Pennsylvania House Bill HB1053

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

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

Caption

Providing for limitations on certain additional expenses of the General Assembly.

Summary

HB1053 would amend Pennsylvania’s Public Official Compensation Law to prohibit per diem payments to members of the General Assembly for days of service. The bill also treats any payment that would qualify as a per diem under the Internal Revenue Code as prohibited, while allowing reimbursement only for actual expenses supported by documentation. In effect, the measure would replace flat daily allowances with a stricter reimbursement model tied to verifiable costs. The bill is narrowly focused on legislative compensation and does not change base salary, benefits, or other reimbursed expenses. It would add a new section to the compensation law and invalidate any existing rules or regulations that conflict with the new limits. The bill would take effect 60 days after enactment, meaning any affected payment practices would need to be adjusted within that timeframe.

Impact

HB1053 would directly amend the Public Official Compensation Law by adding a new section limiting additional expense payments to legislators. It would bar per diem-style payments for individual days of service and require documentation for actual expense reimbursements, while leaving salary and benefits unchanged. The bill would also override inconsistent administrative rules and regulations, affecting how the General Assembly processes member expense payments.

Sentiment

Because no committee transcript or vote record is available, there is no documented debate or recorded support/opposition to gauge legislative sentiment. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a reform-oriented approach aimed at tightening expense controls and increasing transparency around legislative reimbursements.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely to be whether per diem payments are an appropriate and efficient way to compensate legislators for service-related costs, versus requiring itemized proof of actual expenses. Supporters would likely frame the bill as improving accountability and reducing abuse or perceived excess, while opponents may argue that per diem systems are simpler to administer and help cover routine costs without burdensome documentation. No specific lawmakers, committees, or stakeholder groups are identified in the available record.