Pennsylvania House Bill HB995

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/24/25
• Refer: 3/24/25

Caption

In miscellaneous provisions relating to emergency management services, providing for emergency preparedness for owned animals.

Summary

HB995 would add a new section to Pennsylvania’s emergency management law requiring the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency to include protections for owned animals in the Commonwealth Emergency Management Plan. The bill’s stated purpose is to establish and maintain a statewide disaster plan and response capability for animals affected by disasters. The measure directs the agency to administer the program, allocate funding, and provide annual money to an agency-approved animal response team for planning, developing, and maintaining animal rescue and response capabilities. It also requires those teams to keep records and provide them on request so the agency can verify that funds are spent as intended.

Impact

The bill would amend Title 35 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes by adding a new emergency preparedness provision focused on owned animals. It would expand the scope of state emergency planning to include pets, agricultural animals, and certain permitted animals, while excluding wildlife. It also creates a funding and oversight framework for animal response teams and gives PEMA authority to set standards, distribute money, and audit compliance.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the available evidence suggests the bill is framed as a practical emergency preparedness measure rather than a controversial policy change. Its sponsors appear to support stronger disaster planning for animals, and the bill’s structure emphasizes coordination, funding, and accountability. No opposing viewpoints are documented in the provided materials.

Contention

The main policy questions likely concern the scope of the term “owned animals,” the use of state funds, and how PEMA would approve and oversee animal response teams. Potential points of contention include whether the program should cover agricultural animals and permit-holding animals in addition to pets, whether annual funding should be guaranteed, and whether the agency’s audit and standards authority is sufficiently defined. No specific objections or supporters are recorded in the provided discussion materials.