House approves amended general appropriations bill after failed motion to revert prior printer number

The Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed Senate Bill 160, the general appropriations bill for fiscal year 2025–26, on Oct. 8, 2025, by a vote of 105–98 after a heated floor debate and a failed motion to suspend the rules to revert to a prior printer number.

The vote matters because the bill would appropriate funds for the coming fiscal year amid a budget impasse. Lawmakers debated whether to revert to an earlier printer’s number to send a different package to the governor immediately, or to pass the amended bill now and continue negotiations with the Senate.

Representative O'Neil (Representative, Washington County) moved to suspend the rules “in order to revert to a prior printer's number” so the House could send a different version of the budget to the governor. The motion to suspend the rules failed on a roll call of yeas 101, nays 102. After the failed suspension motion, the House proceeded and later passed Senate Bill 160 on final passage by a 105–98 vote. The clerk described the measure as “a general appropriations bill for fiscal year 2025 through 2026.”

Opponents criticized both the content and the process. Representative Schlossberg (Representative, Lehigh County) urged members to vote against the motion to suspend the rules and warned that reverting to the prior printer number would “result in numerous cuts to many line items,” and listed specific line‑item reductions that he said would follow under that prior printer number, including cuts he characterized as “a cut of $61,000,000 to the state police,” “a cut of $8,300,000 to the attorney general's office,” “a cut of 75% to human trafficking and enforcement,” and “a cut of $81,200,000 to state correctional institutions.”

Representative Grupa (Representative, Fayette County) said she was “disappointed” in the process of passing the budget, called the 118‑page amendment rushed, and said the package was “a $50,200,000,000 budget that overspends by $5,600,000,000” and would, in her words, set families up “for a $1,712 tax hike.”

Representative Grove (Representative, York County) urged an alternative approach of partial funding to keep essential safety‑net programs operating, telling colleagues “we actually should be taking up partial funding to reopen the doors and reopen the programs.”

Discussion vs. formal action was distinct on the floor: members debated policy and process at length, several members offered motions (including O'Neil's motion to suspend the rules), and the House recorded formal votes on the suspension motion and on final passage. The suspension motion failed; the appropriations bill later passed the House finally and will be returned to the Senate with the House's amendments.

The debate on the floor underscores the continuing budget impasse and competing views about how to protect services while negotiating across chambers. Lawmakers repeatedly noted the late timetable (members said the budget is roughly 100 days late) and the risk to programs if funds remain blocked.

With passage in the House, the bill will be transmitted to the Senate with a request for concurrence. The transcript does not show whether the Senate had agreed to the House amendments at the time of this session.