1640 - PA General Assembly

Transcription

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2,1994
SESSION OF 1994
No.6
178TH OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
SENATE
WEDNESDAY, February 2, 1994
The Senate met at 10 a.m., Eastern Standard Time.
The PRESIDENT (Lieutenant Governor Mark S. Singel) in
the Chair.
PRAYER
The Chaplain, Reverend ALLAN R VNONA, Pastor of
Grace Bible Fellowship Church, Harrisburg, offered the
following prayer:
Let us pray.
Almighty God, we thank You for bringing us to this place
to remind us again that You are our sovereign God, that, as in
the words of one of our forefathers, You do rule in the affairs
of men. I pray today that You would remind us afresh that
unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build
it. Father, we honor Your holiness, Your righteousness, Your
sovereignty.
I pray today that You grant wisdom, that You give us
steadfastness, that you give us a fresh glimpse of our Creator.
We ask it, Father, not only for this State and these people, but
for Your honor and glory. And we come by the authority of
Your Son and our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, Amen.
The PRESIDENT. The Chair thanks Reverend Vivona, the
guest today of Senator Shumaker.
JOURNAL APPROVED
The PRESIDENT. A quorum of the Senate being present,
the Clerk will read the Journal of the preceding Session of
February 1, 1994.
The Clerk proceeded to read the Journal of the preceding
Session, when, on motion of Senator LINCOLN, further
reading was dispensed with and the Journal was approved.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNOR
NOMINATIONS REFERRED TO COMMITTEE
The PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the following
communications in writing from His Excellency, the Governor
of the Commonwealth, which were read as follows, and
referred to the Committee on Rules and Executive
Nominations:
MEMBER OF mE BOARD OF TRUSlEES
OF ALLENTOWN STATE HOSPITAL
Febnwy 1, 1994
To the Honorable, the Senate of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania:
In conformity with law, I have the honor hereby to nominate for
the advice and consent of the Senate, Richard C. Jay, Esquire, 1536
Center Street, Bethlehem 18018, Northampton Co1mty, Eighteenth
Senatorial District, for reappoin1ment as a member of the Board of
Trustees of Allentown State Hospital, to serve until the third Tuesday
of January, 1995, and until his successor is appointed and qualified.
ROBERT P. CASEY
Governor
MEMBER OF mE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OF ALLENTOWN STATE HOSPITAL
February I, 1994
Pennsylvania:
the advice and consent of the Senate, James J. DuftY, Jr.,2906 Hay
Terrace, Easton 18042, Northampton County, Eighteenth Senatorial
District, for reappoin1ment as a member of the Board of TIUStees of
Allentown State Hospital, to serve until the third Tuesday of January
1999, and until his successor is appointed and qualified.
ROBERT P. CASEY
Governor
MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL OF TRUSlEES
OF WEST CHESTER UNIVERSITY OF
PENNSYLVANIA OF mE STATE SYSTEM
OF IDGHER EDUCATION
February 1, 1994
Pennsylvania:
the advice and consent of the Senate, W. Richard Whitlock, 2737
Coventryville Road, Pottstown 19465, Montgomery County, Fortyfourth Senatorial District, for appointment as a member of the Council
of Trustees of West Chester University of Pennsylvania of the State
System of Higher Education, to serve mtil the third Tuesday of
January 1997, and mtil his successor is appointed and qualified, vice
Johanna K. Havlick, West Chester, whose term expired.
ROBERT P. CASEY
Governor
1636
LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL - SENATE
HOUSE MESSAGES
HOUSE CONCURS IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
BY AMENDING SAID AMENDMENTS
TO HOUSE BILL
The Clerk of the House of Representatives infonned the
Senate that the House has concurred in amendments made by
the Senate by amending said amendments to HB 185.
The PRESIDENT. Pursuant to Senate Rule XN, section 5,
this bill will be referred to the Committee on Rules and
Executive Nominations.
HOUSE BILLS FOR CONCURRENCE
The Clerk of the House of Representatives presented to the
Senate the following bills for concurrence, which were referred
to the committees indicated:
February I. 1994
HB 1957 - Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs.
HB 2337 - Committee on Urban Affairs and Housing.
HB 2396 - Committee on Appropriations.
BILLS INTRODUCED AND REFERRED
The PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the following
Senate Bills numbered, entitled, and referred as follows, which
were read by the Clerk:
February 1, 1994
Senators WILLIAMS, LINCOLN, LAVALLE and JONES
presented to the Chair SB 1519, entitled:
An Act establishing the Department of Family and Community
Economic Security; providing for various divisions within the department; providing for powers and duties of the department; providing
for assistance for certain businesses and economically distressed communities; establishing an advisory board; and providing for eligibility
for receipt of services from the department.
FEBRUARY 2,
lated to child care; creating a board of review to monitor the fimctioning of the Department ofChildren; imposing a penalty for noncompliance with licensing and registration requirements; and making a
repeal.
Which was committed to the Committee on STATE GOVERNMENT, Februat)' I, 1994.
Senator DAWIDA presented to the Chair SB 1522, entitled:
An Act regulating organ procurement organizations, tissue banks
and eye banks; providing for licensure procedures and for an Organ and Tissue Procurement and Transplantation Advisory Board
to review the status of organ, tissue and eye procurement; and
prescribing duties of the Department of Health.
Which was committed to the Committee on CONSUMER
PROTECTION AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSURE, Februat)' 1, 1994.
Senator FUMO presented to the Chair SB 1523, entitled:
An Act authorizing the Department of General Services, with the
approval of the Department of Environmental Resources, to lease to
the City of Philadelphia certain lands subject to certain conditions
within the bed of the Delaware River in the First Ward of the City of
Philadelphia
Senators RHOADES, REffiMAN, SALVATORE, HART,
SCHWARTZ,
PORTERFIELD,
SHUMAKER and
AFFLERBACH presented to the Chair SB 1524, entitled:
An Act amending Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) of
the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing for the
immunity of district justices authorized to place persons in accelerated
rehabilitation programs.
Which was committed to the Committee on JUDICIARY,
February I, 1994.
Senators
MUSTO, WILLIAMS,
MELWW
and
AFFLERBACH presented to the Chair SB 1525, entitled:
An Act amending the act of December 29, 1912 (P. L. 1101, No.
364), entitled "Health Maintenance Organization Act," further providing for contracts between health maintenance organizations and
providers.
Senators WILLIAMS, LINCOLN, LAVALLE and JONES
presented to the Chair SB 1520, entitled:
Which was committed to the Committee on PUBLIC
HEALTIf AND WELFARE, Februaty 1, 1994.
An Act amending the act of April 9, 1929 (P. L. 111, No. 115),
entitled "The Administrative Code of 1929," creating the Office of
Neighbors Allied for Mutual Economic Success as an independent
office; prescribing the powers and duties of the office; and requiring
Commonwealth departments and agencies and other entities to
provide employment to certain persons.
Which was committed to the Committee on STATE GOVERNMENT' Februat)' I, 1994.
Senator DAWIDA presented to the Chair SB 1521, entitled:
An Act establishing a cabinet-level State agency whose jurisdiction, powers and duties specifically concern the well-being of
Pennsylvania's children; providing for funding, licensing and
registration of child day-care facilities; establishing a caregiver
training program; establishing a child-care resource and referral
program; providing for the coordination of all State services re-
RESOLUTION INTRODUCED AND REFERRED
The PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the following Senate Resolution numbered, entitled, and referred as follows,
which was read by the Clerk:
February 1, 1993
DECLARING FEBRUARY 7 THROUGH 11, 1994,
AS SCHOOL COUNSELING WEEK
Senators HOLL, RHOADES, CORMAN and GREENLEAF
offered the following resolution (Senate Resolution No. 92),
which was read and referred to the Committee on Education:
1994
In the Senate, February 1, 1994
A RESOLUTION
Declaring February 7 through 11, 1994, as School Counseling Week.
WHEREAS, School counselors are employed in public and
private schools to help students open windows of opportunity; and
WHEREAS, School counselors are actively engaged in helping
students see their abilities, strengths, interests and talents as these
traits relate to career awareness and development; and
WHEREAS, School counselors, as caregivers, help parents fmd
opportunities in the challenging journey through student development
and help focus on positive ways to enhance the social, personal,
educational and career growth of their children; and
WHEREAS, School counselors collaborate with teachers and
other educators to provide opportunities for students to see their true
potential and set realistic aspirations for themselves; and
WHEREAS, School counselors are catalysts in the utilization of
community counseling programs; and
WHEREAS, School counselors communicate their contribution
by telling the world we make a difference; and
WHEREAS, Those served by school counselors become advocates for school counselors and counseling programs; therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Senate hereby declare the week of
February 7 through 11, 1994, as School Counseling Week.
BILLS SIGNED
The PRESIDENT (Lieutenant Governor Mark S. Singel) in
the presence of the Senate signed the following bills:
DB 878, 1827 and 2235.
LEGISLATIVE LEAVES
The PRESIDENT. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Fayette, Senator Lincoln, for the pwpose of leave requests.
Senator LINCOLN. Mr. President, I request temporary Capitol leaves for Senator Fattah, Senator Porterfield, and Senator
Williams, and a legislative leave for the day for Senator Scanlon.
The PRESIDENT. Senator Lincoln has requested temporary
Capitol leaves for Senator Fattah, Senator Porterfield, and
Senator Williams, and a legislative leave for Senator Scanlon.
The Chair hears no objection. Those leaves will be granted.
CALENDAR
SO 1248 CALLED UP OUT OF ORDER
SO 1248 (Pr. No. 1879) - Without objection, the bill was
called up out of order, from page 4 of the Third Consideration
Calendar, by Senator LINCOLN, as a Special Order of Business.
BILL ON THIRD CONSIDERAnON
AND FINAL PASSAGE
SO 1248 (Pr. No. 1879) -- The Senate proceeded to consideration of the bill, entitled:
An Act amending the act of July 9, 1959 (P. L. 510, No. 137),
entitled, as amended, "Pennsylvania Public Lands Act," further
providing for the Board of Appraisers, for abandonment of applications and for patents for unappropriated lands; and making editorial
1637
changes.
Considered the third time and agreed to,
And the amendments made thereto having been printed as
required by the Constitution,
On the question,
Shall the bill pass finally?
The yeas and nays were taken agreeably to the provisions
of the Constitution and were as follows, viz:
YEAS-50
Aftlerbach
Andrezeski
Annstrong
Baker
Belan
Bell
Bodack
Bortner
Brightbill
Connan
Dawida
Fattah
Fisher
Puma
Greenleaf
Hart
Heckler
Helfrick
Holl
Iones
Iubelirer
laValle
Lemmond
Lewis
Lincoln
Madigan
Mellow
Mowexy
Musto
O'Pake
Pecora
Peterson
Porterfield
Punt
Reibman
Rhoades
Robbins
Salvatore
Samlon
Schwartz
Shaffer
Shumalcer
Stapldon
Stewart
Stinson
Stout
TIlghman
Wenger
Williams
Loeper
NAYS-o
A constitutional majority of all the Senators having voted
"aye," the question was determined in the affinnative.
Ordered, That the Secretaty of the Senate present said bill
to the House of Representatives for concurrence.
LEGISLATIVE LEAVES CANCELED
The PRESIDENT. The Chair wishes to announce the presence on the floor of Senator Porterfield. His temporary Capitol
leave will be canceled.
Senator Williams is also with us. His temporary Capitol
leave will be canceled.
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
CEREMONY IN COMMEMORATION
OF GROUNDHOG DAY
Senator LINCOLN. Mr. President, as a Special Order of
Business, I would ask that we dispose of the groundhog. That
is the first good groundhog I have ever seen. And I do not
know in what order, but I think the gentleman from Lehigh,
Senator Afflerbach, is going to speak to us in some kind of
Dutch, or something, first. But if you would recognize Senator
Afflerbach.
The PRESIDENT. Would the Members of the Senate please
assume their appropriate positions for the annual discussion of
Groundhog Day.
The Chair thanks all the Members of the Senate for their
rapt attention, and the Chair would recognize, at this time, the
gentleman from Lehigh, Senator Afflerbach.
Senator AFFLERBACH. Mr. President, actually, I rise to
introduce a very special guest who is with us today, a funy
prognosticator, who on this date every year comes forth and
1638
advises us whether there are stonn clouds ahead or whether we
are going to have smooth sailing. Now, I can assure you that
I would like to say that this is grundsou numer eins an de
Lecha, which for those of you who are not familiar with the
dialect roughly translates to mean the number one groundhog
in the Lehigh River Valley, but the troth of the matter is that
that fellow, shall we say, e~oys a better state of health than
our visitor today. The troth is that our visitor is from Perry
County. I do not know whether or not they have replaced him
as yet so that they will know what the forecast is going to be
in Perry County, but this is a national holiday for all of us of
Pennsylvania Gennan descent, and for many who are not of
that descent, we nevertheless look forward. You will note that
this groundhog is not seeing his shadow, and that, of course,
means that we are going to have smooth sailing into spring.
But for the trothful prognostication, I would like you to now
recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Senator Stapleton, who
will tell us what Punxsutawney Phil really did this morning.
The PRESIDENT. And the Chair recognizes the distinguished Senator from Indiana County, Senator Stapleton.
Senator STAPLETON. Mr. President, first of all, not having
ever seen a stuffed groundhog before--where I come from we
have the real Punxsutawney Phil-I find it very difficult to
believe the words of a stuffed groundhog that does not even
have a name, and certainly this one looks to be a little undernourished, as far as I can see.
Mr. President, I know that the gentleman from Lancaster,
Senator Wenger, and possibly the gentleman from Lancaster,
. Senator Armstrong, will have a few remarks also today, but it
does not seem possible that another year has gone by. Here it
is Febnuuy 2, and certainly, as the gentleman from Lehigh.
Senator Afflerbach, indicated, it is a national holiday in my
district. and in Punxsutawney in particular. To so many of us
who are so very close to the groundhog-and I have the good
fortune to live in groundhog territory-their leader, the real
prognosticator of all prognosticators, Punxsutawney Phil,
whom I represent and get the opportunity to talk to and to
meet during the year.
But this day is the day for weathennen and weatherwomen
from around the Nation, when they tum their eyes and their
ears towards Punxsutawney, where that funy forecaster,
Punxsutawney Phil, has predicted, awoke this morning from
his winter nap at 7:28 and 32 seconds a.m., and for the 107th
year in a row reported to a record crowd of a little over 5,200
people, shivering people I should say, telling all of us to expect 6 more weeks of cold, cold weather. And, yes, the news
brought some cheers and it brought some boos from the crowd
that included many, many children, families, and groups of
college students from all over the country. And as Phil was
held high by Bob Dunkel, the interpreter and the president of
the club, he scanned the cheering crowd before taking a quick
glance at his all-important shadow, and by the way, the
shadow this year was not as strong or as dark as in previous
years, but still pronounced enough to call for 6 more cold
weeks. Mr. President, remember that all this took place this
morning at Gobbler's Knob, with a temperature of 12 degrees,
FEBRUARY 2,
where Phil's interpreter and president of the Punxsutawney
Groundhog Club read the proclamation, as Phil returned to his
underground condo waiting for Februazy 2 of 1995.
Now, as I indicated, I am sure that Senator Wenger and
Senator Armstrong will have a few words for all of us. I normally pay very close attention to Senator Wenger's remarks,
particularly the first part of his remarks, and then I lose him
when he gets to that Pennsylvania German dialect. But again,
all of us certainly have the highest respect for both of the other
Senators, and for the gentleman from Lehigh. Senator Afflerbach, and certainly for the Quarryville Groundhog Lodge
and Ophie. Is that the way you pronounce it, Ophie? Orphie.
All right, Orphie. You know, I do find it difficult, Mr. President, and we are doing some research on that Orphie. It just
does not seem to be a groundhog name, and we are checking
out its roots. But we are just pleased to be able to celebrate
this national holiday for the worldwide weather predictions
given us each Februazy 2 from Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania.
Thank you.
Lancaster, Senator Armstrong.
Senator ARMSTRONG. Mr. President, I would also like to
report at 7:06 a.m. this morning. the Honorable James
Pennington, the president ofthe Slumbering Groundhog Lodge
in southern Lancaster County, climbed atop the pinnacle of
prognostication which to the untrained eye looks very much
like a New Holland manure spreader, but he predicted there
will be at least 6 more weeks. The shadow was so strong that
it may be 6 more months of cold weather.
There was one brief incident I must report to you, that in
the crowd there was standing a large gentleman of about 300
pounds wearing a trench coat. Someone heard him speak and
he had this strange accent, kind of like the way the people
around Punxsutawney speak, and they started talking to him,
and when they were talking to him a crowbar fell out of his
trench coat. and. upon further questioning. they said that he
was going to try to hit Octoraro Orphie in the knee and maim
him and take away his gold medal for weather forecasting. I
am glad to report to you that that did not happen and Octoraro
Orphie is in good condition, and he did forecast that there will
be at least 6 more weeks of winter.
Thank you.
Lancaster, Senator Wenger.
Senator WENGER Mr. President, I know that there is always the rivalry between Punxsutawney Phil and Quanyville
Orphie, and perhaps some of our other original weather prophets here in Pennsylvania, but I do concur with the gentleman
from Indiana that, yes, we do have respect for all the
groundhogs that provide this service to us each year and give
us the opportunity to make our plans as to what we might be
doing for the next 6 weeks.
Now, as sometimes in the past. Punxsutawney Phil and
Quarryville Orphie do not always concur that there will be 6
more weeks of winter. Quarryville has been accurate in the
prediction for many, many years, and you will notice that Or-
1994
phie usually goes first and makes the prediction and then Phil
kind of comes along, and I guess in this case concurred with
the observation made by Orphie. But anyhow, we are assured
of those 6 more weeks of winter weather.
And now, by request, I will make a few comments in the
Pennsylvania German dialect regarding Groundhog Day and its
significance to us here in Pennsylvania.
Brieder un schweschdere vun der Pennsilfannisch Senaad,
mir worra gwannt dennoch griege mir noch sex meh woche
winder wedder.
Des iss net die vannenaus/saage vun bios mann, awwer
liewer es iss die befehl vun Quanyville, Orphie. Die menscht
gscheit un menscht rechtschaffe wedder brofeet vun allezeit.
Die Pennsilfaanisch Deitsch Bauere wisse es iss kee
gebrauch fer die Orphie fechde, so lockem un gen mit die
Fliesse.
Du die lang unnergleeder aw, griege engute versary vun
hols fer die feierblatz un nIh, fer gewiss Friehyaahr
wedderkoomt zeitlich.
Thank you, Mr. President.
(Applause.)
The PRESIDENT. And the Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Westmoreland, Senator Porterfield.
Senator PORTERFIELD. Mr. President, although I am not
from the Harrisburg area, this sounds like a lot of gloom for
our State, and I do have some good news. In the Harrisburg
area we have a resident named Ralph, and this particular resident is a resident of the Lowshell Hotel. Many of you may not
know where that is, but that is where Ralph resides. And for
those people in the Harrisburg area, I have good news. Ralph
was denied the ability to cast a shadow this morning due to a
snow plow going by and covering up the exit from his home,
so there is good news for the Harrisburg area.
Senator AFFLERBACH. Mr. President, let the record reflect
that we are not certain whether Ralph is a groundhog or what
he may be. Just to sum this up, let me also mention that the
rumor has it that this is the particular grundsou that happened
to bite Bill Murray when he was filming "Groundhog Day" in
Punxsutawney, and that is what has necessitated some unnamed Senator from Cambria County to place a bull's-eye on
him, but he need not wony because he is not going to bite
anyone else.
And finally, let the record reflect that the Senate extends its
gratitude to both Michael Aumiller, a former Senate Page and
now Deputy Secretary of Labor and Industry, for locating
today's mascot for us, and especially to David Whitcomb of
New Bloomfield, Peny County, who has, in fact, mounted this
particular groundhog in preparation for his licensure as a taxidermist.
The PRESIDENT. The Chair thanks all of the participants
in the Groundhog Day discussion and recognizes the gentleman
from Fayette, Senator Lincoln.
Senator LINCOLN. Mr. President, I think Mike Aumiller
could be thanked, but if Senator Afflerbach comes to Fayette
County, we will give you all of those little creatures you want.
The road takes care of a lot of the problem for some of them.
1639
RECESS
Senator LINCOLN. Mr. President, I would now ask for a
very brief recess of the Senate for purposes of Republican and
Democratic caucuses. The Democratic caucus will be held in
the Rules room at the rear of the Chamber, and I would hope
it does not last more than 10 or 15 minutes.
The PRESIDENT. And the Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Blair, Senator Jubelirer.
Senator JUBELIRER Mr. President, I would echo Senator
Lincoln's request and ask that the Members of the Republican
Caucus report to the second floor caucus room immediately on
recess, and I do not believe it would take more than the same
amount of time, 10 to 15 minutes, hopefully.
The PRESIDENT. For purposes of brief caucuses to ensue
immediately upon the recess - the Democrats will meet in the
Rules room at the rear of the Senate Chamber, the Republicans
will meet in the Republican caucus room in the rear of the
Senate Chamber - the Senate will stand in recess.
AFTER RECESS
The PRESIDENT pro tempore (Robert J. Mellow) in the
Chair.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of recess having
expired, the Senate will come to order.
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIR
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. For a point of clarification,
I was asked to put into the record that Ralph is a groundhog
and not a river rat. Did I say that properly? Not a river hog.
CONSIDERATION OF CALENDAR RESUMED
BILL ON CONCURRENCE IN
BOUSE AMENDMENTS
BILL OVER IN ORDER
SB 683 - Without objection, the bill was passed over in its
order at the request of Senator LINCOLN.
LEGISLATWE LEAVES
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the
gentleman from Fayette, Senator Lincoln.
Senator LINCOLN. Mr. President, I would ask for temp0rary Capitol leaves for Senator Delan, Senator Dawida, Senator
Furno, and Senator Lewis.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Senator Lincoln asks for
legislative leaves for Senator Delan, Senator Dawida, Senator
Furno, and Senator Lewis. Without objection, those leaves will
be granted.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Delaware, Senator
Loeper.
Senator WEPER Mr. President, I request temporary Capitolleaves on behalf of Senator Madigan, Senator Peterson, and
Senator Robbins, who have been called to their offices.
1640
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Senator Loeper requests
temponuy Capitol leaves for Senator Madigan, Senator Peterson, and Senator Robbins. Without objection, those leaves will
be grnnted.
The PRESIDENT (Lieutenant Governor Mark S. Singel)
in the Chair.
BILLS ON CONCURRENCE IN
HOUSE AMENDMENTS
BILL OVER IN ORDER
SENATE CONCURS IN HOUSE AMENDMENTS
SB 701 (Pr. No. 1844) - The Senate proceeded to consideration of the bill, entitled:
An Act amending the act of May 17, 1921 (P. L. 789, No. 285),
entitled, as amended, ''The Insurance Department Act of one thousand
nine hundred and twenty-one," further providing for application of the
act and for group policies, for computation of reserve liability and
certain other reserves, for certain managers and agents and for the
suspension of business.
Senator LINCOLN. Mr. President, I move that the Senate
do concur in the amendments made by the House to Senate
Bill No. 701.
On the question,
Will the Senate agree to the motion?
YEAS-50
Aftlerbach
Andrw.eski
Armstrong
Baker
Belan
Bell
Bodack
Bortner
Brightbill
Connan
Dawida
Fattah
Fisher
Furno
Greenleaf
Hart
Heckler
Helfrick
Hall
Jones
Jubelirer
laValle
Lemmond
Lewis
Lincoln
Loeper
Madigan
Mellow
Mowery
Musto
O'Pake
Pecora
Peterson
Porterfield
Punt
Reibman
Rhoades
Robbins
Salvatore
Scanlon
Schwartz
Shaffer
Shumaker
Stapleton
Stewart
Stinson
Stout
Tilghman
Wenger
Williams
NAYS-O
Ordered, That the Secretary of the Senate infonn the House
of Representatives accordingly.
FEBRUARY 2,
SENATE CONCURS IN HOUSE AMENDMENTS
SB 705 (pr. No. 1757) - The Senate proceeded to consideration of the bill,. entitled:
An Act amending the act of May 17, 1921 (P. L. 682, No. 284),
entitled "The Insurance Company Law of1921," further providing for
group policies, for purposes for which companies may be incorporated, for capital stock and for certain reports; providing for admitted assets and for the disposition of unassigned fimds; and further
providing for additional investment authority, for title insurance companies, for broker controlled property and casualty insurers, for insurance holding companies and for risk retention and surplus lines.
do concur in the amendments made by the House to Senate
Bill No. 705.
On the question,
Will the Senate agree to the motion?
YEAS-50
Aftlerbach
Andrezeski
Annstrong
Baker
Belan
Bell
Bodack
Bortner
Brightbill
Connan
Dawida
Fauah
Fisher
Furno
Greenleaf
Hart
Heckler
Helfrick
Hall
Jones
Jubelirer
laValle
Lemmond
Lewis
Lincoln
Weper
Madigan
Mellow
Mowery
Musto
O'Pake
Pecora
Peterson
Porterfield
Punt
Reibman
Rhoades
Robbins
Salvatore
Scanlon
Schwartz
Shaffer
Shumaker
Stapleton
Stewart
Stinson
Stout
Tilghman
Wenger
Williams
NAYS-O
Ordered, That the Secretary of the Senate infonn the House
of Representatives accordingly.
BILL OVER IN ORDER
THIRD CONSIDERATION CALENDAR
BILLS OVER IN ORDER
DB 103, DB 116, DB 337, DB 464, SB 794, SB 889 and
SB 910 - Without objection, the bills were passed over in
their order at the request of Senator LINCOLN.
BILL ON lHIRD CONSIDERATION
DEFEATED ON FINAL PASSAGE
SB 1327 (pr. No. 1798) -- The Senate proceeded to consideration of the bill, entitled:
1994
An Act amending the act of August 9, 1955 (P. L. 323, No. 130),
"The County Code," providing for the abolition of jury comnussloners.
eD:ti~ed
Considered the third time and agreed to,
And the amendments made thereto having been printed as
required by the Constitution,
On the question,
Yode, Senator Bortner.
Senator BORlNER Mr. President, .I would just ask for the
support of all Members on this legislation. This is legislation
that I have introduced in prior years. It is also legislation that
has been introduced in the House as well, with bipartisan support from a number of legislators, including the entire York
County legislative delegation.
What the legislation does is it amends the County Code by
adding a subsection which would permit, not require, but merely allow third- through eighth-class counties the option of abolishing the office of jwy commissioner. The reason is quite
simple, and that is that there are really no responsibilities that
remain, in many counties at least, for the jwy commissioners.
Certainly in my county, York County, this is all done through
the court administrator's office. It is done by a computer run,
it has oversight 'from the president judge, and the jwy commissioners have virtually no responsibility other than to pick up
their paychecks. We talk a lot here and we campaign about
making government more efficient and about reforming government. This may not be the biggest issue that comes before
the Senate when it comes to legislative or government refonn,
but I think it is one way we can indicate that we want government and we expect government to run efficiently, and eliminating an office that has no responsibilities I think is one way
that we show that we not only talk the talk but that we walk
the walk when we have an opportunity to do that.
I would like to point out that this would only occur if it is
put on a referendum on a ballot and the voters approve it by
referendum. And the way the issue is raised initially is either
by a resolution from the county commissioners or by a petition
signed by a number of voters that equals at least 5 percent of
the highest vote cast for any office in the county in the last
preceding General Election, and this tracks essentially the way
that we allow these kinds of issues to get on referendums when
we are involved with either adding or eliminating these kinds
of offices.
So I would ask the Members on both sides of the aisle to
support this legislation. It will save some money. It does not
impact in any negative way on the counties. I have worked
with the State Association of County Commissioners. They
support this legislation. They believe it makes sense, and I
think everybody here in the Senate should as well.
Thank you.
Schuylkill, Senator Rhoades.
Senator RHOADES. Mr. President, would the prime spon-
1641
sor, the gentleman from York, Senator Bortner, submit to brief
interrogation?
The PRESIDENT. He indicates that he will. The gentleman
may proceed.
Senator RHOADES. Mr. President, I am seeing this as
third-, fourth-, fifth-, sixth-, seventh- and eighth-class counties.
Why were not the first-, second-, and the second-class A c0unties included in this bill?
Senator BORlNER Mr. President, my understanding is that
the operations in Philadelphia and in Pittsburgh may be somewhat different than what I am familiar with in my counties and
the other counties that I have talked to throughout the middle
parts of Pennsylvania. I guess I also would say that instead of
amending, we would have to have legislation to amend all
those county codes. My primary concern is with my county
and the other counties in central Pennsylvania. I, frankly, do
not have a problem with considering that for other parts of the
State if legislators from those areas would also like to see the
change made. But again, my understanding is that the operations in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, because of their size, may
be somewhat different and may be somewhat more involved
than what I know is the case in my own county.
Senator RHOADES. Mr. President, 2-A counties - Delaware, Montgomery, and Bucks Counties; I hope I get them
straight - I guess my question there is they are more similar to
the third and the fourth in their operation, they are the same.
Why would we eliminate them? I have that concern.
Senator BORlNER Mr. President, I would be happy to
consider an amendment if the gentleman would like to offer it,
or offering it myself, to include those other counties, particularly if the Members who represent those areas would like to
see that extended to their counties as well. I have no problem
with doing that.
Senator RHOADES. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President.
Just a comment. I am of the opinion that if it is good for
~e goose, it is good for the gander. So if it is good for me, it
1S good for you, and I think before we do anything, they
should be included in that.
Thank you.
Delaware, Senator Bell.
Senator BELL. Mr. President, the gentleman from York,
when he quotes the county commissioners, he apparently is
~aking for all the counties of Pennsylvania. And you know,
1t 1S amazing. I represent part of Delaware County and part of
Chester County, and the county council of Delaware County
and the county commissioners of Chester County have not told
me they are in favor of this.
Bucks, Senator Heckler.
Senator HECKLER Mr. President, I wonder if the sponsor,
the gentleman from Yorle, Senator Bortner, would stand for
additional interrogation.
The PRESIDENT. He indicates that he will. The gentleman
may proceed.
Senator HECKLER Mr. President, I am just wondering,
1642
and I think I am actually conducting proper interrogation because I do not know the answer to the question, to what extent
do we lock in, in the county codes, the compensation that jury
commissioners are to receive?
Senator BORlNER Mr. President, I believe it is statutory.
I believe that for each class county there is a set salary. I think
in my county it is in the area of about $8,000 or $10,000. I,
frankly, do not have that infonnation at my fingertips. And it
also, of course, involves all the benefits, retirement, and medical that go with being a county row officer. So I believe that
those salaries are set by statute. Even if they are not, because
I know we passed some legislation which frees up the counties
to change those salaries, I think they still cannot be reduced,
and they have to, I believe, be increased by the same percentage that other row offices are increased.
I do not have as precise an answer to the gentleman's question as I would like to be able to give him, and I am certainly
willing to do some research on that if it is significant.
Senator HECKLER If I may, just a brief comment, Mr.
President.
The PRESIDENT. The gentleman is in order.
Senator HECKLER Mr. President, I had been under the
impression, I think it is correct, that our county commissioners
could not reduce an elected official's compensation during his
tenn of office, but at least at the end of a tenn before a new
jury commissioner would come into office, it had been my
impression that at least, number one, I would not be swprised
that there is some statutory minimum, but my impression is
that it was not very substantial, and I had not thought that
benefits such as health insurance or retirement participation
were ~andatory. And so it had been my impression that - in
fact, I have some recollection of this because a few years ago
I believe I cosponsored similar legislation in the House, and
my recollection was, it was pointed out to me at the time, that
the compensation could be pruned back fairly substantially, at
least over what it was in my county at the time, if the county
commissioners, or the salary board., more correctly, wanted to
do that and viewed that the duties had been reduced over time.
So I would be interested at least in seeing just exactly what the
scope of the authority of county government is right now to
reduce the compensation where the duties have lessened over
time.
York, Senator Bortner.
Senator BORmER Mr. President, in further response to
the gentleman from Bucks, Senator Heckler, and actually the
previous question, I would like to again point out that this
merely gives counties an option to take this action. I am not
trying to force this on any county that does not feel that it is
appropriate or feels that this office is essential to the efficient
operation of their county government. What I am try to do is
to give my county and other counties that I have received support from the option to look at their own jury commissioners'
office, the way that they call jurors in to serve their Courts of
Common Pleas, and to make that determination at a local level.
As I said, that seems to have a lot of support, not only through
FEBRUARY 2,
the counties but generally when we talk about taking action
here, giving local governments more opportunities to decide
what is good for them.
This issue came up before the Committee on Local Government and I think passed with unanimous support. There was
some question raised then about abolishing the office in the
same year that it might be up for election, and we addressed
that point through an amendment that the gentleman from
Cambria, Senator Stewart, helped to create. I am, frankly, a
little bit swprised that this issue is generating so much controversy when it has not before, either at the committee level
or through any of the discussions I have had with Members. It
is a little bit swprising to me.
LEGISLATIVE LEAVE
Delaware, Senator Loeper.
Senator LOEPER Mr. President, Senator Salvatore has been
called to his office, and I would request a temporary Capitol
leave on his behalf.
The PRESIDENT. Senator Loeper requests a temporary
Capitol leave for Senator Salvatore. The Chair hears no objection. The leave will be granted.
And the question recurring,
Fayette, Senator Lincoln.
Senator LINCOLN. Mr. President, I, along with the gentleman from York, Senator Bortner, am a little surprised at the
interest generated in this bill, particularly from the debate that
I have heard so far from Senators who will not be affected
whether this bill passes or not.
The gentleman from Delaware, Senator Bell, has not heard
from his constituents because they will not be impacted by the
bill if it is passed. The gentleman from Bucks, Senator Heckler, conducted interrogation, and my understanding is that Senator Heckler's county of Bucks would not be impacted by this
particular issue. I also understand that the county commissioners would have the option of completely ignoring this or they
can pass a resolution to bring about a resolution to their problem of not wanting this office by having it appear on a referendum. The gentleman from York, Senator Bortner, has very
carefully crafted this so that the referendum cannot be on the
ballot the same year that the office is up for election.
It is hard for me to understand what the opposition is to this
particular bill simply because I think that maybe it is political
and you have somebody who is a jury commissioner, as I do,
who is a personal friend, but that does not make the office
necessary, and it also does not take that particularly good
friend of mine out of that office, as he was just elected, I
think, last year in my county.
So, you know, the courts already do most of the work. It is
directed by the courts, and this would become a total function
of the courts, which the jury should be. I do not understand
why anybody would be opposed to allowing what appears to
1994
be a very good opportunity for county governments to cut
some of their costs. I do not hear any serious objections for
reasons that it will not work, and, as I said, the representatives
who are speaking on this issue are from counties that would
not be impacted. So it even confuses me somewhat more as to
why there would be any controversy around this, and I would
urge that we vote for it.
The PRESIDENf. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Delaware, Senator Bell.
Senator BELL. Mr. President, the Majority Leader, if he
had listened, would have heard me say I represent parts of
Chester County and parts of Delaware ~ounty. Chester County
is a third-class county.
Senator BORTNER Mr. President, by way of even further
response to the question of the gentleman from Bucks, Senator
Heckler, I have gotten some information, by way of the Local
Government Commission, I believe, on which I serve.
In 1979, by statute, the legislature set minimum salaries for
all row officers. By way of later legislation, the legislature
authorized county commissioners to set salaries at whatever
level they choose for those row officers. However, a further
stipulation was that if they raised the salary for one row officer, they have to raise it for all of the row officers by the
same percentage. There was some concern, as I recall, about
county commissioners either by way of wanting to reward or
punish a particular row officer by being able to raise their
salary dramatically. And while we have removed ourselves
from setting those salaries, by further provision, if ~ey raise
the salary, for example, for prothonotary or clerk of courts by
a certain percentage, they have to raise it for coroner, and, yes,
even jury commissioners, by the same percentage.
I hope that might further answer the gentleman from Bucks,
Senator Heckler's questions.
Lehigh, Senator Afflerbach.
Senator AFFLERBACH. Mr. President, let me simply also
note for the record that there is a method by which certain
counties in Pennsylvania today can, in fact, eliminate the jury
commissioner as an elected office. if they so desire. That method is under Act 62 of 1972, known as the Home Rule Act.
However, other counties have approached us and have said
they really do not want to have to go through the expense of
a Home Rule Study Commission, a Home Rule Charter Commission, a Home Rule Administrative Change Commission,
whichever one of the three steps they might choose, simply to
eliminate the post of a jury commissioner and make it an appointed post, as it is in the first-class county of Philadelphia.
Therefore, they have asked for this very specific legislation
that would allow them, if they so desire, to move independently of a Home Rule Charter Study Commission and simply
address the issue of jury commissioners. That is really the
purpose of this bill.
1643
And the question recurring,
YEAS-22
Aftlerbach
Andrezeski
Belan
Bodack
Bortner
Dawida
Fattah
Furno
Jones
laValle
Lewis
Lincoln
Mellow
O'Pake
Pecora
Reibman
Scanlon
Schwartz
Stapleton
Stewart
StinJon
Williams
NAYS-28
Annstrong
Baker
Bell
Brightbill
Connan
Fisher
Greenleaf
Hart
Heckler
Helfrick
Holl
Jubelirer
Lemmond
Loeper
Madigan
Mowery
Musto
Petenon
Robbins
Salvatore
Shaffer
ShumIbr
Porterfield
Punt
Rhoades
Stout
Ttlghman
WetIJIer
Less than a constitutional majority of the Senators having
voted "aye," the question was determined in the negative.
RECONSIDERATION OF SB 1327
BILL LAID ON TIlE TABLE
Senator LINCOLN. Mr. President, I move that the vote by
which Senate Bill No. 1327, Printer's No. 1798, failed on final
passage be reconsidered, and that the bill be laid on the table.
The motion was agreed to.
TBIRD CONSIDERATION CALENDAR RESUMED
BILLS OVER IN ORDER
HB 1462 and HB 1721 - Without objection, the bills were
passed over in their order at the request of Senator LINCOLN.
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
RESOLUfiON HONORING
SENATOR CLARENCE D. BELL
The PRESIDENf. As a special order of business, the Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Blair, Senator Jubelirer.
Senator JUBELIRER Mr. President, I offer the following
resolution and ask unanimous consent for its imme<:tiate consideration. I ask that the resolution be read and that any Member
of the Senate have the opportunity to cosponsor this. There are
already a number of cosponsors on it now, and I ask to be
recognized for remarks after it is read.
The PRESIDENT. Senator Jubelirer offers Senate Resolution No. 93 and asks for unanimous consent for its immediate
consideration.
1644
The Clerk read the following resolution:
In the Senate, February 2, 1994
A RESOLUTION
Congratulating Senator Clarence D. Bell for his record service to
the people of the 9th Senatorial District and this Commonwealth.
WHEREAS, During January 1994, Senator Clarence D. Bell
became the member to have served the longest as Senator since the
creation of the Senate of Pennsylvania over two centuries ago; and
WHEREAS, Senator Bell has for many years been referred to as
Dean of the Senate, having the longest service of any current
member; and
WHEREAS, Senator Bell was first elected to the Senate in 1960
and has been reelected nine times since; and
WHEREAS, The previous record for uninterrupted service
belonged to the late Senator George N . Wade who setved as Senator
from the 31st Senatorial District for 33 years, 1 month and 9 days;
and
WHEREAS, Senator Bell has setved in numerous positions in the
General Assembly, including Chainnan of the Legislative Budget and
Finance Committee, Chainnan ofthe Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensme, Chainnan of the Committee on
Judiciary, Chainnan on Local Government, Chainnan of the Committee on Constitutional Changes and Federal Relations, Republican
Caucus Secretary, Minority Chainnan of various committees, legislative member of the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission
and Vice Chainnan of the State Highway and Bridge Authority; and
WHEREAS, Senator Bell has also setved the people as a member
of the House of Representatives and as a Major General in the
Pennsylvania National Guard; therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Senate extend its congratulations to
Senator Clarence D. Bell for his record service to the people of the
9th Senatorial District and this Commonwealth and extend best
wi~s to its Dean on the occasion of the obsetvance of his recordbreaking service.
(Applause.)
On the question,
Will the Senate adopt the resolution?
The PRESIDENT. On the resolution, the Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Blair, Senator Jubelirer.
Senator JUBELIRER Mr. President, perhaps this is one
resolution that we can get Senator Bell's vote on.
Mr. President, in today's political world, length of service
is perhaps not always regarded as the virtue it once was.
However, the voters of this State still recognize and appreciate
effective and exceptional public service.
Mr. President, I believe it is fitting and appropriate for us
to acknowledge distinguished service on the part of one of our
colleagues - service that each day, each day, sets a new record.
Senator Clarence Bell has served in the Senate of Pennsylvania
longer than any other person. Fantastic. This is a confinnation
of his dedication and the extraordinary support of the people
he has represented.
I am told that Senator Bell has received more votes than
any other politician in Pennsylvania history. Wow. Anyone
who watches him do his job, who listens to his counsel, and
who sees him working his district knows this record will be
extended, for there is nothing, absolutely nothing, retiring
about Senator Bell or Joe Montana or Nolan Ryan, or people
FEBRUARY 2,
like that. Awesome.
Any institution, and certainly this Senate, prospers from the
experience and guidance of an elder statesman. Whatever the
changes in political climate, Senator Bell has been reliable in
his independent judgment and his faithful representation of the
folks who sent him here - his neighbors.
Pennsylvania workers have had a no more relentless champion. Pennsylvania consumers have had a no more ardent
defender. Pennsylvanians have seen too few possessing his
character. Although he is fond of describing himself as just a
good old country boy, frankly, Mr. President, he has taught
me, and I expect many others, important lessons about
perseverance, responsibility, and how to take a longer view of
achieving lasting success. It is all too infrequent when we pay
respect to someone who is not stepping down, and this is a
perfect occasion to do so.
Congratulations, Clarence Bell. Congratulations on a record
well-earned. Congratulations on all you have given not only to
your constituents but to all of us who are serving here today
and to those who have served in the past who have benefitted
from your counsel, your wisdom, and, frankly, your friendship.
It is my privilege to offer a resolution extending the congratulations of this Senate, and I urge every Member of this
Senate who has not had the opportunity to cosponsor this
resolution to do so. The resolution will be on the desk and the
Secretary of the Senate will make it available.
This is truly a hallmark not only in your life, Clarence Bell,
but in the history of this Senate. I am delighted to be able to
be here to share this day with you.
Senator LINCOLN. Mr. President, before I say anything, I
would ask that all Members be included on that as cosponsors.
I believe that is something we can do without any great deal
of controversy.
The PRESIDENT. The Chair would attempt to assist in the
process by asking, is there any objection to including the
names of all of the Members of the Senate on the official
resolution? If not, we will instruct the Clerk to inscribe all the
Members' names on the resolution, in the interest ofefficiency.
Senator Bell has asked to be excused from the resolution.
We cannot even get him to support this one.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Fayette, Senator
Lincoln.
Senator LINCOLN. Mr. President, in my lifetime, when I
think of the different changes that have taken place, I am of
the generation that can remember in the late 1940s going out
and watching airplanes fly over. I mean, it was a pretty new
thing and we were all amazed by it and all the changes. I can
imagine in Clarence's lifetime the changes that he has seen
have been just hard to believe, and I think probably if we
could get inside his head and somehow either put that in writing or put it in video fonn, it would be probably the most
incredible experience we could have.
I would say a lot of the changes, the good changes, that
1994
have come about have come about because of Senator Bell's
involvement in this process. And I believe that he even proved
today that his concentration and memory are better than mine,
and I am quite a bit younger than him.
The thing that most impressed me and one of the things that
I probably will never forget is when I heard Senator Bell one
day say, "if' I die, not "when" I die, as most people say, it was
"if' I die. And over a period of 16 years of serving with him,
I am beginning to become a believer that he really knows what
he is talking about in that respect, and I would hope that he
would have many, many more productive years. I would hope
that his health stays as good as it has been. I would hope that
I have some of the good fortune that he has had in the number
of years that he has been privileged to be with us. The only
thing that bothers me is when I stand with him and people
think we are the same age. It really worries me considerably.
But I would say that, Clarence, you have given more than
anybody could imagine, and I believe that you are one of the
few who I could say this to, that you have not taken as much
as you should have. And I would congratulate you on both
your service in the Senate and reaching the milestone of your
80th birthday, which today it is a very real privilege to do that,
and I wish you much success and happiness and good health
in the future.
The PRESIDENT. On the resolution, the Chair recognizes
the distinguished gentleman from Delaware, Senator Bell.
Senator BELL. Fellow Senators, my speech is lengthy. It is:
Thank you.
(Applause.)
The PRESIDENT. Would the Members of the Senate please
rise in unanimous support for the resolution.
(Members stood en bloc.)
The PRESIDENT. The Chair declares the resolution unanimously adopted.
1645
Considered the second time and agreed to,
Ordered, To be printed on the Calendar for third consideration.
An Act establishing a sinkhole damage assistanc:le program;
providing for grants and loans; and making an appropriation.
BILL REREFERRED
SB 322 (pr. No. 1870) - The Senate proceeded to consideration of the bill, entitled:
An Act amending Title 75 (Vehicles) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, fi.n1:her providing for antique and classic plates; and
authorizing the Department of Transportation to enter into multijurisdictional permit agreements for oversize or overweight vehicles or
loads.
Upon motion of Senator LINCOLN, and agreed to, the bill
was rereferred to the Committee on Appropriations.
BILL ON SECOND CONSIDERATION
An Act amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing for the offense of
murder in the third degree and for attempted criminal homicide.
BILL OVER IN ORDER
SECOND CONSIDERATION CALENDAR
DB 666 - Without objection, the bill was passed over in its
BILLS ON SECOND CONSIDERATION
BB Z4 (Pr. No. 2130) - The Senate proceeded to consideration of the bill, entitled:
An Act providing for protection of public health and prevention
of fraud and deception by prohibiting the manufacture or sale of, the
offering for sale or exposing for sale of or the having in possession
with intent to sell adulterated, misbranded or deleterious foods; and
making repeals.
SB 42 (Pr. No. 42) -- The Senate proceeded to consideration of the bill, entitled:
An Act designating a bridge which straddles the border between
Norristown and Bridgeport Boroughs in Montgomery County as the
DeKalb Veterans Memorial Bridge.
BILL REREFERRED
DB 672 (Pr. No. 2992) - The Senate proceeded to consideration of the bill, entitled:
An Act amending the act of April 6, 1921 (p.L.95, No.58),
referred to as the Bee Law, increasing criminal penalties; fiuther
providing for civil penalties and injunctive relief; providing for the
registration of apiaries; and providing for apiary yards.
BILL OVER IN ORDER
DB 849 - Without objection, the bill was passed over in its
1646
An Act amending Title 75 (Vehicles) ofthe Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing for the determination of the competency of licensed drivers and for certain judicial reviews.
Ordered, To be printed on the Calendar for third consider-
FEBRUARY 2,
SB 1461 (pr. No. 1869) - The Senate proceeded to consideration of the bill, entitled:
An Act amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing for criminal trespass.
BILL REREFERRED
ation.
An Act amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, providing for Federal prosecution
fingerprinting.
Ordered, To be printed on the Calendar for third consider-
ation.
DB 1472 (pr. No. 2921) - The Senate proceeded to consideration of the bill, entitled:
An Act amending the act of September 1, 1965 (P.L.436,
No.221), known as the Pennsylvania Commercial Feed Law of 1966,
further providing for defmitions, licensing, fees, adulteration, inspection, and penalties; and making a repeal.
BILL ON SECOND CONSIDERATION
BILL REREFERRED
SB 1254 (Pr. No. 18(7) - The Senate proceeded to consideration of the bill, entitled:
An Act providing for the protection of public health and prevention of food-borne illness by establishing a food service certification
program, a Food Service and Retail Food Certification Board of Advisors; and providing for the authority of the Department of Agriculture to approve certification programs and authorize the training of
food service and retail food managers in all licensed facilities in this
Commonwealth.
BILLS OVER IN ORDER
SB 1284 and DB 1304 - Without objection, the bills were
passed over in their order at the request of Senator LINCOLN.
An Act amending the act of March 7, 1901 (p.L.20, No.l4),
referred to as the Second Class City Law, providing for land use
appeals.
An Act designating a certain interchange in Northampton Comty
as the Walter Dealtrey Interchange.
An Act designating a section of S. R. 8001, S. R. 0422 and S. R.
4005 in Indiana Comty as Jimmy Stewart Boulevard.
BILLS OVER IN ORDER
DB 1488, DB 1514 and DB 1647 - Without objection, the
bills were passed over in their order at the request of Senator
LINCOLN.
BILL REREFERRED
An Act amending Title 75 (Vehicles) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing for schedule of convictions and
points, for periods of drivers' licenses revocation or suspension, for
drivers' licenses and permits and for emissions program; providing for
widths of motor homes; and making a repeal.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
BILL IN PLACE
Senator BOR1NER presented to the Chair a bill.
PERMISSION TO ADDRESS SENATE
Senator BORlNER Mr. President, I rise to inform the
1994
other Members of the Senate that today I am introducing legislation that I believe will do much to make State government
more open and responsive to the citizens it serves.
My legislation, quite simply, would allow anyone with access to a computer and a modem to connect electronically into
the Legislative Data Processing computer system. Information
on pending legislation, Calendars, committee meetings, current
laws and statutes would all become available at the touch of a
computer keyboard.
The bill currently has 16 cosponsors. I would like to leave
it open on the desk for anyone who would like to also add
their name as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDENT. Senator Bortner reads in place and presents to the Chair a bill, which is open for additional cosponsorship in the hands of the Secretary of the Senate.
CONGRATULATORY RESOLUTIONS
The PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the following resolutions, which were read, considered and adopted:
Congratulations of the Senate were extended to Jason L.
Nasino and to Edward Blair by Senator Bell.
Congratulations of the Senate were extended to Christopher
Sullivan, David Hettich and to Betty Lee Dowlin by Senator
Corman.
Congratulations of the Senate were extended to Mildred
Ehland by Senator Fisher.
Congratulations of the Senate were extended to Malcolm E.
Barker and to Carol A. Harrison by Senator Holi.
Congratulations of the Senate were extended to Saint
Mary's Church of Hollidaysburg by Senator Jubelirer.
Congratulations of the Senate were extended to George
Derbaum and to Lucy Dadeo by Senator LaValle.
Congratulations of the Senate were extended to Erik Bittner,
Lynn R Williams and to Edgar L. Ball by Senator Lincoln.
Congratulations of the Senate were extended to Todd Tyson
by Senator Loeper.
Congratulations of the Senate were extended to Mr. and
Mrs. Joseph Cost, Jr., and to First Sergeant Richard Boyce by
Senator Madigan.
Congratulations of the Senate were extended to James
Howley by Senator Mellow.
Congratulations of the Senate were extended to Mr. and
Mrs. Richard M. Spohn and to Daniel Adam Nimmon by Senator Mowery.
Congratulations of the Senate were extended to Shun Mei,
Linda, Nemet and to Cindy L. Miller by Senator Robbins.
Congratulations of the Senate were extended to Helen B.
McBride and to Chief Ronald Gutshall by Senator Shumaker.
Congratulations of the Senate were extended to Herman L.
Sledzik by Senators Stapleton and Williams.
Congratulations of the Senate were extended to Mildred G.
Lutthinger by Senators Wenger and Stout.
PETITIONS AND REMONSTRANCES
Centre County, Senator Corman.
1647
Senator CORMAN. Mr. President, let me explain to my
colleagues what happened yesterday at a meeting of an obscure
group which most people in Pennsylvania I am sure have not
heard very much about. That group is called the Ozone Tmnsport Commission. The Ozone Transport Commission is made
up of a representative of the environmental agencies in 12
northeastern States and the District of Columbia. Each State
has one vote on the Ozone Transport Commission. Pennsylvania's vote is cast by Arthur Davis, Secretary of the Department of Environmental Resources. This group has the ability,
under the Federal Clean Air Act, to set State environmental
policy in this region of the 12 States and the District of
Columbia.
Yesterday, the Ozone Transport Commission took advantage
of that authority, and I believe we as a legislature have been
taken advantage of by our representative on the Ozone
Transport Commission, DER SecretaJy Arthur Davis. The
Ozone Transport Commission voted to petition the EPA for
California car emission standards in Pennsylvania and in all the
other States in the northeastern United States that comprise the
ozone transport region.
Mr. President, I am outraged, because a nearly unanimous
vote in both Chambers on House Concurrent Resolution No.
147 urged Secretary Davis, our representative on the Ozone
Transport Commission, to not support a California car tailpipe
emission standard. Secretary Davis ignored our resolution. He
also decided not to go along with the findings of the General
Assembly's bipartisan Low Emission Vehicle Commission,
which recommended against the California car at this time.
Secretary Davis was asked by the House and Senate Transportation chairs from both sides of the aisle in more than one
meeting not to support a California car emission standard for
Pennsylvania and the east coast. Instead, he brushed aside our
study commission, he brushed aside our vote on House Concurrent Resolution No. 147. Let us face it, he brushed aside the
entire General Assembly by voting for the California car standard.
We had the Secretary's word, Mr. President, that he would
abstain on this issue. I have a copy of the letter that he wrote
to me dated September 29, 1993, in which he refers to the
concerns of the low emission vehicles that I had written to him
about. And he said, among other things, "The Department continues to believe that an LEV program in Pennsylvania would
be a cost-effective method for attaining and maintaining the
emissions reductions mandated by the Clean Air Act. However,
I am mindful of the concerns expressed by the Pennsylvania
LEV Commission, the Pennsylvania General Assembly through
House Resolution 147 and in the numerous letters we have
received from members of both houses. Accordingly, I intend
to abstain from any aTC vote on proceeding with development
of a recommendation."
So apparently, his word and his letter were meaningless.
After studying the issue, the bipartisan Pennsylvania Low
Emission Vehicle Commission voted against the California car
standard, based on the findings of a study completed by the
Mid-Atlantic Universities Transportation Center. The findings
1648
resulted in this conclusion, and I quote: "...the available data
regarding the emissions reductions and the cost-effectiveness
of such reductions attributable to LEV" -or as it has been
commonly called, the California car- "are inconclusive. Therefore, the Commission recommends to the Governor and to the
General Assembly that no Department, Board or Commission
shall propose or adopt a California LEV program for Pennsylvania before January 1, 1995."
If I could leave you with one point, Mr. President, it would
be this: The California car, or LEV, program will affect your
constituents, my constituents, constituents in Pennsylvania, and
all motorists in the northeastern States. Industty estimates for
California cars range from between $1,000 to $1,500 per car.
The study we commissioned, and the one Ijust quoted, showed
the emissions savings from the California car standard produce
relatively small emissions savings in terms of oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic compounds. The bottom line is this:
The California car standards have a big impact on our people's
wallets, but will not have a big impact on cleaning up the air.
In my mind, California car standards are a consumer rip-off,
considering some of the many clean air strategies we have
voted to undertake and will initiate in the coming years.
In addition, the automobile makers developed a less expensive compromise for consumers that would have produced
similar emissions benefits. The automobile makers outlined
their Federal LEV proposal to Representatives Cessar and
Petrarca, as well as to Senator Stout and myself, the transporta.tion leaders from the Caucuses representing both parties. The
automakers also made a formal presentation to the Ozone
Transport Commission, though it was largely ignored.
I am concerned about Secretary Davis's vote for the
California car standards because it infringes upon our right as
a legislative body to set policy. I am arguing for the basic right
of the people to bring problems to us, their legislators, for
redress. Part of the reason we chose not to go into the LEV
program on a statewide basis was because we did not want to
tie our future automobile emission standards to the State of
California. By adopting the California car standards, we are
locked into California's tailpipe emission standards now and in
the future. What happens if Pennsylvania's air quality continues to improve and more areas fall into clean air compliance, but California's air gets worse? The problem is that
we as Pennsylvania legislators and our congressional delegation have lost control over our own environmental destiny. The
Ozone Transport Commission has taken away some of our
representation. We as a legislature have lost the ability to set
our own tailpipe emission standards, and our congressional
delegation has lost that right as well.
I pose another question: If each of us has lost control over
the people's environmental destiny, then who will represent the
people of this Commonwealth after this administration is
through? Ifa constituent comes to us questioning the high cost
and ineffectiveness of a California car, could we defend the
actions that the State took despite our overwhelming vote
against the standard?
What is more, Pennsylvania put into place the first stringent
FEBRUARY 2,
vehicle emissions testing program in the country, based on
guidance from EPA. Pass this or lose your highway funding,
we were told by EPA. To date, the great smoggy State ofCalifornia still has not put into place adequate emissions testing
programs, though California has the worst air quality problem
in the countty. So far, California has been threatened with
sanctions for not putting in place an enhanced emissions testing program, but I would suggest that the EPA administrator
has thus far allowed California to escape an emissions testing
program by neglecting to withhold their highway funds. Why
would the EPA administrator do such a thing? Well, I think,
Mr. President, the answer is political power. California
represents, by number, one-eighth of all the members of the
U.S. House, and a California U.S. Representative, Norman
Mineta, chairs the Public Works and Transportation Committee.
In closing, I believe we as a General Assembly have taken
a reasoned view on California car emission standards and the
State's venture into an emissions testing program. However,
the Environmental Resources Secretary has misrepresented his
position on the California car emissions standard. By voting for
the California car yesterday, he took the opposite approach of
the bipartisan opposition expressed in House Concurrent Res0lution No. 147 and the vote of a bipartisan study commission.
I am also concerned, especially for those who can least afford
it, that motorists in this State were led into an emissions testing
program that would tum out to be far more stringent and far
more costly than necessary. With each day that passes, it looks
as though Pennsylvanians may have been duped about the
Federal emissions testing program and that EPA will relax the
roles for the smoggy but powerful California.
I believe it is time that these programs are put back in the
hands of the people, and I urge my colleagues to join me in an
effort that will come before the Senate next week, I believe, to
allow us to reestablish our intent in these programs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Michael E. Bortner) in the
Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER The Chair thanks the gentleman from Centre County for his remarks.
ANNOUNCEMENT BY lHE CHAIR
The PRESIDING OFFICER The Chair has also been asked
by the chairman of the Committee on Public Health and Wel-
fare to announce that there is an immediate convening of that
committee in Room 461.
PETmONS AND REMONSTRANCES
Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Allegheny County, Senator Fisher.
Senator FISHER Mr. President, I want to follow up and
commend Senator Connan for not only his position on the
issue of the California LEV car but certainly on his comments
that were just given.
1994
I agree that it is, indeed, unfortunate that Secretaty Davis
voted in favor of the California LEV car yesterday at the
Ozone Transport Commission, because by Secretaty Davis d0ing that, he was representing us. He was representing us, he
was representing the State, he was representing the Casey administration. Clearly, the General Assembly spoke through the
passage of Concurrent Resolution No. 147 when they urged the
Secretaty, as did the individual chairmen of the Transportation
Committees of both the House and the Senate, to go the other
way.
I am also terribly disappointed in this administration's position of not being as tough in dealing With the Federal government on the issue of a centralized emission. Recently, in fact
just last week, California Governor Pete Wilson signed into
law in that State a bill which would preserve their current
system on the decentralized inspections. Yet, in Pennsylvania
Secretaty Yerusalim proceeded forward as Transportation Seeretary this summer in opposition to the request that was made
by myself, the gentleman from Delaware, Senator Loeper, and
others, to hold up in order to give this State more time to tty
to negotiate with EPA on a system that would be better for the
consumers in Pennsylvania.
Mr. President, the vast, vast majority of the people in this
Commonwealth have no idea what is coming and what is ahead for them, either in emissions inspections or in the development of a new California LEV car. We, as elected officials,
elected and sent here at the State level to represent them,
however, are. I looked at the basic and fundamental problem
that all of us faced in the passage of the Federal Clean Air
Act, where the Congress, a few years ago, sitting back in a
way that only Congress can do, passed a system that did not
fit all. In fact, unfortunately, it fit all in a way that was discriminatory to a large number of States, such as Pennsylvania.
We have a system, an emission inspection system, that many
of my colleagues who were here for a period of time in the
'80s recognize all of the concern that the drivers in those affected counties had back in the mid-'80s when that system was
implemented under Federal edict, but yet the Federal Clean Air
Act provided for us even greater hurdles. It is these hurdles
that we have been trying to get over. With passage of the State
Clean Air Act, we have a number of steps which if the Federal
government, through the EPA, would modify their position, the
State would be able to proceed forward with a car that would
minimize emissions but would not maximize increased costs
such as the California LEV car.
Likewise, I would like to see this State move forward, and
move forward with aggressive negotiations through our
Secretaries to try to get the EPA to consider Pennsylvania, like
EPA is apparently considering California, for exemptions. I do
not want to see us have a California LEV car in place. I do not
want to see us have a centralized emission testing system in
place and then pick up the paper and read that California, the
State with problems far bigger and far worse than Pennsylvania, has gotten exceptions. We cannot wait. We cannot wait
until the next administration. We need to be vigorous now, we
need to be vigorous today in fighting on all fronts. That is why
1649
I commend Senator Corman, I commend the other chainnan of
the Committee on Transportation, Senator LaValle, and others
who have stood up and have articulated this issue. Very few
people have been listening. Obviously, Secretary Davis has not
been listening, but I hope that the people of Pennsylvania
begin to listen and begin to talk to all of their elected
Representatives and Senators, and that this administration
begins to listen, because we need people speaking as loud for
Pennsylvania as Governor Wilson and the California legislators
have been speaking for the State of California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Fayette, Senator Lincoln.
Senator LINCOLN. Mr. President, it is with a great deal of
pain that I take the microphone today. It is pain because over
the years that I have been dealing with this issue with this
administration I have had to come in here and defend and
provide an awful lot ofassistance to individuals tIying to make
up their minds on how they are going to vote on this. I believe
that Secretaty Yerusalim has been as dedicated to doing the
right thing for Pennsylvania as anybody could possibly be, and
because of him more than anybody else, I have personally
voted against my own wishes, I have asked other people to do
that, and I think we believe that we were following a trail that
was going to lead to the best possible solution for Pennsylvanians, both in air quality and in the type of roads that we would
have and the money we would have to pay for those. Right
now, today, I feel like I have been keeping a car running with
Band-Aids, tape, gunk, and everything else that I see some of
my hillbilly constituents use in keeping their cars on the road,
and Secretary Davis has stolen the motor, so I do not know
what to do with it at this point in time.
The only thing I can tell you is this is one of the most
foolish votes that I have seen in my 22 years in the legislature.
I think it totally disrupts the process, and anything that happens
from this date forward can be laid at the foot of the Governor,
who I understand instructed Secretary Davis on how to vote on
this issue, and I believe it is the most foolish mistake that I
have seen in the 22 years that I have been involved in government.
We cannot move forward now with the program that this
administration has been preaching about. We cannot. And early
next week, on this floor, we are going to take some legislative
action to probably more clearly express the true feelings and
beliefs of the Members of this Senate on this issue. On Monday, we are going to vote on an amendment that tIle gentleman
from Beaver, Senator LaValle, has prepared to a Senate bill
that he introduced. We are going to then move that bill up
after that amendment is adopted, and on Tuesday we are going
to pass it, and the House can deal with it however they want.
To say that I am disappointed by Secretary Davis's actions
I think is putting it about as mildly as you can put it. I believe
that we have been undercut. I believe, as the gentleman from
Centre, Senator Corman, said, that we are being ignored completely. The only thing we are being asked to do is take the
controversial votes, take the heat, and go back and tell our
1650
constituents something that we do not actually believe in as to
why we are doing it. And I can tell you that this issue now
becomes a different ball game, it is a different playing field,
and I suspect that somebody somewhere along the line is going
to regret vety, vety much Secretaty Davis voting for something
that did not need his vote. It passed by a 9-4 vote. It could
have passed 8-5, with his vote being the other way. It would
have saved me a hell of a lot of problems, and it probably
would have saved the program that we have worked so hard to
put into place. And I resent that. I resent putting the time and
effort into this issue that I have. I have had to deal with people
from allover the State. We do not have a State where it is the
same everywhere. And each person's interest and opposition
was different. It has taxed me to the point that it has probably
been the most difficult issue' that I, as a leader, have had to
deal with, including getting votes for taxes, and I do not think
that this issue should have been brought to this point by a very
foolish vote by Secretaty Davis.
And I think it is typical of what we have seen not just with
this administration but through Shapp and through Thornburgh,
and now in Casey, where the Department of Environmental
Resources is so ungodly off base most of the time, they recognize nothing but what they see in those damn books that they
read, and we ought to start putting some people in place down
there with some common sense. And whenever you can come
into my district and tell me that Secretaty Davis's vote for this
California LEV car was something that I can see that I need,
that is absolute bunk. And I am just expressing the anger that
is coming through to me from my Members, and I do not
believe that any leader whom I have ever served with has the
ability to change the situation as it is today and what we are
going to start doing from here on out. I really feel terrible
about this because I thought we were making progress. I
thought we were going in the right direction, and if this vote
were necessaty for any purpose whatsoever, then I could have
understood it. There is no purpose, no reason, and nothing
factual that was necessaty to bring about that type of vote on
the part of Secretary Davis.
And I do not care what phone calls come to me, I do not
care who tries to put pressure on me, I do not care what
threats of "no money anywhere" come to me, we are now dealing with this issue in a much different manner, and Monday
and Tuesday of next week, that will become extremely apparent.
Mr. President, on a different issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER The Chair recognizes Senator
Lincoln.
Senator LINCOLN. Mr. President, I have to take off one hat
and put another one on now, which is sometimes difficult
whenever you feel strongly about something. But today we had
a Senate bill that was defeated, and I am still kind of stunned
over it. It was Senate Bill No. 1327, which was a "may" bill
as far as its impact on county governments. It is something I
think that I have heard my Republican colleagues speak of
over and over and over and over, about cutting costs of government, being more efficient; being more efficient, cutting
FEBRUARY 2,
costs, blah, blah, blah, blah. It has been an ongoing thing for
so many years that it is hard to believe. And I think that the
only purpose for defeating this bill today, and there was not
one Republican vote for it, not one Republican vote, there was
really no criticism of the bill. There were questions asked by
several Members that had nothing to do, truthfully, with their
districts. There was no long debate about the damage that this
bill is going to bring upon the counties. There was nothing.
There was nothing, but the sponsor happens to be running for
reelection this year in a district that has been targetted by the
Republican Party here in the Senate.
And the only reason I bring this out is because it is vety apparent, through a lot of the issues we have been dealing with,
that the number one priority of the Republican Senate
Members is to control the process. Not whether it is a good
piece of legislation or a bad piece of legislation, but who the
sponsor is and whether it is perceived that that helps or hurts
that particular person within their own district. And I think it
is a disgrace to decide at the last minute not to vote for a bill
that had been worked on for some time, that has a great deal
of merit, it allows for the freedom of each county to have the
choice as to whether they want to do it, and to only vote 25.
Now, you cannot tell me that if it was not something that had
been decided as a unit vote that there had not been one person
in the Republican Caucus who would have seen the folly of
their ways in that they have been preaching cutting costs of
government, and what do they do the first time they have a
chance, they vote "no." Now, I want to tell you that I do not
think that is right. I do not believe that that should happen.
If that were the case, if I were thinking only in terms of
how I win a seat that is right now one of the targetted seats
that I am looking at, you would never, ever get another opportunity to vote on the teacher retirement bill, which is Senate
Bill No. 974. You would never get a chance, because I can go
into the district of the gentlewoman from Allegheny, Senator
Hart, right now and tell the world that not only has she voted
against tax reduction for businesses on several occasions, she
voted to not give the retired employees--State and school employees-in her district the opportunity to have, back in December, an increase in COLA. Now, if I were going to do things
that way, I would not have made the motion yesterday to reconsider the vote by which it failed because Senator Hart did
not vote for it, because there were 25 Democrats who voted
for it and Senator Hart said no, because we want 3 cents a
month more for somebody who has 11 or 12 years rather than
being teachers who went the whole route of 25, or 30, or 40
years. If I were concerned enough about winning that election,
I guarantee you she would never, Senator Hart would never
have an opportunity to correct that vote. But that issue goes
way beyond, way beyond who wins or who loses in that district. We have people who desperately need those increases in
COLA. We also have a prudent-person provision in there that
has cost that fund hundreds of millions of dollars.
So it is not just an issue that we should bring them down to
the level of only who wins and who loses elections. It should
not be for political advantage. If there had been one word
1994
about Senator Bortner's bill being disastrous to counties, if we
were forcing it on them, no. It is because he is targetted by the
Republicans, and they do not want him to accomplish a damn
thing in this Chamber that would make him look good. Well,
let me tell you something. You have helped him by the partisanship shown on this issue. I mean, it is outrageous to think
that that issue could be decided simply because Senator
Bortner is a sponsor. And I know that someone is going to say
there were 3 Democrats who voted "no." We did not ask for
a vote over here on whether it was a partisan political issue or
not. I never talked to one of my Members about voting for or
against this bill, because to be quite honest with you, until we
came back from caucus today, I did not recognize it as a political issue. I thought it was a piece of local government legislation, and I am telling you that that is wrong. It is wrong to
your constituents as well as it is to Senator Bortner's constituency.
Now, that bill has been reconsidered and I would hope that
the next time we vote on it if there are 25 Republican "no"
votes there is a reason given for it in debate. And I would
hope that that reason would have some merit. And I will
probably tell you that there will be 25 Democrats voting for it
the next time it is run, so if it fails it will fail because of no
Republican support, as it did this time, because if there were
4 Republican votes out of 25, it would have passed. And it
will be back before us. It was reconsidered, it is on the table,
and it is not going to go away. I hate to bring these kinds of
things into the debate, but that one is so obvious as to what
happened that somebody has to call attention to it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER The Chair thanks the gentleman for his very astute and cogent observations.
ADJOURNMENT
do now adjourn until Monday, February 7, 1994, at 2 p.m.,
Eastern Standard Time.
The motion was agreed to.
The Senate adjourned at 12: 17 p.m., Eastern Standard Time.
1651

1640 - PA General Assembly

Transcription

Similar documents

Capito-Charleston Gazette Web

DAN RIZZO STEVE MORABITO | from page 3

this PDF - University of Nevada, Las Vegas

this PDF - University of Nevada, Las Vegas

this PDF - University of Nevada, Las Vegas

this PDF

1708 - Pennsylvania General Assembly

American Forum of the Air (TV, radio): Party Realignment, July 15

Access this item. - UNLV Libraries Digital Collections

senator george m. weah

Vol. 136 No. 7, April 11, 1975

eTearsheet

1 - Senate

Volume 18, Issue No. 35 - August 24, 2009

HW06 hrc-ethics01

The Office of the FACULTY SENATE

Associated Student Body Victor Valley College