top of page

PA Budget Blues

  • Writer: Carol Kuniholm
    Carol Kuniholm
  • Aug 16
  • 3 min read

While most states regularly complete their annual or biannual budgets with little drama or delay, Pennsylvania’s state legislature has missed four of the past twelve June 30 deadlines mandated in the PA Constitution. In part, these delays appear to be a function of a secretive process which bypasses the PA Constitution and procedural rules of both chambers. Appropriation bills follow the path of all legislation enacted by the General Assembly. A House or Senate committee must report a bill before the full House or Senate can consider it. All members of each chamber must consider the bill on three different days in that chamber before a vote can occur. The PA Constitution mandates this process, as described in the House document Making Law in Pennsylvania.

Similar requirements are included in both House and Senate rules approved at the start of every new session and are also described in Title 101, which documents “general and permanent” procedures in use in the General Assembly (§ 9.81: Consideration by General Assembly).


The primary appropriations bill is introduced with proposed line-item dollar amounts not yet agreed to across party lines or between the chambers. Budget bills are typically close to 200 pages and contain 500 or more state appropriation line items with proposed dollar amounts. But these dollars are simply placeholders, not the final amounts. The aim is to initiate the passage of the bill through committees and chambers while negotiations continue. This bill, commonly called a vehicle bill, is often amended just before final votes in each chamber.


The budget process as currently practiced demonstrates dysfunctions that undermine representation and have far-reaching consequences for the public good. 


Dysfunction #1: Gut and replace amendments make assessment difficult. The vehicle bill proceeds through most of the legislative process without negotiated final amounts. Several hours before the final vote, an amendment removes the entire content of the bill (with proposed state appropriation amounts) and replaces it with new text and new dollar amounts. This “gut and replace” amendment is also typically 200 pages in length and contains line item amounts for all state appropriations. For ease of comparison, when amended bills are printed, formatting is used to indicate material omitted or added (described in detail in Title 101: § 9.116. Printing of amended bills). This facilitates comparisons between bill versions and can be especially helpful in appropriation bills, since most of the line item descriptions are the same, with only dollar amounts changed.  Complete gut and replace amendments make comparison far more difficult. When all of the text for the original line item appropriations and the dollar values are struck through, followed by adding back the same line item appropriations, some with changed dollar values,, it is nearly impossible for rank and file members to  assess changes.

Dysfunction #2: Timing of final gut and replace amendments subverts rules for consideration.

In recent budget processes, final gut and replace amendments have taken place AFTER most of the considerations have occurred in both chambers. Required days for consideration provide time for debate and amendment, and also make it possible for concerned citizens to watch the process unfold and offer input before a final vote. Bypassing that consideration undermines legislators’ ability to represent constituents. This is even more the case on  such  long, complex bills, with such far-reaching implications for the entire commonwealth.

Dysfunction #3: Speed of the final vote undermines informed representation.

Final votes routinely occur within hours (the same day or the next) after Introduction of gut and replace amendments. This is woefully insufficient time for legislators and public watchdogs to review and evaluate 200 pages and 500 appropriation line items. As illustrated in the table below, most recent budget bills have been voted on the same day, or the day after, the vote on the gut and replace amendment. That speed also forces most of PA’s 253 legislators to vote without time to assess the impact of their vote. 

Fix Harrisburg team reasearch: find google sheet with notes and links to highlighted bills here.
Fix Harrisburg team reasearch: find google sheet with notes and links to highlighted bills here.

There are avenues forward, including use of conference committees, described in Title 101 § 7.13 and § 9.101–105. Such a solution, or other procedural approaches in use in other states, would require a commitment to transparency and collaboration and respect for the constitutional requirements. Without those, even the best process will be sidestepped and dysfunction will continue. 


Further Reading

 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page