Senate committee rejects stopgap appropriations bill that would have frozen spending at last year’s levels

A Pennsylvania Senate committee considered Senate Bill 160 on Aug. 13, a stopgap general appropriations measure that would have set the commonwealth’s spending at last year’s levels, but the bill failed on a roll call.

The measure would have established funding at $47,600,000,000 and, according to a supporter who spoke during the committee meeting, was intended to "provide for the essential services of government" while negotiations on a full spending plan continued. The supporter said, "We can continue the negotiations ... but at this time, we think this is the best solution to make sure government remains functional and provides for the people in this commonwealth." That speaker also said that "all Republicans will be voting in the affirmative on Senate Bill 160."

A different senator who spoke against the bill described it as "not a serious budget," saying it merely repeated last year’s numbers well past the normal point in the budget cycle. That senator warned that using the same numbers as last year would amount to cuts in services because costs and mandated payments have risen, and said school districts and other recipients that had budgeted expecting state aid would be left to "go back to the drawing board" or raise local taxes. The senator also cited a $2,000,000,000 "cost to carry" for Medicaid if the measure were enacted without new revenue.

Committee leadership called the roll after debate. The chair declared, "On Senate Bill 160, the noes have it. The bill is not agreed to, and therefore the bill fails." The transcript records members answering during the roll call; the chair and several members recorded votes in the affirmative while a larger group recorded negative votes, resulting in the bill’s defeat.

Committee members and speakers framed the measure as a temporary fix to keep essential services operating while broader negotiations on transit, education, health care and other budget priorities continued. Supporters described the bill as a pragmatic, last-minute step to prevent an immediate funding lapse; opponents said it was procedurally and substantively inadequate because it would freeze dollars at prior-year levels amid rising costs and federal mandates.

The committee adjourned after the vote. Members said negotiations would continue with the stated goal of reaching a full spending plan that addresses mandatory payments and other policy priorities.