIGUE, PETRONE, HALUSKA, JAROLIN, COLAFELLA, FISCHER, MICHLOVIC and TRUMAN An Act amending the act of December 5, 1936 (2nd Sp. Sess., 1937 P. L. 2897, No. I), known as the "Unemployment Compensation Law," further providing for additional extended unemployment compensation benefits. Referred to Committee on LABOR RELATIONS, April 16, No By Representative SERAFINI An Act amending the act of July 10, 1981 (P. L. 214, No. 67), known as the "Bingo Law," providing for the licensing of amusement parks, fairs and carnivals; and imposing a tax. Referred to Committee on FINANCE, April 16, No By Representative SERAFINI An Act amending the act of March 4, 1971 (P. L. 6, No. 2), known as the "Tax Reform Code of 1971," further providing for classes of personal income. Referred to Committee on FINANCE, April 16, No By Representatives SERAFINI, STABACK, FARGO, JOHNSON, BELARDI, TRELLO, HERMAN, FOX, SEMMEL, TRUMAN, BOOK and RICHARDSON An Act amending the act of June 18,1974 (P. L. 359, No. 120), referred to as the "Municipal Police Education and Training Act," establishing minimum requirements for municipal police officers to receive training under the education and training program. Referred to Committee on LOCAL GOVERNMENT, April 16, No By Representatives SERAFINI, MRKONIC, JOHNSON, SIRIANNI, KOSINSKI, VROON, NOYE, GANNON, TRELLO, WOGAN, TRUMAN, J. TAYLOR, FREIND and GEIST An Act amending the act of July 27, 1967 (P. L. 186, No. 58), entitled "An act imposing liability upon parents for personal injury, or theft, destruction, or loss of property caused by the wilful, tortious acts of children under eighteen - years of ace. -. setring iorrh l~niitarion~, 2nd prtn~dlng proiedurr for re~.overy," lncreactng rhe l~nllrs of parental liability. Referred to Committee on JUDICIARY, April 16, No By Representatives SERAFINI, GODSHALL, MERRY, FARGO, COLAFELLA, TRELLO, MORRIS and JOHNSON An Act amending the act of October 15, 1975 (P. L. 390, No. Ill), known as the "Health Care Services Malpractice Act," adding a definition; requiring risk management procedures; regulating disciplinary actions; requiring financial responsibility; regulating licensure; revising medical negligence standards of recovery, pleading and verdicts; regulating methods of payment of damages and attorney fees; requiring remittitur and additur; adjusting damages apportioned to fault; requiring notice; and providing penalties. Referred to Committee on JUDICIARY, April 16, No By Representatives SCHULER, WOGAN, PETRONE, NAHILL, JOHNSON, HERMAN, RAYMOND, BOYES, SHOWERS, NOYE, VEON, STABACK, BOWSER, DISTLER, J. L. WRIGHT, MRKONIC, JACKSON, CARLSON, TRELLO, FISCHER, GRUPPO, COWELL, B. SMITH, BUNT, ARTY, BELARDI, E. Z. TAYLOR, STEVENS, MORRIS, BELFANTI, PETRARCA, CIMINI, ITKIN, FOX, COLAFELLA and J. TAYLOR An Act amending the act of March 4, 1971 (P. L. 6, No. 2), known as the "Tax Reform Code of 1971," excluding certain medical devices used by the hearing-impaired.

21 1986 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE 791 Referred to Committee on FINANCE, April 16, No By Representatives HALUSKA, TRELLO, MANDERINO, BORTNER, SHOWERS, GEIST, YANDRISEVITS, BALDWIN, WOGAN, DeLUCA, DUFFY, WOZNIAK, CALTAGIRONE, STABACK, COLE, MRKONIC, TIGUE, BELFANTI, CESSAR, JOHNSON, BURNS, GODSHALL, MILLER, RUDY, STUBAN, E. Z. TAYLOR, D. R. WRIGHT, PRESTON, DAWIDA, ROBBINS, VEON. POTT, GREENWOOD, HOWLETT, J. L. WRIGHT, DOMBROWSKI, DeVERTER, RYBAK, KUKOVICH, STEIGHNER, HERSHEY, PETRARCA, BOOK, FEE, CARLSON, AFFLERBACH, COWELL, LASHINGER, MARKOSEK, McVERRY, REBER, ARGALL, GRUPPO, D. W. SNYDER, COLAEELLA, TELEK, HERMAN, MAYERNIK, SAURMAN, F. TAYLOR, LLOYD, CORNELL, BUSH, DALEY and BLACK A Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, allowing special tax exemptions for homestead property. Referred to Committee on FINANCE, April 16, No By Representatives COWELL, E. Z. TAYLOR, MAYERNIK, PISTELLA, IRVIS, FREIND, DeLUCA, WAMBACH, COLAEELLA, HARPER, MARKOSEK, PRESTON, COHEN, ITKIN, DAVIES, HALUSKA, SEVENTY, PETRONE, ANGSTADT, TIGUE, KOSINSKI, CALTAGIRONE, OLASZ, EVANS, MILLER, SAURMAN, RAYMOND, RYBAK, VAN HORNE, KUKOVICH, HOWLETT, ARTY, NAHILL, STABACK, GODSHALL, GRUPPO, HAGARTY, NOYE, FATTAH, McVERRY, FOX, WIGGINS, CESSAR, ROEBUCK, SHOWERS, BALDWIN, SEMMEL, STAIRS, FREEMAN, FLICK, WILSON, CARLSON, CIMINI, BELFANTI, FARGO, O'DONNELL, VEON, BATTISTO, JOHNSON, OLIVER, TRUMAN and DEAL An Act amending the act of March 10, 1949 (P. L. 30, No. 14), known as the "Public School Code of 1949," further providing for Commonwealth reimbursements. Referred to Committee on EDUCATION, April 16, No By Representative HERMAN An Act designating a section of U. S. Route 322 (Legislative Route 1050) as the Mount Nittany Expressway. Referred to Committee on TRANSPORTATION, April 16, No. 23% By Representatives JOSEPHS, TRUMAN, ARTY, WIGGINS, BARBER, KUKOVICH, DAWIDA, WESTON, PERZEL, KENNEY, WOGAN, J. TAYLOR, CARN and KOSINSKI An Act making an appropriation to The Eye Bank, Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Referred to Committee on APPROPRIATIONS, April 16, No By Representative BURNS An Act amending the act of October 10, 1974 (P. L. 705, No. 235), known as the "Lethal Weapons Training Act," exempting certain retired Federal law enforcement officers from certain provisions. Referred to Committee on JUDICIARY, April 16, No By Representatives R. C. WRIGHT, OLIVER, FOSTER, NAHILL, CARN, CALTAGIRONE, FLICK, ARTY and CIVERA An Act amending the act of June 27, 1947 (P. L. 1046, No. 447), referred to as the "State Tax Equalization Board Law," further providing for the powers and duties of the board. Referred to Committee on STATE GOVERNMENT, April 16, No. 276 HOUSE RESOLUTIONS INTRODUCED AND REFERRED By Representatives DISTLER, GEORGE, LETTERMAN, BOWSER, BIRMELIN, HERMAN, DURHAM, MACKOWSKI, BRANDT, HAYES, MERRY, FARGO, ROBBINS, BLACK and TELEK Designating the month of May 1986 as "Project Graduation Awareness Month." Referred to Committee on RULES, April 16, No. 277 (Concurrent) By Representatives GREENWOOD, HUTCHINSON, DININNI, PIEVSKY, BURNS, REINARD, J. L. WRIGHT, CLYMER, WILSON, GLADECK, FOX, KENNEY, SCHULER, BARLEY, BURD, BUNT and GRUPPO Providing for the appointment of a special joint bipartisan committee to evaluate and make recommendations to the General Assembly relative to the formula used to allocate funds for highway maintenance. Referred to Committee on RULES, April 16, 1986.

22 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE APRIL 16, SENATE MESSAGE HOUSE BILL CONCURRED IN BY SENATE The clerk of the Senate, being introduced, returned HB 1672, PN 2131, with information that the Senate has passed the same without amendment. BILL SIGNED BY SPEAKER The Chair gave notice that he was about to sign the following bill, which was then signed: HB 1672, PN 2131 An Act amending the act of February 17, 1906 (P. L. 45, No. I I), entitled "An ail lo regulate the depu,it, of Sratc iunds, lo prescr~be the method of sele~.ting Stale depoaitorie\, lo limit the amount of State denosits.. to nrovide. for the securitv of such deposits, to fix the rate of interest thereon, to provide for the nublication of monthlv statements of monevs in the eeneral and ;inking funds, to declare it a misdemeanor-to give or take anything of value for obtaining the same, and prescribing penalties for violations of this act," further providing for the time of the quarterly reports. ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS OF SPONSORS The SPEAKER. The Speaker is in receipt of a list of Representatives whose names will either be deleted or added to the sponsorships of bills, which the clerk will file. The following list was submitted: ADDITIONS: HB 500, Steighner; HB 558, Phillips; HB 1415, Kasunic; HB 1433, Gruppo; HB 1595, F. Taylor, Kasunic; HB 1695, Davies; HB 1714, Broujos, Sweet; HB 1921, Sirianni; HB 2110, Richardson; HB 2161, Johnson; HB 2230, Rohbins; HB 2246, Richardson; HB 2309, Miller; HB 2310, R. C. Wright; HB 2311, R. C. Wright; HB 2320, Fox; HB 2321, Richardson; HB 2329, Fox; HB 2245, Richardson; HB 2350, Clymer, Noye, McVerry; HB 2351, Fox, McVerry; HB 2363, Fox; HB 2374, Bush; HR 255, Clymer; HR 256, Fox, Richardson; HR 257, Fox, Cawley, Richardson; HR 258, Fox; HR 259, Fox; HR 260, Trello. CALENDAR CONTINUED RESOLUTIONS Mr. SWEET called up HR 266, PN 3220, entitled: Proclaiming the week of April 20 through April 26, 1986, as "Victim Rights Week." Will the House adopt the resolution? The following roll call was recorded: YEAS-190 Acosta Dawida Kosinski Reinard Afflerbach Deal Kukovich Richardson Angstadt Dietz Langtry Rieger Argall Dininni Lashinger Robbins Arty Distler Laughlin Roebuck Baldwin Dombrowski Lescovitz Rudy Barber Donatucci Letterman Ryan Barley Battisto Belardi Belfanti Birmelin Black Blaum Bartner Bowley Bowser Bayes Brandt Broujos Bunt Burd Burns Bush Caltagirone Cappabianca Carlson Carn Cawley Cessar Chadwick Cimini Civera Clark Clymer Cohen Calafella Cole Dorr Duffy Durham Farpa ~atiah Fee Fischer Flick Foster Fax Freeman Freind Fryer Gallen Gamble Gannan Geist George Gladeck Godshall Greenwood Gruitra Gruppo Hagarty Haluska Harper Hasay Hayes Herman Hershey Honaman Levdansky Linton Livengood Lloyd Lucyk McCall McClatchy McHale Mackowski Maiale Manderino Manmiller Markosek Mayernik Merry Michlovic Micozzie Miller Moehlmann Morris Mawery Mrkonic Murphy Nahill Noye O'Donnell Olasz Oliver Perrel Petrarca Petrone Rybak Saloom Saurman Seheetz Schuler Semmel Serafini Seventy Showers Sirianni Smith, B. Smith, L. E. Snyder. G. Staback Stairs Stevens Stewart Stuban Sweet Swifl Taylor, E. Z Taylor, I. Telek Tigue Trello Truman Van Horne Veon Vroon Wambach Wass Cordisco Howlett Phillips Weston Cornell Hutchinson Piccola Wiggins Coslett ltkin Pievsky Wazniak Cawell Jackson Pistella Wright, D. R. COY Jarolin Pitts Wright, J. L. Deluca Johnson Pressmann Wright, R. C. DeVerter Josephs Preston Yandrisevits DeWeese Kasunic Punt Dale? Kennedy Raymond Irvis, Davies Kenney Reber Speaker NAYS-0 NOT VOTING-7 McVerry O'Brien Pott Steighner Taylor, F. Wilson Wogan EXCUSED-4 Book Evans Gallagher Snyder. D. W. The question was determined in the affirmative, and the resolution was adopted. 1 * Mr. LINTON called up HR 272, PN 3276, entitled: Proclaiming April 24, 1986, as "Armenian Martyrs' Day" and the week of April 20 through 26, 1986, as "Armenian Martyrs' Week" throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Will the House adopt the resolution? The following roll call was recorded: YEAS-189 Acosta Dietz Laughlin Rieger Aftlerbach Dininni Lescovitz Robbins Angstadt Distler Letterman Rudy Argall Dombrowski Levdansky Ryan Arty Danatucci Linton Rybak Baldwin Dorr Livengood Saloorn Barber Duffy ~loyd Saurman Barley Durham Lucyk Scheetz

23 1986 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE 793 Battisto Farga McCall Schuler Belardi Fattah McClatchy Semmel Belfanti Fee McHale Serafini Birmelin Fischer McVerry Seventy Black Flick Mackowski Showers Blaum Foster Maiale Sirianni Bortner FOX Manderino Smith, 9. Bawley Freeman Manmiller Smith, L. E. Bawser Fryer Markosek Snyder, G. Boyes Gallen Mayernik Staback Brandt Gamble Merry Stairs Broujos Gannon Michlovic Steighner Bunt Geist Micozzie Stevens Burd George Miller Stewart Burns Gladeck Moehlmann Stuban Bush Gadshall Morris Sweet Caltagirone Greenwood Mowery Swift Cappabianca Gruitza Mrkonic Taylor, E. Z. Carlson Gruppo Murphy Taylor, F. Carn Hagarty Nahill Taylor, 1. Cawley Haluska Noye Telek Cessar Hasay O'Dannell Tigue Chadwick Hayes Olasz Trello Cimini Herman Oliver Truman Clark Hershey Perrel Van Horne Clymer Honaman Petrarca Veon Cohen Howlett Petrone Vroon Colafella Hutchinson Phillips Wambach Cole ltkin Piccola Wass Cordisco Jackson Pievsky Weston Cornell Jarolin Pistella Wogan Caslett Johnson Pitts Wozniak Cowell Josephs Pott Wright, D. R. COY Kasunic Pressmann Wright, J. L. Deluca Kennedy Preston Wright, R. C. DeVerter Kenney Punt Yandrisevits Daley Kosinski Raymond Davies Kukovich Reber Irvis, Dawida Langtry Reinard Speaker Deal Lashinger Richardson NAYS-0 NOT VOTING-8 Civera Freind G'Brien Wiggins DeWeese Harper Roebuck Wilson EXCUSED-4 Book Evans Gallagher Snyder. D. W. The question was determined in the affirmative, and the resolution was adopted. * * * Mr. BORTNER called up HR 273, PN 3277, entitled: Recognizing the week of May 4 through 10, 1986, as "Correctional Officers Week." Will the House adopt the resolution? The following roll call was recorded: Acosta Afflerbach Angstadt Argall Arty Baldwin Barber Barley Battisto Belardi Deal Dietz Dininni Distler Dombrawski Donatucci Dorr Duffy Durham Farga YEAS-194 Lashinger Laughlin Lescovitz Letter man Levdansky Linton Livengood Lloyd Lucyk McCall Rieger Robbins Roebuck Rudy Ryan Rybak Saloom Saurman Scheetz Schuler Belfanti Birmelin Black Blaum Bortner Bowley Bowser Boyes Brandt Broujos Bunt Burd Bums Bush Caltagirone Cappabianca Carlson Carn Cawley Cessar Chadwick Cimini Civera Clark Clymer Cohen Colafella Cole Cordisco Cornell Coslett Cowell COY Deluca DeVerter DeWeese Daley Davies Dawida ltkin Fattah Fee Fischer Flick Foster Fox Freeman Freind Fryer Gallen Gamble Gannan Geist George Gladeck Godshall Greenwood Gruitza Gruppo Hagarty Haluska Harper Hasay Hayes Herman Hershey Honaman Howlett Hutchinson Jackson Jarolin Johnson Josephs Kasunic Kennedy Kenney Kosinski Kukovich Langtry MeClatchy McHale McVerry Mackowski Maiale Manderino Manmiller Markosek Mayernik Merry Michlovic Micazzie Miller Moehlmann Mowery Mrkonic Murphy Nahill Naye O'Brien O'Donnell Olasr Oliver Perzel Petrarca Petrone Phillips Piccola Pievsky Pistella Pitts Pott Pressmann Preston Punt Raymond Reber Reinard Richardson NAYS-0 NOT VOTING-3 Morris Smith, L. E. EXCUSED-4 Semmel Serafini Seventy Showers Sirianni Smith, B. Snyder, G. Staback Stairs Steighner Stevens Stewart Stuban Sweet Swift Taylor, E. Z. Taylor, F. Taylor, I. Telek Tigue Trello Truman Van Horne Veon Vroon Wambach Wass Weston Wiggins Wilson Wogan Wozniak Wright, D. R. Wright, I. L. Wright, R. C. Yandrisevits Irvis, Speaker Book Evans Gallagher Snyder, D. W. The question was determined in the affirmative, and the resolution was adopted. Montgomery, Mr. Fox. Why do you rise, sir? Mr. FOX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to move to suspend the rules to allow immediate consideration of a resolution I have. The SPEAKER. Have you checked that with both leaders on the floor? Check it with both leaders. Mr. FOX. Very well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. * * * Mr. ROEBUCK called up HR 243, PN 3014, entitled: Directing the Subcommittee on Higher Education to investigate racial segregation and unlawful discrimination within colleges and universities which receive direct institutional appropriations from the General Assembly. Will the House adopt the resolution?

24 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE APRIL 16, Mr. ROEBUCK offered the following amendments No. A1583: Amend Title, page 1, lines I and 2, by striking out "investigate racial segregation and unlawful discrimination" and inserting assess the success of efforts to promote racial integration and nondiscrimination Amend Resolution, page I, lines 5 through 15, by striking out all of lines 5 through 14, "unlawful racial segregation or discrimination;" in line 15 and inserting WHEREAS, Within the colleges and universities which receive direct institutional a~~ro~riations... from the General Assembly, there have existed ongoing efforts to promote racial integration and nondiscrimination; and WHEREAS, Such efforts are the proper and legitimate object of oversight of the House of Representatives; therefor he it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives direct the Subcommittee on Higher Education to assess the success of efforts to promote racial integration and nondiscrimination; Will the House agree to the amendments? The SPEAKER. On the amendment. the Chair recognizes. the gentleman from Philadelphia, Mr. Roebuck. Mr. ROEBUCK. Mr. Speaker, the intent of the amendment is to clarify the focus of the bill, and I would urge that the members adopt the amendment. The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the minority leader. Mr. RYAN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to congratulate Mr. Roebuck on this amendment. I think he is approaching this issue in a more proper way. The resolution as it originally came out was cast in the negative, putting the bunny in the hat, so to speak, saying that these universities were illegally discriminating. I think by the amendment he changes the phraseology of the resolution so that it is not negative but rather positive. Although I have mixed emotions on the resolution itself, the amendment I think is very good. The SPEAKER. On the amendment, the Chair recognizes the lady from Chester, Mrs. Taylor. Mrs. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, just a short statement. I wish to say that I agree with Representative Ryan's comments on the amendment and that I was very pleased to have worked out this amendment with Representative Roebuck. Thank you very much. On the question recurring, Will the House agree to the amendments? The following roll call was recorded: Acosta Afflerbach Angstadt Argall Arty Baldwin Barber Barley Battisto Belardi Belfanti Birmelin Black Dietz Dininni Distler Dombrowski Danatucci Dorr DUffY Durham Fargo Fattah Fee Fischer Flick YEAS-195 Lashlnger Laughlin Lescovitr Letterman Levdansky Linton Livengood Lloyd Lucyk McCall McClatchy McHale MeVerry Robbins Roebuck Rudy Ryan Rybak Saloom Saurman Scheetz Schuler Semmel Serafini Seventy Showers - Blaum Bortner Bowley Bowser Boyes Brandt Braujos Bunt Burd Burns Bush Caltagirone Cappabianca Carlson Foster Fox Freeman Freind Fryer Gallen Gamble Gannon Geist George Gladeck Godshall Greenwood Gruitra Mackowski Manderino Manmiller Markosek Mayernik Merry Michlovic Micozzie Miller Moehlmann Morris Mowery Murphy Nahill Sirianni Smith, B. Smith, L. E. Snyder, G. Staback Stairs Steighner Stevens Stewart Stuban Sweet Swift Taylor, E. Z Taylor, F. Carn Gruppo Noye Taylor, J. Cawley Hagarty O'Brien Telek Cessar Haluska O'Dannell Tigue Chadwick Harper Olasr Trello Cimini Hasay Oliver Truman Civera Hayes Perzel Van Horne Clark Herman Petrarca Venn Clymer Hershey Petrane Vroon Cohen Honaman Phillips Wambach Calafella Howleu Piccola Wass Cole Hutchinson Piwsky Weston Cardisco ltkin Pistella Wiggins Cornell Jackson Pitts Wilson Coslett Jarolin Pott Wogan Cowell Johnson Pressmann Worniak Coy Jasephs Preston Wright, D. R. Deluca Kasunic Punt Wright, 1. L. DeVener Kennedy Raymond Wright. R. C. DeWeese Kenney Reber Yandrisevits Daley Kosinski Reinard Davies Kukovich Richardson Irvis, Dawida Langtry Rieger Speaker Deal NAYS-0 Maiale Mrkonic NOT VOTING-2 EXCUSED-4 Evans Gallagher Snyder, D. W. The question was determined in the affirmative, and the amendments were agreed to. Will the House adopt the resolution as amended? The following roll call was recorded: Acasta Afflerbach Angstadt Argall Arty Baldwin Barber Barley Battisto Belardi Belfanti Birmelin Black Blaum Bonner Bowley Bowser Bayes Brandt Broujos Bunt Deal Dietz Dininni Distler Dombrowski Donatucci Dorr Duffy Durham Fargo Fattah Fee Fischer Flick Foster Fox Freeman Freind Fryer Gallen Gamble YEAS-191 Lashinger Laughlin Lescovitz Letterman Levdansky Lintan Livengood Lloyd Lucyk McCall McClatchy McHale McVerry Mackowski Maiale Manderina Manmiller Markosek Mayernik Merry Michlovic Roebuck Rudy Ryan Rybak Saloom Saurman Scheetz Schuler Semmel Serafini Seventy Showers Sirianni Smith. 8. Smith, L. E. Snyder, G. Staback Stairs Steighner Stevens Stewart

25 1986 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE 795 Burd Cannon Micozzie Stuban Burns Geist Miller Sweet Bush George Moehlmann Swift Caltagirone Gladeck Morris Taylor. E. Z. Cappabianca Godshall Mowery Taylor, F. Carlsan Greenwood Murphy Taylor, J. Carn Gruitza Nahill Telek Cawley GNPPO O'Brien Tigue Cessar Hagarty O'Danneil Trello Chadwick Haluska Olasz Truman Cimini Harper Oliver Van Horne Civera Hasay Perzel Veon Clark Hayes Petrarca Vraon Clymer Herman Petrone Wambach Cohen Hershey Piccala Wass Colafella Honaman Pievsky Weston Cole Hutchinson Pistella Wiggins Cordisco ltkin Pitts Wilson Cornell Jackson Pott Wogan Coslett Johnson Pressman" Wozniak Cawell Josephs Preston Wright, D. R. COY Deluca Kasunic Kennedy Punt Raymond Wright, 1. L. Wright, R. C. DeYerter Kenney Reber Yandrisevits DeWeese Kosinski Reinard Dale? Kukavich Rieger Irvis, Davies Langtry Robbins Speaker Dawida NAYS-2 Noye Phillips NOT VOTING-4 Howlett Jarolin Mrkonic Richardson EXCUSED-4 Book Evans Gallagher Snyder, D. W. The question was determined in the affirmative, and the resolution as amended was adopted. BILLS ON THIRD CONSIDERATION CONSIDERATION OF HB 2174 CONTINUED The SPEAKER. If you will recall, Mr. Lashinger's amendment A1464 was questioned as to the observance of the rules of the House, whether or not there had been a fiscal note attached. The Chair has been advised that the fiscal note required by the rules has now been attached. On the question recurring, Will the House agree to the amendments? Montgomery, Mr. Lashinger, on that question. Mr. LASHINGER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I will begin again for some of the members who were not present this morning or who were not here for the benefit of my explanation or did not understand the explanation. Right now most of the school districts across the Commonwealth contract with private residential rehabilitative institutions or PRRI's, as they are called, across the Commonwealth for students who come through the juvenile court system. The children whom we are talking about taking care of with this amendment are court-adjudicated delinquents mostly coming through the system under Act 30. They are children who are placed by the courts of the Commonwealth in these private rehabilitative institutions. The problem has become across the Commonwealth that the PRRl's have threatened, in various parts of the State, to get out of the business of accepting these unusual students, and 1 say "unusual" affectionately. The students whom we are talking about are worst case scenarios, students with the worst profiles who have come through the court system and students whom our respective school districts have all admitted that they cannot handle. The problem has become that the districts do not have appropriate placements for these children, so through the various courts the referral is made and the State then pays these PRRI's through our intermediate units. The formula that is used in reimbursing these schools is the tuition rate of the school in which the facility is located. The example in Montgomery County is that 1 have a hall that is known as St. Gabriel's Hall that accepts court-adjudicated delinquents. Most of the referrals come from the city of Philadelphia. They are students from the Philadelphia school system, and the tuition rate that is used is the Methacton School District rate, which is the school district in which this facility is located. Well, the Methacton rate happens to be low as compared to the needs for this educational process for these children. We have met with, in the case of Philadelphia, we have met with the archdiocese, and the archdiocese who operates most of these facilities in the southeastern part of the State has threatened to close the program if they cannot get adequate reimbursement. We have advised the various school districts, and the school districts have indicated, well, we do not have programs for these children so help these PRRI's get the money that is necessary in order to adequately care for these children. Now, these children are, again, being rehahilitated, which is very important, not just educated in basic education terms but also being rehabilitated in vocational terms. The reason that these programs are so costly is because a lot of them have a vocational education component which, as most people know, is more costly than just going through with the basic education training. So we are talking about kids who are normally belligerent at times; they are assaultive; most of them have been removed from programs in other educational programs, and I am telling you that the only reason you are hearing opposition is, at least from the various intermediate units- And 1 challenge you to question your intermediate units on this issue. They need this; they want this. Their problem becomes that they have a hill that we are attaching this to that they also need something that is in the major piece of legislation, HB 2174, and it is because they do not want this to be used as a vehicle for moving the amendment, but they do agree across the Commonwealth that the amendment is necessary. One of the questions this morning was that we did not have a fiscal note. We now have a fiscal note, Mr. Speaker, and the

26 796 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE APRIL 16, fiscal note indicates, as I had indicated to the membership this morning, that the State cost will increase by up to $100,000. The cost to the school district, as Representative Pievsky indicated, is $2 1/4 million, and you have that fiscal note on your desk. The cost is surely outweighed by the needs of our various school districts, and I would therefore ask for the support af the House. One other item, Mr. Speaker, that 1 think is important. A few of the Representatives in the Philadelphia School District have raised this question about its cost being passed through to the city school district. I am looking at a provision in the School Code that talks about reimbursement. These costs are reimbursed to the school district. These children who are placed outside the respective school districts-i am using Philadelphia as an example because the beneficiary of this legislation really in the largest sense is the Philadelphia School District-these children are included in the subsidy formula. These are part of the full-time equivalent student portion of that formula, so the city is in fact reimbursed for these children through their formula. My hope is that we will use a portion of the surplus that we are experiencing to raise the subsidy formula this year, and with that raise will be a commensurate increase in the reimbursement from the Commonwealth for these students. So I think there is total agreement across the Commonwealth that there are not adequate provisions in our schools for these children and we need to retain these programs. I also bring to the attention, and I will point out geographically for those people who might not be aware that they have a home in their region that is servicing their children in their school districts, there is a school known as the Lutheran Home that is just north of Pittsburgh; Holy Family, which serves Pittsburgh; Abraxas, which services also portions of western Pennsylvania; St. Michael's, which serves northeastern Pennsylvania; New Life and St. Gabriel's, which services Montgomery County; Glen Mills and Sleighton in Delaware County; and a program called ARK, which services central Pennsylvania, or the A-R-K program, which serves Lancaster, York, Dauphin, and Cumberland Counties. Those are programs that are also going to have their needs satisfied through this amendment. I would appreciate the support of the House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER. On the Lashinger amendment, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Allegheny, Mr. Cowell. Mr. COWELL. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask that we oppose this amendment, primarily because I believe Representative Lashinger proposes an inappropriate way to solve what is avery real problem. The way he would solve the problem is by passing on to local school districts an additional $2.2-million expenditure, at least. Now, he made some comments that would suggest that perhaps school districts favor this and suggest that school districts are made whole through the reimbursement process, and that is not the case. Representative Lashinger correctly said that these young people get to these schools because they are placed there by the courts. It is not a decision made by school districts, first of all. Secondly, he did indicate that the additional cost to school districts collectively around the State would be an additional $2.2 million. When one suggests that they will be reimbursed for that, that is incorrect. We have to keep in mind that there are caps in terms of how much we will reimburse a school district for any particular student, and we reimburse nobody for 100 percent. We have the aid ratio, and some school districts receive as little as 20 and 25 and 30 cents on the dollar that they actually spend for students, so school districts would not be made whole. There would be a substantial additional cost incurred by school districts if we would approve this amendment, as it has been suggested. I think that we ought to be considering an alternative amendment and an alternative solution to this problem where the State would bear the responsibility for the extraordinary costs that are incurred, because they are extraordinary costs and also because the school district has no discretion about whether these costs will he incurred. These young people are placed there by the courts. I would urge Representative Lashinger to work with other members of the Assembly to consider an alternative approach where the Commonwealth would take on the responsibility for these extra costs, because I believe the institutions in fact should be reimbursed to a greater extent. But I think he proposes an inappropriate way of doing it when be suggests that the extra financial burden should be placed on already hardpressed school districts. For that reason I would urge that we defeat the amendment. The SPEAKER. On the amendment, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Allegheny, Mr. Mayernik. Mr. MAYERNIK. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Holy Family Institute is one of the schools that is in my legislative district. Also there is Avonworth School District. The children are placed in Holy Family who live in surrounding municipalities and live in the city of Pittsburgh. As a result, the taxpayers of Avonworth School District must pay the additional funds to educate these children who are court mandated into their location. Avonworth School District has the highest tax millage of all the school districts in Allegheny County. The taxpayers cannot continually afford to support these children in the PRRI program. This is a necessary program, but it is my belief that we should adequately fund this program so that we are not shifting the burden. As Mr. Cowell stated before, the extraordinary costs should be placed or worked upon. I have attempted to do this with the Department of Education. They have refused to do this. Last session we passed an amendment to one of the Speaker's bills and there were only two dissenting votes, and it is a similar amendment that Mr. Lashinger is posing today. To maintain equality of the funding of the PRRI's, I would ask for an affirmative vote on this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER. On the amendment, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Philadelphia, Mr. Kosinski.

27

28 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ An Act amending the act of October 4, 1978 (P. L. 876, No. 169), entitled "Pennsylvania Crime Commission Act," reestablishing and further providing for the powers and duties of the Pennsylvania Crime Commission. Will the House agree to the bill on third consideration? On the question recurring, Will the House agree to the bill on third consideration? Mr. TIGUE offered the following amendments No. A1089: LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE APRIL 16, - Dalev Kukovlch Reinard I On the ouestion ~. ~~~~2 Davies Langtr~ Richardson Irvis. Will the House agree to the amendments? Dawida Lashinger Rieger Speaker Deal The SPEAKER. On the amendment. the Chair recoenizes - NAYS-5 the gentleman from Luzerne, Mr. Tigue. Clymer Piccala Punt Wright, J. L. Mr. TIGUE. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Hutchinson Mr. Speaker, this amendment I offer takes away the immu- NOT VOTING-5 nity from the Crime Commission. In other words, the Crime Commission would now be held responsible, if my amend- Cohen Johnson Mtcozzie Sirianni Gannon ment were adopted, for what they say, things they write. So in EXCUSED-4 other words, they would have the same liability as each and every one of us should we make certain accusations or Book Evans Gallagher Snyder, D. W. innuendoes regarding other people. The majority required by the Constitution having voted in The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the minority leader the affirmative, the question was determined in the affirma- on the amendment. tive and the bill passes finally. Mr. RYAN. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the gentleman's amend- Ordered, That the clerk present the same to the Senate for ment. concurrence. The gentleman states that the Crime Commission should *** have the same potential for liability as everyone else. He says that as he speaks and as 1 speak with immunity. Each and The House proceeded to third consideration of SB 1342, every one of us as we speak on the floor in our official capac- PN 1844, entitled: ity are immune from suit for our remarks. A judge on the bench is immune. Any number of others are immune. Particu- The SPEAKER, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Westmoreland, M~. petrarca, who offers the following amendment, which the clerk will read. Mr. PETRARCA, M~, speaker, I am withdrawing my amendment. I do not want to upset M~~~ R ~ ~ ~ h you, ~ ~, ~ not k like a grand jury. Grand juries. 1 am sure, are immune, The speaker, Will the gentleman, Ryan, do the chair a favor? would he he upset at a few more amendments? lf his upset requires the withdrawal of amendments, we could speed things up a lot faster. M~. RYAN. M ~. speaker, that is what I have been trying to convince 102 members of. The SPEAKER. It is tough to do it that way, Matt. Very well. Mr. Petrarca has withdrawn his amendment. Amend Sec. 3, page 4, line 28, by striking out "Section 7 of the act is" and inserting Sections 7 and 9 of the act are Amend Sec. 3, page 5, by inserting between lines 18 and I9 Section 9. Privileged statements and reports. Any statement or disclosure of information made by a commissioner or an employee of the commission during the course of any commission hearing or official proceeding and any report issued by the commission shall [be absolutely privileged and such privilege shall be an absolute] not be privileged and shall not be a defense to any action for invasion of privacy, defamation or other civil or criminal action. larly, I think this in the area of the criminal justice system as long as they are doing their duty, making an honest effort to do it, and if they do not make an honest effort, then the Speaker of the House, the minority leader of the House, whoever has appointed the individual, should have him removed from the committee if they are abusing their Stature, their office. But to remove them would be to cause them to be in a position to be easily intimidated, because they are an investigatory-type body, not privileged to indict; it is and I believe that you would be dealing a blow to the criminal justice system as we know it today to remove that immunity. 1 do not. of course, suggest for a minute anything improper in the motivation of the gentleman, but I think that this is the area where we should be very, very careful to protect the rights of people who are sitting in positions such as this. For that and I guess any number of other reasons, 1 would disagree with the gentleman's amendment and ask that it be voted down ~~. Luzerne, Mr. Tigue, on the amendment. Mr. TIGUE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of ~ - the minority leader, but I would be willing to draft an amendment to take away immunity from anyone and everyone. I think if someone writes an article in the newspaper and they create a situation where they may defame somebody- We know ourselves; we do not have to he tried and convicted, especially in the political arena, to have judgment against us. My understanding is this happened to a former member of this House when he happened to be mentioned in a Crime Commission report with no substantiation. That individual, lo and behold, lost the next election he was involved in. The prior Speaker knows that.

29 1986 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE 799 All I am saying is let us be fair. If I do something wrong, I am willing to stand trial for my sins. However, I do not think that anyone, whether it is a judge, a legislator, or a member of the Crime Commission, should have the immunity to sit there and say and do or write anything they can or will do without any repercussions. Lancaster, Mr. Miller, on the amendment. Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to encourage a negative vote on this amendment. The issue of fair play was raised by the maker of the amendment, and in raising that issue of fair play I might suggest that there is a higher order of fair play that we can all look toward. The Crime Commission is that higher order of free governmental agency designed to operate in an arena that is unencumbered by political pressures or the pressures of immunity so that they may ferret out those most heinous instances of organized crime. In doing so, we need to offer that agent of our government certain protections. The primary protection is that of immunity. So indeed it is not an issue of fairness; moreover, it is an issue of fairness to the society as a whole that this amendment be turned down. Permit our Crime Commission to operate in an unrestrained manner and in a manner that has the ability to ferret out organized crime in this Commonwealth. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Allegheny, Mr. Clark, on the amendment. Mr. CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 wish to encourage adoption of the Tigue amendment for a very simple reason. I think those people who oppose the amendment are misled on the function of the Pennsylvania Crime Commission. The Pennsylvania Crime Commission's job is not to look into individuals committing crimes and print their names in reports where they need immunity. Their job is to report back to this legislature and to our law enforcement agencies on the broader range of crime and on the broader range of subjects of crime, such as drug trafficking, official corruption, and organized crime, not to go into specific instances, and I think that is where the commission got away from their original charge that was amended in 1978 to tell them to inquire into crime generally. They do not need the immunity that is in their law if they are dealing with crime generally. It is only when they get into specifics, and frankly, I do not believe they need to be there in the first place. I would urge adoption of the Tigue amendment. Dauphin, Mr. Piccola, on the amendment. Mr. PICCOLA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I oppose the Tigue amendment. The last speaker indicated that he thought that this amendment was necessary in order to keep the Crime Commission to their original function. As a matter of fact, I believe the Crime Commission has been performing its function, and that is as an investigative arm of this General Assembly. The General Assembly; that is you and I. We are clothed, as Mr. Ryan said, in immunity, and our investigative arm must also be clothed in immunity if they are to have any strength. This morning we passed an amendment to the Flick bill which would have permitted directors and officers of nonprofit corporations to avoid lawsuits under our liability scheme. The purpose of that was to encourage members of those boards to serve. That is precisely why the Crime Commission members have immunity. If we eliminate immunity, they will be sued in every instance possible, frivolously and nonfrivolously, and it will have a total chilling effect on their investigations. This amendment would totally undermine the operation of the Crime Commission, and I urge that it be defeated. The SPEAKER. On the amendment, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from York, Mr. Bortner. Mr. BORTNER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also urge a negative vote on this amendment. Like Representative Piccola, I find it ironic that on the same day, within a short period of time of granting immunity to Little League coaches, members of the board of directors of YMCA's, and every other volunteer organization in the Commonwealth, that we would suggest that we take away the immunity of a commission that is an arm of the legislature. We have given them a very difficult task to perform. I think it is difficult enough for them to perform. We should not make it any more difficult. I would also like to respond to a charge of Representative Clark that they have gone beyond their mandate in investigating individuals as opposed to the broad range of crime. I would ask that you turn to the statute, specifically number 1 of their powers and their duties, which is to inquire into organized crime and activities of persons engaged in or associated with organized crime; and number 2, which states that their purpose and their duty is to inquire into public corruption and activities of persons engaged in and associated with public corruption. I think that they are within their mandate. 1 think that this amendment would be a mistake, and I hope that the members will vote "no." Thank you. The SPEAKER. On the amendment, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Greene, Mr. DeWeese. Mr. DeWEESE. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I would like to rise in support of the gentleman from York County, Mr. Bortner, and urge that the Tigue amendment be defeated. Thank you. The SPEAKER. On the amendment, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Montgomery, Mr. Godshall. Mr. GODSHALL. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 rise in support of the Tigue amendment. All we are saying here is that the commission better be sure of their facts before they publish them. It is exactly that simple, and I think they should be sure of their facts before they put them out in publication. I urge your support of the Tigue amendment. On the question recurring,

30 800 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE APRIL 16, Will the House agree to the amendments? The following roll call was recorded: YEAS-49 Acosta George Maiale Afflerbach Godshall Manderino Belardi Gruitra Mayernik Belfanti Hasay Michlovic Blaum Howlett Murphy Cappabianca Hutchinson Olasz Cawley Jarolin Petrarca Clark Josephs Petrone Coslett Kosinski Pistella Dombrowski Laughlin Pressman" Donatucci McCall Roebuck Freeman McHale Saloom Gamble NAYS-146 Angstadt Davies Langt~ Argall Dawida Lashinger Arty Deal Lescovitr Baldwin Dietz Letterman Barber Dininni Levdansky Barley Distler Linton Battisto Dorr Livengood Birmelin Duffy Lloyd Black Durham Lucyk Bortner Fargo McClatchy Bowley Fattah McVerry Bowser Fee Mackowski Boyes Fischer Manmiller Brandt Flick Markosek Broujos Foster Merry Bunt Fox Micorrie Burd Freind Miller Burns Fryer Moehlmann Bush Gallen Morris Caltagirone Geist Mowery Carlson Gladeek Mrkonic Cam Greenwood Nahill Cessar ONPPO Noye Chadwick Hagarty O'Brien Cimini Haluska O'Donnell Civera Harper Oliver Clymer Hayes Perzel Colafella Herman Phillips Cole Hershey Piccola Cordisco Honaman Pievsky Cornell ltkin Pitts Cowell Jackson Pott COY Johnson Preston Deluca Kasunic Punt DeVerter Kennedy Raymond DeWeese Kenney Reber Daley Kukavich Reinard NOT VOTING-2 Cohen Gannon EXCUSED-4 Book Evans Gallagher The question was determined in the amendments were not agreed to. WELCOME Serafini Seventy Staback Steighner Stevens Stewart Telek Tigue Trello Van Horne Veon Wozniak Richardson Rieger Rabbins Rudy Ryan Rybak Saurman Scheetr Schuler Semmel Showers Sirianni Smith, B. Smith, L. E. Snyder. G. Stairs Stuban Sweet Swift Taylor, E. Z. Taylor, F. Taylor, J. Truman Vroon Wambach Wass Weston Wiggins Wilson Wogan Wright, D. R. Wright, J. L. Wright, R. C. Yandrisevits Irvis, Speaker Snyder, D. W. negative, and the The SPEAKER. The Chair is delighted to welcome to the hall of the House a group of ladies from Lancaster County They are Muriel Saylor, Mary Lee Spangler, Sara Myer Miriam Heisey, Martha Eshleman, and Lillian Greenberger. They are from the Society of Farm Women. They are the guests of Kenny Brandt and the entire Lancaster County delegation. Ladies, we are delighted to have you here in the hall of the House. CONSIDERATION OF SB 1342 CONTINUED On the question recurring, Will the House agree to the hill on third consideration? Mr. STEVENS offered the following amendments No. A1503: Amend Sec. 1 (Sec. 4), page 2, line 16, by inserting a bracket before "which" Amend Sec. 1 (Sec. 4), page 2, line 17, by inserting after "action." I to the Attorney General for consideration for use in criminal proceedings if the Attorney General deem, appropriate. Under na, rircum\tancer shall the comm~\sion publi,h a report containing such information or information regarding incomplete investigations. Amend Sec. 1 (Sec. 4), page 2, lines 22 and 23, by inserting a bracket before "on" in line 22 and after "Commonwealth" in line 23 and inserting immediately thereafter regarding its activit Amend Sec. 1 (Sec. 4), pagey2, line 24, by inserting a bracket before "In" Amend Sec. 1 (Sec. 4), page 2, line 30, by inserting after "re~orts.'' Will the House agree to the amendments? The SPEAKER. On the amendment, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Luzerne, Mr. Stevens. Mr. STEVENS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I point out to the members of the House what my amendment does not do. It in no way dilutes any of the powers or duties of the Crime Commission. It does not put them under the Attorney General. It does not take away any of their power. It just clarifies what I hope they are already doing. It specifically directs that completed investigative reports are also turned over to the Attorney General. It does not prohibit them from turning over those completed reports to district attorneys and Federal prosecutors. It just specifically says that the Attorney General shall also receive a copy of the completed report, and it prohibits publishing reports that are incomplete. Under my amendment, completed investigations must also go to the Attorney General, but incomplete investigations cannot he published. My reason for that is an incomplete investigation can lead to an acquittal of someone who may be guilty, basically on a technicality such as pretrial puhlicity and so on. I am not sure that the commission is doing this now, hut I want to make it clear in the law.

31 1986 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE 801 The other part of my amendment just continues to direct the commission to go to the causes and effects of organized crime and the investigative efforts of law enforcement agencies and to report back to the legislature. So I just want to clarify that there are no major changes. It does not dilute the Crime Commission in any way. I think they are already turning over investigations to the Attorney General in the due course, but I want to make it in the law that they are going to be required to make sure the Attorney General gets a copy of completed investigations. And, again, it should be sound law that incomplete investigations should not be prematurely released to anybody. That is really the extent of my amendment. It does not dilute the Crime Commission in any way, and I hope that it will strengthen the enforcement powers in a sense because incomplete information will not be available to the public and, therefore, there would be less chance of a true criminal getting off on a technicality. I would be happy to take any questions. MR. FRYER REQUESTED TO PRESIDE The SPEAKER. The Chair turns over the gavel temporarily to thegentleman from Berks, Mr. Fryer. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE (LESTER K. FRYER) IN THE CHAIR CONSIDERATION OF SB 1342 CONTINUED The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Dauphin, Mr. Piccola. Mr. PICCOLA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would urge a negative vote on the Stevens amendment. I believe, if I heard the gentleman correctly, that Mr. Stevens said that his amendment makes no major changes in the mandate of the Crime Commission. I would respectfully disagree with that analysis of his amendment. If you will look on page 2, lines 16 and 17 of the bill, he is deleting from that subsection the requirement that the reports include recommendations for legislative or administrative action and instead he is inserting the language that the reports shall be made to the Attorney General. I object to that language and the deletion of that language because, first of all, the Crime Commission is an arm of this General Assembly; they are not an arm of the Attorney General. Secondly, as the gentleman indicated, they are already working hand in glove with the Attorney General and making appropriate references when necessary. However, the Attorney General is not the only law enforcement agency with which the Crime Commission needs to deal. In certain types of investigations, referral to a local district attorney, a Federal U.S. attorney, or an attorney general in another State or a local prosecutor in another State may be more appropriate. I believe the language in the first part of the Stevens amendment would therefore hamstring unnecessarily the operation of the Crime Commission. Secondly, in the second part of the amendment the amendment attempts to just generally require that the commission's annual report include only information regarding the causes and effects of organized crime. The effect of his amendment would preclude the commission from getting into specifics of their investigations. Now, as a matter of fact, the commission has a rule, an internal standard, where they will not print any result of these investigations until they have two independent sources for them. The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that this Crime Commission was set up to serve the General Assembly, and the effect of the Stevens amendment would make it a tool, if not an arm, of the Attorney General. For that reason 1 would oppose the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Lebanon, Mr. Moehlmann. Mr. MOEHLMANN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the Stevens amendment for the reason that I believe the language is largely meaningless. The amendment prohibits the commission from publishing information regarding incomplete investigations. I do not know what an incomplete investigation is. I do not know what a complete investigation is. Is a complete investigation one in which the Crime Commission has learned all the information there is to learn? Is it one where the Crime Commission has learned all the information it wishes to learn? Is it one in which the Crime Commission has learned all the information it expects to learn? Is it one in which an indictment has been sought? Is it one in which an indictment has been returned? I think the amendment simply prohibits the commission from publishing, and I think the ability to publish is one of the primary functions of the commission. I urge a negative vote on the amendment. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Greene, Mr. DeWeese. Mr. DeWEESE. I am under the very firm impression that the language is too restrictive and it takes away accountability. Therefore, I would concur with Mr. Moehlmann and ask that the amendment be defeated. Thank you. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Luzerne, Mr. Stevens. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised at the total misrepresentation to the House members that one of the previous speakers made. My language in the first part of the amendment makes it clear, first of all, that the report will continue to be published but it will be complete. Second of all, Representative Piccola skipped over some key language in this amendment. I add "regarding its activity." Representative Piccola did not mention that this still means that they are going to look into the activity of organized crime, and I am surprised that he did not mention that particular language. Also, in the third part of the amendment it clearly indicates that the legislature will receive recommendations as it does now. The language was taken out at the middle of the page and put down at the bottom of the page. It still does the same thing.

32 The main intent of this is to make sure that, number one, the Attorney General is directed by law to receive a copy. The Attorney General has no control over the Crime Commission under this amendment and will have none under this amendment. The Crime Commission will continue to make reports, continue to publish reports, and, under this amendment, continue to make recommendations to the legislature. I just tried to make sure that the Attorney General gets a copy of completed investigations and I tried to make sure that when an investigation is only partially complete, that it does not receive wide dissemination outside of law enforcement agencies. So this does not in any way dilute the power of the Crime Commission. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from York, Mr. Bortner. Mr. BORTNER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be brief. I would like to really second the remarks of Mr. Piccola. As he has indicated, this amendment would require that every piece of information, every investigation that is initiated by the Crime Commission would have to first be forwarded to the Attorney General's Office. I do not know that that is such a terrible thing other than the fact that it is wasteful, it is onerous, and I do not think it serves any real purpose. They are on a daily basis developing information that is forwarded to the organized crime force, the strike force in Philadelphia and the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) strike force in Miami, to other State Police agencies throughout the Commonwealth; in fact, to police organizations such as the Mounties. It is unnecessary to require that they send every piece of information to the Attorney General's Office initially before that goes on to the proper authorities. Secondly, I would argue and ask the members to take a look at the second part of the amendment. In my opinion, that is nothing more than an attempt to limit and restrict the scope of the Crime Commission's activities. I think it is the wrong message to send out today. I think that organized crime is a major threat to each and every one of us, each and every one of our constituents, and I hope you will vote down this amendment for that reason. Thank you. On the question recurring, Will the House agree to the amendments? The following roll call was recorded: YEAS-28 Acosta Clark Jaralin Pnrarca Afflerbach Coslett Kosinski Serafrni Belardi Duffy Lloyd Stevens Blaum Godshall Mackowski Telek Cappabianca Haluska Manderino Tigue Cawley Hasay Olasz Trello Cessar Hutchinson Perrel Veon NAYS-165 Angnadt Distler Lescovitz Rieger Argall Dombrowski Letternan Robbins Arty Donatucci Levdansky Roebuck Baldwin Dorr Linton Rudy Barber Durham Livengood Ryan Barley Fargo Lucyk Rybak Battist0 Fattah McCall S a h Belfanti Fee McClatchy Saurman LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE APRIL 16, Birmelin Fischer McHale Black Flick McVeny BoRner Foster Manmiller Bowley Fox Markosek Bowser Freeman Mayernik byes Freind Merry Brandt Fryer MicNovic Broujos Gallen Micozzie Bunt Gamble Miller Burd Gannon Moehlmann Burns Geist Morris Bush George Mowery Caltagirone Gladeck Mrkonic Carlson Greenwood Murphy Carn Gruitza Nahill Chadwick GNPPO Noye Cimini Hagany O'Brien Civera Harper O'Donnell Clymer Hayes Oliver Colafella Herman Petrone Cole Hershey Phillips Cordisco Hanaman Piccola Cornell ltkin Pievsky Cowell Jackson Pistella COY Johnson Pitts Deluca losephs Pott DeVerter Kasunic Pressmann DeWeese Kennedy Preston Daley Kenney Punt Davies Kukovich Raymond Dawida LangtrY Reber Deal Lashinger Reinard Dietz Laughlin Richardson Dininni NOT VOTING-4 Cohen Howlett Maiale Irvis, Speaker EXCUSED-4 Book Evans Gallagher The question was determined in the amendments were not agreed to. Seheetz Schuler Semmel Seventy Showers Sirianni Smith, B. Smith, L. E Snyder, G. Staback Stairs Steighoer Stewart Stuban Sweet Swift Taylor, E. 2. Taylor, F. Taylor Truman Van Horne Vroan Wambach Wass Weston Wiggins Wilson Wogan Wozniak Wright, D. R. wrist, 1. L. Wright, R. C. Yandrisevits Snyder. D. W. negative, and the On the question recurring, Will the House agree to the bill on third consideration? Mr. PICCOLA offered the following amendments No. A1121: Amend Title, page 1, line 4, by inserting after "for" vacancies and Amend Bill, page 2, by inserting between lines 1 and 2 Section 1. Section 3(e) of the act of October 4, 1978 (P.L.876, No.169), known as the Pennsylvania Crime Commission Act, is amended to read: Section 3. Creation of commission; membership; compensation; vacancies; removal. *** (e) All vacancies shall be filled, for the remainder of the unexpired term in the same manner as original appointments. Any commissioner, upon the expiration of his term, shall continue to hold office until his successor [shall be] e duly appointed and qualified according to law, hut in no event longer than six months after the expiration of the commissioner's appointed term. *** Amend Sec. 1, page 2, line 2, by striking out "1" and inserting 2

33 1986 LEGISLATIVE J( Amend Sec. I, page 2, lines 2 through 4, by striking out "OF OCTOBER 4, 1978" in line 2, all of line 3 and "ACT" in line 4 Amend Sec. 2, page 4, line 13, by striking out "2" and inserting 3 Amend Sec. 3, page 4, line 28, by striking out "3" and inserting 4 Amend Sec. 4, page 5, line 19, by striking out "4" and inserting 5 Amend Sec. 5, page 5, line 20, by striking out "5" and inserting 6 Amend Sec. 5, page 5, lines 23 through 30; page 6, line I, by striking out all of lines 23 through 30, page 5; and "(c)" in line 1, page 6; and inserting (b) Amend Sec. 6, page 6, line 7, by striking out "6" and inserting 7 Will the House agree to the amendments? The SPEAKER pro tempore. On that question, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Dauphin, Mr. Piccola. Mr. PICCOLA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a "technical amendment" in the Letterman sense of that term. It is language which the committee failed to put in which is standard sunset language. It would require that a Crime Commission member could serve no longer than 6 months after the expiration of his term, rather than until his successor was qualified. This would insure that we would have appointments made at least within 6 months after the expiration of a member's term. 1 urge adoption of the amendment. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Greene, Mr. DeWeese. Mr. DeWEESE. I would agree with the amendment. Thank you. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair thanks the gentleman. On the question recurring, Will the House agree to the amendments? The following roll call was recorded: YEAS-192 Acosta Dietz Lashinger Richardson Afflerbach Dininni Laughlin Rieger Angstadt Distler Lescovitz Robbins Argall Dombrowski Letterman Roebuck Arty Donatucci Levdansky Rudy Baldwin Darr Linton Ryan Barber Duffy Livengood Rybak Barley Durham Lloyd Saloom Battisto Farga Lucyk Saurman Belardi Fattah McCall Scheetz Belfanti Fee McClatchy Schuler Birmelin Fischer McHale Semmel Black Flick McVerry Serafini Blaum Foster Mackowski Seventy Banner Fox Manderina Showers Bowley Freeman Manmiller Sirianni Bowser Freind Markosek Smith, B. Boyes Fryer Mayernik Smith, L. E. URNAL-HOUSE 803 Brandt Gallen Merry Snyder, G. Broujos Gamble Michlavic Staback Bunt Gannon Micazzie Stairs Burd Geist Miller Steighner Burns George Moehlmann Stevens Bush Gladeck Morris Stewart Caltagirane Godshall Mowery Stuban Cappabianca Greenwood Mrkonic Sweet Carlson Gruitra Murphy Swift Carn Gruppo Nahill Taylor, E. Z. Cawley Hagarty Noye Taylor, F. Cessar Haluska O'Brien Taylor, J. Chadwick Harper O'Donnell Telek Cimini Hasay Olasr Tigue Civera Hayes Oliver Trello Clark Herman Perzel Truman Clymer Hershey Petrarca Van Horne Colafella Honaman Petrone Veon Cole Hutchinsan Phillips Vroon Cordisco ltkin Piccala Wambach Cornell Jackson Pievsky Wass Coslett Jarolin Pistella Weston Cowell Johnson Pitts Wiggins COY Josephs Pot1 Wilson Deluca Kasunic Pressman" Wogan DeVerter Kennedy Preston Wazniak DeWeese Kenney Punt Wright. D. R. Daley Kosinski Raymond Wright, I. L. Davies Kukovich Reber Wright, R. C. Dawida Langtry Reinard Yandrisevits NAYS-0 NOT VOTING-5 Cohen Deal Howlett Maiale Irvis. Speaker EXCUSED-4 Book Evans Gallagher Snyder, D. W. The question was determined in the affirmative, and the amendments were agreed to. Will the House agree to the bill on third consideration as amended? Mr. CLARK offered the following amendments No. A1577: Amend Title, page 1, line 5, by removing the period after "Commission" and inserting ; and transferring certain personnel, assets and appropriations to <he Office of Attorney General. Amend Bill, page 5, by inserting between lines 19 and 20 Section 5. The act is amended bv addine a section to read: ncl in thc ;umrni>,ion prio~_t&!!!c eit'cit!nc_dare of thi, air. ~-A~liilcr.-~tec and in\r,rigative records uf the cor~~niis-,iun shall be retdinrrl b) tlic comrni$sion and shall not bc trans-

34 804 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE APRIL 16, ferred to the Office of Attorney General, unless released pursuant to section 8. Amend Sec. 5, page 5, line 20, by striking out "5" and inserting 6 Amend Sec. 6, page 6, line 7, by striking out "6" and inserting 7 Will the House agree to the amendments? The SPEAKER pro tempore. On that question, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Allegheny, Mr. Clark. Mr. CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now we are going to get to the meat of the question on the Crime Commission and its original charge and why the Crime Commission exists. Several members mentioned the investigatory powers and investigative actions of the Crime Commission and said how important it is that they continue those investigations. Well, frankly, that is not why we intended them in the first place, hut this amendment will give us the opportunity to make them investigators; to allow them to bring criminals to justice; to charge them with crimes and to put them in jail. The way the commission is presently structured, they conduct investigations and make recommendations. This amendment would transfer the commission, its resources, its personnel, to the Attorney General's Office, place them under the Attorney General's Office, and place their 40-some agents at the disposal of the Attorney General for investigating crime and prosecuting crime. In fighting crime in Pennsylvania, we need to put our limited resources to their best use. Each year the General Assembly appropriates about $2.2 million in State money to the Pennsylvania Crime Commission. For that money, we get reports on organized crime. Some of the amendments offered earlier today were aimed at stopping some of the naming of individuals in the reports, something the commission was not instructed to do by this legislature. With a transfer of the manpower and resources of the Crime Commission, we would receive investigations and prosecutions in exchange for our taxpayers' money. We would put more drug dealers in jail, more drug pushers in jail, and not just write about their crimes. We would he able to put our organized crime figures in jail, not just write about their activities. It is important that we fight crime in an organized way. It is not important that we put it in various agencies throughout State Government. We gave the Attorney General of this Commonwealth the tools to fight crime - investigative grand juries, wiretapping powers, and immunity - and we told him to go out and prosecute criminals. If we give him the resources of the Crime Commission, it will make his job easier. It is in the best interests of Pennsylvanians that we put our limited resources to work fighting crime, and the commission can still operate in its reporting capacity as part of the Attorney General's Office. They talk in their recent report about referrals made to other agencies. Well, after the Crime Commission conducts an investigation and refers it to another agency, that agency must then conduct another investigation in order to bring charges and put that person on trial. If the employees of the commission are part of the Attorney General's Office, they can work directly with the strike force, directly with the task forces on organized crime, and bring criminals to justice. I urge that we adopt this amendment so that we can put $2.2 million in State funds and $1.8 million in Federal funds to work prosecuting crimes and not just reporting about it. And then the Attorney General can have the Crime Commission under his jurisdiction and provide us with the important information we need to give him laws to fight crime. I would urge an affirmative vote on this amendment. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the lady from Montgomery, Mrs. Hagarty. Mrs. HAGARTY. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it is important to defeat this amendment. This amendment will weaken the fight against organized crime in this Commonwealth. It is interesting to know that the Attorney General has not been in favor-the present Attorney General-of taking over the Crime Commission. He simply wants the 25 investigative personnel. Now, what that says to me is that it is not going to remain a sole priority; he is not going to be using 25 people now to investigate organized crime, but the investigation of organized crime will compete in the Attorney General's Office with all of the other responsibilities of the Attorney General with regard to prosecutions of cases. Secondly, we should recognize that the Crime Commission was set up to function under the auspices of this legislature. If we take the Crime Commission and put it in the Attorney General's Office, we are giving up our control of the Crime Commission and giving it to a different political body - the Attorney General. It is important to keep in mind that the Attorney General is elected. He is a political figure. The Crime Commission functions as a bipartisan group that is not within the political system. They tell me that particularly in the area of whitecollar crime, when people frequently come to them to give information, they specifically do not want to go to the Attorney General because of perceptions, as we all know, that occur with regard to politicians and contributions. And so it is very important to have an independent investigating arm. Also, keep in mind that the Attorney General makes his record by successful prosecutions. The Crime Commission does not function solely to get prosecutions. Certainly their goal is a prosecution when evidence warrants it and can be turned over to appropriate law enforcement agencies. But they also have a dual function of education, and it is crucial to educate the public to the millions of dollars that we lose through organized crime and to keep the public away from those enterprises which are enterprises of organized crime. That would not be a function of the Attorney General's Office. In summary, I think it is important if we want to fight organized crime in this Commonwealth, if we want to keep our

35 1986 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE 805 model for one of the best agencies in the United States to do so, to preserve the Crime Commission as it is now - an independent, bipartisan organization - and defeat the Clark amendment. Thank you. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from York, Mr. Bortner. Mr. BORTNER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to also ask for a negative vote on this amendment. I think to understand why it is a had idea to put the Crime Commission into the Attorney General's Office, you have to understand what the Crime Commission's mandate is and what they are supposed to do. They are an investigative agency. We have given them the mandate to inquire into organized crime and report hack to this body. They are not a prosecutorial agency. They do not have the authority to do that. The Attorney General's Office is just the opposite. They are a prosecutorial agency. Their mandate is to investigate crimes that have been committed and to take the appropriate action by indicting and prosecuting those individuals. In law enforcement parlance, they are reactive; the Crime Commission is proactive. That is a very important distinction that members ought to remember. As Mrs. Hagarty has stated, we decided, this body, that the Attorney General's Office should be elected. That inevitably puts them into political activity. We make them raise a lot of money, and that is what is necessary to be elected. One of the mandates of the Crimes Commission, of course, is to ferret out public corruption, and that is not in any way an indictment against any particular individual other than to say that it does create a problem; it creates what I think to be a conflict of interest. I have heard a number of people criticize certain activities and past reports of the Crime Commission. At the present time, we have authority over that because they are an arm of the legislature. This morning I participated in a joint session of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees where the members of the Crime Commission were required, as they are on an annual basis, to come before the committee to answer questions, which they did, for a period of time. Some of them went into their activities; some of them were comments; some of them were criticisms. If we pass this legislation, we have given up that responsibility and we have given away that opportunity. I would ask you to think about that as you consider this amendment and to vote "no" so that the Crime Commission continues to be the arm of the legislature and that if changes need to he made, we have some responsibility and some authority in doing that. Thank you. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the minority leader. Mr. RYAN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it has just been called to my attention that if you look closely at this amendment, what this amendment actually does-and if it was explained, I did not understand it-it takes the 25 investigators of the Crime Commission, puts them over with the Attorney General, but leaves in the Crime Commission the commissioners, the secretaries, the office help. So now we have 25 or 30 people sitting in the Crime Commission while all their investigators are working for the Attorney General. Now, I think that is crazy; ahsolutely insane. But aside from that, it is still no good. I am repeating what a number of the other members have said. The Crime Commission is an arm of the legislature. I have an appointment to it; Mr. Irvis has an appointment to it; the pro tem of the Senate and the minority leader of the Senate have appointments to it; the Governor has one. They are controlled by the legislature the same way-controlled in the sense that we make up their body; we decide who is on itthe same way Legislative Reference Bureau is; the way any of these other joint agencies of the legislature are. They are our people; they are responsible to us who have appointed them. 1 have been a somewhat careful observer of the people who have made up the membership of that Crime Commission over the past years, and I can say that they are as fine a group of people as you will find serving their Commonwealth or their country. They are unselfishly devoted to the cause of law and order. To remove from them the investigative arm, which is what Mr. Clark would do, is really to destroy the Crime Commission. I refer you back to Mr. Clark's earlier remarks when he was debating one of the other amendments, when he said, as an afterthought perhaps-and I am paraphrasing-i am not so sure this Crime Commission should even be here. I think then he intimated that he thought the Crime Commission should be done away with, and here with a scalpel as opposed to an ax, he would remove the Crime Commission in everything but name only by removing all the investigators of it. I think it is a bad thing to do. I think it is something that if we do it, we will regret it, and we will be severely criticized for doing it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Montgomery, Mr. Godshall. Mr. GODSHALL. I rise in full support of the position of Representative Clark. First of all, this agency is operating under a $4-million budget - $2.7 million is spent on personnel; $1.3 million is their operations budget, which includes leasing equipment and facilities and also the printing of expensive brochures. I really believe that the $4 million, along with the personnel, turned over to the Attorney General's Office would result in far more convictions than what is happening out there right now. I would urge your support of this amendment. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Greene County, Mr. DeWeese. Mr. DeWEESE. No one would he so obtuse as to expostnlate that Brian Clark was soft on organized crime. However, in deference to my friend, I rise to support the position of Mr. Ryan and oppose Mr. Clark's efforts. I think that the Attorney General, with $25 million, has at this stage of the game sufficient revenues to launch efforts

36 806 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE APRIL 16, against organized crime. The $2 million, roughly-and I am speaking in round figures-that the Crime Commission receives will not necessarily make a drastic change in character in the operation of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth. I think that it is necessary that we all realize we have an independent and autonomous entity in the Attorney General and in the Crime Commission, and they should be kept that way. And as I conclude my remarks, I want the men and women in the chamber to realize that if this vote were taken 4 or 5 years ago, I would have had a parallel position with the gentleman from Allegheny-Westmoreland. I would have embraced Mr. Clark's position. However, we have a new Crime Commission. We have a new Crime Commission, in my opinion. The executive director and the commission chairman, Mr. Reilly, are initiating a broad spectrum of new administrative and law enforcement techniques, and 1 am confident that LeRoy Zimmerman, or any other Attorney General, now, today, could not do that much more with an additional $2 million or with some additional investigators. At least they could not do so much more as to obviate the necessity for keeping the Crime Commission. I think we need a Crime Commission in 1986, and I would oppose the Clark amendment. Thank you. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Lebanon, Mr. Moehlmann. Mr. MOEHLMANN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would just briefly like to point out that we had SB 1342 before the Judiciary Committee, and at that time the Office of the Attorney General had the opportunity, if it wished to avail itself of the opportunity, to come before the I committee and indicate to us, if they wished, that they would have liked to have had the Crime Commission personnel, appropriations, or functions within the Office of the Attorney General. They did not do that before the House Committee on Judiciary. I therefore have no reason to suppose, have no personal reason to suppose, that the Attorney General does want these functions. I therefore urge that you reject the Clark amendment. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Did the gentleman from Philadelphia, Mr. Deal, care to be recognized at this time? Mr. DEAL. Mr. Speaker, if you would be kind enough to recognize me, I would like to raise a question to the maker of the amendment. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized, and will the sponsor of the amendment stand? He indicates he will stand for a period of interrogation. The gentleman, Mr. Deal, is in order and may proceed. Mr. DEAL. Mr. Speaker, when 1 look at section (a), it appears that everything is transferred under the Attorney General - records, investigations, and what have you - but then when I look under section (b), it appears that the commission will be able to retain its files, and I would just like to have the maker of the amendment kind of explain to me how you take an entire commission, give it to someone else with everything, and then- Mr. RYAN. Mr. Speaker? The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the minority leader. Mr. RYAN. Would the gentleman, Mr. Deal, yield to me for a moment? Mr. DEAL. Certainly. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The minority leader is in order and may proceed. Mr. RYAN. I raised this issue initially. As I read this amendment, in section (a) of the amendment they talk about transferring personnel, allocations, appropriations, equipment, and the like, but if you keep reading down to the fourth or fifth line there, it says, "...performed by commission employees designated 'special agents' or 'investigators,' " designated special agents or investigators, and they and their records and appropriations are transferred to the Attorney General. Everyone else is left with the Crime Commission. So they end up with the investigators over with the AG (Attorney General) and the staff and the secretaries and the members themselves left where they are. So you do not save, as Mr. Godshall said, the $4 million. You would save whatever money is allocated to those agents. Thank you. Mr. DEAL. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, may I now speak? Mr. CLARK. Mr. Speaker, could I answer the interrogation? THE SPEAKER (K. LEROY IRVIS) IN THE CHAIR CONSIDUUTION OF SB I342 CONTINUED The SPEAKER. Are you finished with the interrogation, Mr. Deal? Mr. DEAL. Well, I would be happy- Mr. CLARK. Mr. Speaker, Representative Ryan- Mr. DEAL. I think I am through with the- The SPEAKER. Just a moment, Mr. Deal. Mr. DEAL. I am sorry, sir. The SPEAKER. What is it, Mr. Clark? Mr. CLARK. Representative Ryan interrupted in the midst of an interrogation and answered a question for me, and I would like the opportunity to answer the question directed to me. The SPEAKER. Fine. Mr. Deal, would you repeat the question? The Chair thanks the gentleman from Boyertown, Mr. Fryer, for presiding in the absence of the Chair. Repeat the question, Mr. Deal, to Mr. Clark. Mr. DEAL. My question was, when I look at section (a), it appears that a request is being made to transfer records by some, documents of personnel, under the Attorney General. Then when I look at section (b), it appears that certain records can be retained by the commission. I guess my question is twofold: One is, if everything is transferred under the commission, who is in charge? Do you transfer a commission to a department and then tell the department head, it is none of

37 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE your business what is going on in certain parts of the commission? I am wondering if that happens. And I am just wondering also if section (a) does not really strip the commission and then piecemeal it in (b). Mr. CLARK. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman refers to a section referred to by the minority leader, Mr. Ryan, and frankly, what we have done with this amendment is transfer the investigative officers, the investigative function, because it duplicates the function performed by the Attorney General. The same set of investigators can investigate criminals and provide information to the support people to make reports to the commission, and then the commission can make those reports. It was not important that the support personnel and commissioners be under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General but more importantly the investigative function. If you look at section (b) there, we are not talking about investigative files. We are probably talking about the glossy photographs and brochures that were referred to earlier, and they would be at the discretion of the executive director as to what he wanted to give to the Attorney General. Mr. DEAL. Mr. Speaker, may I speak? The SPEAKER. The gentleman is in order, and he may proceed. Mr. DEAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the amendment and both sections. I feel the intention for the creation of the commission would be that we would have an independent body seeking out and searching for information in an independent vein. I think this amendment would be contrary to what we always thought we had - a commission that came under the legislative body. What we are saying now is, we do not want it anymore; let us give it to another body. I do not think that was ever intended by this legislative body. I would ask the members of this House if they would- Though I have a lot of respect for my friend, Representative Clark, however, I would hope that we would vote "no" on this amendment. The SPEAKER. On the amendment, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Allegheny, Mr. Clark. Mr. CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just to summarize the arguments we have heard on what we think the Crime Commission does and what it really does in real life, they do not investigate and bring anyone to justice presently. If this amendment is adopted, they will be able to investigate and prosecute those people through the investigative agents who will work jointly for the commission and the Attorney General. What I am trying to do with this amendment is put our limited State resources to work fighting crime. The Attorney General came before the Appropriations Committee this year and asked for more money to spend on prosecuting drug pushers, drug dealers, organized criminals, et cetera. We are dealing with a tax cut this year, we are trying to live within our budget, and this is one opportunity we have to take resources that are now only used for a report function and allow them to perform a similar function with no increase in State funding. I would urge the adoption of this amendment so that we can get more investigators on the street investigating and prosecuting crime in Pennsylvania. On the question recurring, Will the House agree to the amendments? The following roll call was recorded: Battisto Belardi Blaum Boyes Cappabianca Carn Clark Dombrowski Duffy Fryer Afflerbach Angstadt Argall Arty Baldwin Barber Barley Belfanti Birmelin Black Bortner Bawley Bowser Brandt Broujos Bunt Burd Burns Bush Caltagirone Carlson Cawley Cessar Chadwick Cimini Civera Clymer Calafella Cole Cardisco Cornell Coslett Cowell COY Deluca DeVerter DeWeese Daley Davies YEAS-39 Gallen Lucyk Gamble Manderina George Olasz Godshall Petrarca Harper Petrane Hutchinson Pistella Kosinski Pott Laughlin Punt Letterman Saloom Livengoad Serafini NAYS-153 Dawida Deal Dietz Dininni Distler Donatucci Dorr Durham Fargo Fattah Fee Fischer Flick Faster Fox Freeman Freind Gannon Geist Gladeck Greenwood Gruitza Gruppo Hagarty Haluska Hasay Hayes Herman Hershey Honaman Itkin Jackson Jarolin Johnson Jasephs Kasunic Kennedy Kenney Kukovich NOT Langtry Lashinger Lescovitz Levdanskv Lloyd McCall McClatchy McHale McVerry Mackowski Manmiller Markosek Mayernik Merry Michlovic Micozzie Miller Maehlmann Morris Mowery Mrkonic Murphy Nahill Noye O'Brien O'Donnell Oliver Perrel Phillips Piccola Pievsky Pitts Pressmann Preston Raymond Reba Reinard Richardson VOTING-5 Seventy Staback Stevens Stewart Tigue Trello Van Horne Veon Wozniak Rieger Robbins Roebuck Rudy Ryan Rybak Saurman Scheetz Schuler Semmel Showers Sirianni Smith, B. Smith, L. E. Snyder, G. Stairs Steighner Stuban Sweet Swift Taylor, E. Z. Taylor, F. Tavlor. 1. ~eiek Vroon Wambach Wass Weston Wiggins Wilson Wogan Wright, D. R. Wright, J. L. Wright, R. C. Yandrisevits Irvis. Speaker Acosta Howlett Maiale Truman Cohen EXCUSED-4 Book Evans Gallagher Snyder, D. W The question was determined in the negative, and the amendments were not agreed to.

38 808 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE APRIL 16, On the question recurring, Will the House agree to the bill on third consideration as amended? Bill as amended was agreed to. The SPEAKER. This bill has been considered on three different days and agreed to and is now on final passage. The question is, shall the bill pass finally? Agreeable to the provisions of the Constitution, the yeas and nays will now be taken. Acosta Afflerbach Angstadt Argall Arty Baldwin Barber Barley Battisto Belardi Belfanti Birmelin Black Blaum Bortner Bowley Bowser Boyes Brandt Broujos Bunt Burd Burns Bush Caltagirone Cappabianca Carlsan Carn Cawley Cessar Chadwick Cimini Civera Clymer Colafella Cole Cordisco Cornell Coslett Cowell Cov Dietz Dininni Distler Dombrowski Donatucci Dorr Duffy Durham Fargo Fattah Fee Fischer Flick Foster Fox Freeman Freind Fryer Gallen Gamble Cannon Geist George Gladeck YEAS-190 Lescovitz Letterman Levdansky Lintm Livengoad Lloyd Lucyk McCall McClatchy McHale McVerry Mackowski Maiale Manderina Manmiller Markosek Mayernik Merry Michlavic Micozzie Miller Moehlmann Morris Mowerv Robbins Rudy Ryan Rybak Saloom Saurman Scheetr Schuler Semmel Serafini Seventy Showers Sirianni Smith, B. Smith, L. E. Snyder. G. Staback Stairs Steighner Stevens Stewan Stuban Sweet Swift Godshall ~rkonic Taylor, E. Z. Greenwood Murphy Taylor, F. Gruitza Nahill Taylor, J. Gruppo Noye Telek Hagarty O'Brien Tigue Haluska O'Dannell Trello Hasay Olasr Truman Haves Oliver Van Horne Heinan Hershey Honaman ltkin Jackson Jarolin Johnson Josephs Kasunic Perzel Petrone Phillips Piccola Pievsky Pistella Pitts POtt Pressmann Veon Vroon Wambach Wass Weston Wiggins Wilson Wogan Wozniak ~eiuca Kennedy Preston Wright, D. R. DeVerter Kenney Punt Wright, J. L. DeWeese Kosinski Raymond Wright, R. C. Daley Kukovich Reber Yandrisevits Davies Langtry Reinard Dawida Lashinger Richardson lrvis, Deal Laughlin Rieger Speaker NAYS-3 Clark Hutchinsan Petrarca NOT VOTING-4 Coheo Harper Howlett Roebuck EXCUSED-4 Book Evans Gallagher Snyder, D. W The majority required by the Constitution having voted in the affirmative, the question was determined in the affirmative and the bill passes finally. Ordered, That the clerk return the same to the Senate with the information that the House has passed the same with amendment in which the concurrence of the Senate is requested. * * * The House proceeded to third consideration of HB 1732, PN 2427, entitled: An Act imposing limitations on the use of eminent domain by municipalities to obtain certain real estate or facilities; providing for certain additional court proceedings; and making certain repeals. Will the House agree to the bill on third consideration? Mr. BALDWIN offered the following amendments No. A1390: Amend Sec. 2, page 2, line 11, by inserting after "municipality" where it appears the second time, first class county Amend Sec. 3, page 2, line 24, by inserting after "mnnicipality", every county Amend Sec. 4, page 2, line 27, by inserting after "municipal- itv" ~,, a county Amend Sec. 4, page 3, line 3, by inserting after "municipality",.yy..lj Amend Sec. 5, page 3, line 15, by inserting after "BY" such Amend Sec. 7, page 6, line 2, by striking out "successions" and inserting successors Amend Sec. 7, page 6, line 6, by striking out "laws" and insertine ordinances Amend Sec. 7, page 6, line 9, by striking out "or authority" Amend Sec. 7, page 6, line 10, by striking out "tax" and I insertine taxes I Amend Sec. 7. page 6. line 12. bv striking out "or authoritv" Amend Sec. 7, page 6, line 16; b; striking out "or authorit;" Amend Sec. 7, page 7, line 3. hv striking out "or authoritv" Amend Sec. 7, page 7, line 4, h; striking out "sold" Will the House agree to the amendments? The SPEAKER. On the amendment. the Chair recoenizes - the gentleman from Schuylkill, Mr. Baldwin. Mr. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment is merely technical to clean up some drafting errors. I urge its adoption. On the question recurring, Will the House agree to the amendments? The following roll call was recorded:

39

40 810 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE APRIL 16, An Act amending the act of December 10,1974 (P. L. 852, No. 287), referred to as the "Underground Utility Line Protection Law," further providing requirements for excavation or demolition work. Will the House agree to the bill on third consideration? Mr. SWEET offered the following amendments No. A1417: Amend Sec. 1 (Sec. I), page 2, line 15, by inserting a bracket before "or" where it appears the first time Amend Sec. 1 (Sec. I), page 2, line IS, by inserting after "purpose" I nor operations necessary or incidental to the purposes Amend Sec. I (Sec. I), page 2, line 16, by inserting after "resources" including all well site operations Amend Sec. 1 (Sec. I), page 2,line21, by inserting after "in'' carrying or Amend Sec. 1 (Sec. I), page 2, line 25, by inserting after owns or operates Amend Sec. 1 (Sec. I), page 3, line 23, by inserting a bracket before "to" whereit aooears the first time Amend Sec. 1 (~ec. 'I), page 3, line 23, by inserting a bracket after "consumers" Amend Sec. I (Sec. I), page 3, line 24, by striking out 'E tr\rn~~.(~ Amend Sec. 1 (Se - Amend Sec. 3 Will the House agree to the amendments? The SPEAKER. On the amendment, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Sweet. Mr. SWEET. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The amendment offered is purely technical in nature. It is designed to make more precise a number of the definitions in the bill and to make it very, very clear what the intent of the sponsors is. I would ask for an affirmative vote, Mr. Speaker. Allegheny, Mr. Cessar, on the amendment. Mr. CESSAR. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman, Mr. Sweet, and I ask for an affirmative vote on the amendment. The SPEAKER. On the amendment, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Warren, Mr. Bowley. Mr. BOWLEY. Mr. Speaker, may I interrogate the maker of the amendment? The SPEAKER. Mr. Sweet indicates he will stand for interrogation. You are in order, and you may proceed, sir. Mr. BOWLEY. Mr. Speaker, will you please explain to me what you mean by these oil and gas production and gathering 1 pipeline systems, as long as they are marked or staked so as to 1. ~dentify their location? Just exactly what do you mean by that? Mr. SWEET. Mr. Speaker, under the terms of the current law and also under the terms of this bill as reported out of committees, extraction of natural resources was an exempt category from this bill. This language is merely designed to make clear that the lines located out in rural areas that lead to and from those points would also be exempted. Mr. BOWLEY. So someone making gas and oil production will not have to mark these lines, under your amendment? Mr. SWEET. No. It says, "...provided such systems are marked or staked..." Mr. BOWLEY. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. SWEET. It will not have to comply with the other, much more rigorous requirements of the act; that is true, Mr. Speaker. Mr. BOWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have no opposition to this. 1 just wanted to make sure that the oil and gas industry would not have to go out and start marking these oil and gas lines out in the rural areas that are used only for production to get them to the main pipelines. On the question recurring, Will the House agree to the amendments? The following roll call was recorded: Afflerbach Angstadt Argall Arty Baldwin Barber Barley Battisto Belardi Belfanti Birmelin Black Blaum Bortner Bowley Bowser Boyes Brandt Broujo, Bunt Burd Burns Bush Caltagirane Cappabianca Carlson Can Dietz Dininni Distler Dombrowski Donatucci Dorr Duffy Durham Fargo Fattah Fee Fischer Flick Foster Fox Freeman Freind Fryer Gallen Gamble Cannon Geist George Gladeck Codshall Greenwood Gruitza YEAS-193 Lescovitz Letterman Levdansky Linton Livengood Lloyd Lucyk MeCall McClatchy McHale McVerry Mackowski Manderino Manmiller Markosek Mayernik Merry Michlovic Micozzie Miller Moehlmann Morris Mowery Mrkonic Murphy Nahill Noye Roebuck Rudy Ryan Rybak Saloom Saurman Scheetr Sehuler Semmel Serafini Seventy Showers Sirianni Smith, B. Smith, L. E. Snyder, G. Staback Stairs Steighner Stevens Stewart Stuban Sweet Swift Taylor, E. Z Taylor, F. Taylor, 1.

41 1986 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE 811 Cawley Cessar Chadwick Cimini Civera Clark Clymer Cohen Colafella Cole Cordisco Cornell Coslett Cowell COY Deluca DeVerter DeWeese Daley Davies Dawida Deal ONPPO Hagany Haluska Harper Hasay Hayes Herman Hershey Honaman Hutchinson ltkin Jackson Johnson Josephs Kasunic Kennedy Kenney Kosinski Kukovich Lawtry Lashinger Laughlin O'Brien O'Donnell Olasz Oliver Perrel Petrarca Petrone Phillips Piccola Pievsky Pistella Pitts Pot1 Pressman" Preston Punt Raymond Reber Reinard Richardson Rieger Rabbins NAYS-0 NOT VOTING-4 Telek Tigue Trella Truman Van Harne Vean Vroon Wambach Wass Weston Wiggins Wilson Wogan Wazniak right; J. L. Wright, R. C. Yandrisevits Irvis, Speaker Acosta Howlett Jarolin Maiale EXCUSED-4 Book Evans Gallagher Snyder, D. W The question was determined in the affirmative, and the amendments were agreed to. Will the House agree to the bill on third consideration as amended? Mr. MARKOSEK, for Mr. DAWIDA, offered the following amendments No. A1509: Amend Sec. 1 (Sec. 5). page 10, line 30, by inserting after "M' or locate Amend Sec. 1 (Sec. 5), page 11, line 1, by striking out "Q~I*Iv" "-.-. Amend Sec. 1 (Sec. 5), page 11, line 2, by inserting after "W' or locate Amend Sec. 1 (Sec. 5), page 11, lines 7 through 9, by striking out "the contractor or" in line 7, all of line 8 and "m' in line 9 Will the House agree to the amendments? The SPEAKER. On the amendment, the Chair recognizes thegentleman from Allegheny, Mr. Markosek. Mr. MARKOSEK. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am offering this amendment on behalf of my colleague, Representative Dawida, who was called away on an emergency and had to leave. Mr. Dawida asked me to offer this amendment for him, which I am doing. However, I am going to yield to the gentleman, Mr. Sweet, to discuss the substance of the amendment. Washington, Mr. Sweet, on the amendment. Mr. SWEET. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a bit awkward, since I want to start by expressing the fact that 1 am opposed to the amendment. What has happened, quite frankly, is there was a long discussion with a number of contractors groups who are interested in this legislation. What it has come down to is an argument between the lawyers of two different groups representing contractors in this State. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the language which is in the bill certainly serves to protect contractors when embarking on their projects. I think that the amendment offered by Mr. Markosek goes too far. I really do not want to try to entertain the members of the House with a long discussion about immunities, since many of you were educated far beyond your desire this morning on that same kind of issue. I would ask for a negative vote on the amendment. The SPEAKER. On the amendment, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Allegheny, Mr. Cessar. Mr. CESSAR. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I concur with Representative Sweet and would ask for a negative vote. Allegheny, Mr. Markosek, for the second time on his amendment. Mr. MARKOSEK. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to make one bit of clarification. It has my name on the amendment, and as I mentioned, I was putting this amendment in for Mr. Dawida. It really should be his amendment. 1 just kind of did him a favor, but I, too, am opposed to the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER. The Chair wants to congratulate Mr. Dawida on his choice of champion. On the question recurring, Will the House agree to the amendments? The following roll call was recorded: YEAS-6 Clark Hutchinson Lescovitz Lloyd Gamble Laughlin NAYS-184 Aftlerbach Angstadt Argall Arty Baldwin Barber Barley Battisto Belardi Belfanti Birmelin Black Blaum Bortner Bowley Bowser Boyes Brandt Broujos Bunt Burd Burns Bush Caltagirone Distler Dambrowski Donatucci Darr Duffy Durham Fargo Fattah Fee Fischer Flick Faster FOX Freeman Freind Fryer Gallen Cannon Geist George Gladeck Godshall Greenwood Gruitza Linton Livengood Lucyk MeCall McClatchy McHale McVerry Mackowski Manderino Manmiller Markosek Mayernik Merry Michlovic Micozzie Miller Moehlmann Morris Mowery Mrkonic Murphy Nahill Noye O'Brien Rudy Ryan Rybak Saloom Saurman Scheetz Schuler Semmel Serafini Seventy Showers Sirianni Smith, B. Smith, L. E. Snyder. G. Staback Stairs Steighner Stevens Stewart Stuban Sweet Swift Taylor, E. 2.

42 ~ LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE APRIL 16, Cappabianca Gruppo O'Donnell Taylor, F. Carn Hagarty Olasz Taylor, J. Cawley Haluska Oliver Telek Cessar Harper Perzel Tigue Chadwick Hasay Petrarca Trello Cimini Hayes Petrone Tmman Civera Herman Phillips Van Horne Clymer Hershey Piccola Veon Cohen Honaman Pievsky Vroon Colafella Itkin Pistella Wambach Cole Jackson Pitts Wass Cordisco Jarolin Pott Weston Cornell Johnson Pressmann Wiggins Coslett Josephs Preston Wogan Cowell Kasunic Punt Wazniak COY Kennedy Raymond Wright, D. R. Deluca Kenney Reber Wright, J. L. DeWeese Kasinski Reinard Wright, R. C. Daley Kukovich Richardson Yandrisevits Davies Langtr~ Rieger Deal Lashinger Robbins Inis, Dietz Letterman Roebuck Speaker Dininni Levdansky NOT VOTING-7 Acosta DeVerter Howlett Wilson Carlson Dawida Maiale EXCUSED-4 Book Evans Gallagher Snyder, D. W. The question was determined in the negative, and the amendments were not agreed to. On the question recurring, Will the House agree to the hill on third consideration as amended? Bill as amended was agreed to. The SPEAKER. This hill has been considered on three different days and agreed to and is now on final passage. The question is, shall the bill pass finally? Agreeable to the provisions of the Constitution, the yeas and nays will now he taken. YEAS-186 Afilerbach Deal Laughlin Roebuck Angstadt Dietz Lescovitz Rudy Argall Dininni Letterman Ryan Artv ~ Distler Levdanskv Rvbak ~aliwin Barber Barley Battisto Belardi Belfanti Birmelin Black Blaum Bortner Bowley Bowser Boyes Brandt Broujos Bunt Burd Bums Bush Caltacirone " Cappabianca Carlson Can Dombrowski Dorr Duffy Durham Fargo Fattah Fee Fischer Flick Foster Fox Freeman Freind Fryer Gallen Gamble Gannon Geist George Gladeck Godshall Greenwood Gruitza Linton Livengood Lloyd Lucyk McCall McClatchy McHale Mackowski Manderino Manmiller Markosek Mayernik Merry Michlovic Micarzie Miller Moehlmann Morris Mrkonic Murphy Nahill Noye O'Brien ~rjoom Saurman Scheetr Schuler Semmel Serafini Seventy Showers Sirianni Smith, B. Smith, L. E. Snyder, G. Staback Stairs Steighner Stevens Stuban sweet Swift Taylor, E. Z Taylor, F. Taylor, J. Telek Cawley Cessar Chadwick Cimini Civera Clark Clymer Cohen ColafeUa Cordisca Camell Coslett Cowell COY Deluca DeVerter DeWeese Daley Davies Dawida Cole Donatucci Gruppo Hagarty Haluska Harper Hasay Hayes Herman Hershey Honaman Hutchinson Itkin Jackson Jarolin Johnson Josephs Kasunie Kenney Kosinski Kukavich Lashinger O'Donnell Olasz Oliver Perzel Petrarca Petrone Piccola Pievsky Pistella Pitts Pott Pressman" Preston Punt Raymond Reber Reinard Richardson Rieger Robbins NAYS-6 Kennedy Mowery Langtry NOT VOTING-5 Tigue Trello Truman Van Horne Veon vrwn Wambach Wass Weston Wiggins Wilson Wogan Wozniak Wright, D. R. Wright, J. L. Wright, R. C. Yandrisevits Irvis, Speaker Phillips Acosta McVerry Maiale Stewart Howlett EXCUSED-4 Book Evans Gallagher Snyder, D. W The majority required by the Constitution having voted in the affirmative, the question was determined in tmrmative and the bill passes finally. Ordered, That the clerk present the same to the Senate for concurrence. SENATE MESSAGE HOUSE BILL CONCURRED IN BY SENATE The clerk of the Senate, being introduced, returned HB 1146, PN 1352, with information that the Senate has passed the same without amendment. SENATE MESSAGE AMENDED HOUSE BILLS RETURNED FOR CONCURRENCE The clerk of the Senate, being introduced, returned HB 772, PN 3299; and HB 1774, PN 3301, with information that the Senate has passed the same with amendment in which the concurrence of the House of Representatives is requested. BILLS SIGNED BY SPEAKER The Chair gave notice that he was about to sign the following hills, which were then signed: HB 1146, PN 1352 An Act amending the act of July 12, 1972 (P. L. 781, No. 185). known as the "Local Government Unit Debt Act," further providing for the incurring of debt for certain assessment revisions.

43 1986 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE 813 SB 1134, PN 1989 I MR. FRYER REQUESTED TO PRESIDE An An amending the act of March 23, 1972 (P. L. 136, No. 52), entitled "Psychologists License Act," reestablishing the State Board of Psychologist Examiners as the State Board of Psychology; providing for its composition, powers and duties; changing provisions relating to the issuance of licenses and the suspension and revocation of licenses; providing for fees; providing for penalties; and making repeals. No. 281 HOUSE RESOLUTION INTRODUCED AND REFERRED By Representatives FOX, BUNT, HAYES, ITKIN, McCLATCHY, NAHILL, CLARK, PUNT, OLASZ, DURHAM, GLADECK, VROON, E. Z. TAYLOR, WASS, KENNEDY, DeVERTER, WILSON, BURD, J. L. WRIGHT, HERMAN, J. TAYLOR, WOGAN, KENNEY, GALLEN, BRANDT, RAYMOND, FREIND, CIVERA, GRUPPO, SEMMEL, PICCOLA and DONATUCCI Congratulating President Reagan on his action against Libya. Referred to Committee on RULES, April 16, BILL REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE, CONSIDERED FIRST TIME, AND TABLED HB 1776, PN 3310 (Amended) By Rep. F. TAYLOR An Act amending the act of December 3, 1959 (P. L. 1688, No. 621), known as the "Housing Finance Agency Law," reestablishing and continuing the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency; further ~roviding for agency membership and terms; providing for removal from the agency for at further providing for mortgagors profits; continuing the Homeowner's Emergency Assistance program; and making a conform. ina amendment. BUSINESS AND COMMERCE, REMARKS ON VOTES Fayette, Mr. Taylor. Mr. F. TAYLOR. I rise. Mr. Speaker, to correct the record. I would like to show on HR 266 to be recorded as voting in the affirmative. Thank you. The SPEAKER. The gentleman's remarks will be spread upon the record. Why does the gentleman from Butler, Mr. Steighner, rise? Mr. STEIGHNER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, upon reviewing the record, I find I was also not recorded for HR 266. I would like to be recorded in the affirmative. The SPEAKER. The gentleman's remarks will he spread upon the record. I The SPEAKER. The Chair turns the gavel back to his friend, the gentleman from Berks, Mr. Fryer, and asks him to preside temporarily. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE (LESTER K. FRYER) IN THE CHAIR BILLS ON THIRD CONSIDERATION CONTINUED The House proceeded to third consideration of HB 1661, PN 2426, entitled: An Act amending the act of March 4, 1971 (P. L. 6, No. 2). known as the "Tax Reform Code of 1971," providing for an exclusion from the tax of sales by charitable, volunteer firemen's, ambulance, rescue and religious organizations, and nonprofit educational institutions in certain isolated transactions. Will the House agree to the bill on third consideration? Mr. SHOWERS offered the following amendment No. A1482: Amend Sec. 1 (Sec. 204), page 2, line 14, by inserting after ""P~T " c The sales or series of sales may be conducted any number of times within the fourteen days. A sale conducted on any portion of a day shall constitute a sale day. Will the House agree to the amendment? The SPEAKER pro tempore. On that question, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Union, Mr. Showers. Mr. SHOWERS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Amendment 1482 addresses the regulatory limit of three separate sales events per year. With this amendment the sales or series of sales may he conducted a number of times within the 14 scheduled days. A sale conducted on a portion of a day shall constitute a sale day. I ask your support. On the question recurring, Will the House agree to the amendment? The following roll call was recorded: YEAS-192 Deal Lawtry Reinard Afflerbach Dietz Lashinger Richardson Angstadt Dininni Laughlin Rieger Argall Distler Lescovitz Robbins Arty Dombrowski Letterman Roebuck Baldwin Donatueci Levdansky Rudy Barber Dorr Linton Ryan Barley Duffy Livengood Rybak Battisto Durham Llovd Saloom Belardi Farga ~ucik Saurman Belfanti Fattah McCall Scheetz Birmelin Fee McClatchy Schuler slack Fischer McHale Semmel Blaum Flick McVerry Serafini Bortner Foster Mackowski Seventy Bowley Fox Manderino Showers Bawser Freeman Manmiller Sirianni Boyes Freind Markosek Smith, B.