Greenwood said he had agreed to withhold the introduction of the resolution until the Rules Committee voted.
Under the proposal by House Majority Leader James J. Manderino (D., Westmoreland), which was unanimously approved by the committee on a voice vote, House rules would be changed to conform with those of the Senate, which since 1978 has given the public access to receipts and contracts as well as summaries of expenses.
The House, on the other hand, has rejected requests from various news organizations for the supporting documentation, although the summaries are available.
In an interview in December, Manderino said that the receipts would be used ''for derogatory purposes" by reporters and political opponents. So long as expense totals are available, Manderino said, it is pointless to criticize ''whether a man had steak or pot roast."
Manderino said yesterday that he still felt the information would be ''misused." But he said that Democratic and Republican representatives, meeting separately in caucus, "were in favor of the change."
Greenwood acknowledged during a news conference last week that the information might be used as Manderino predicted. But, he said, that was a price that should be paid in exchange for full accounting of how taxpayers'
dollars are spent.
"This secrecy cannot be defended and must not continue," Greenwood said at the time.
Yesterday, after the Rules Committee vote, Greenwood said that the two-hour Republican caucus had been heated, with some members opposed to the change. The GOP and Democratic leaders finally decided to approve the changes, he said, because "they did not want a floor fight."
Manderino indicated that the decision was made partly in response to news accounts of the rules battle and to editorials criticizing the House for its less-than-full disclosure.
"We have been subject to various press reports," he said, that contend that "the Senate reporting is much preferable and more liberal." Later, Manderino told reporters that the House rules would be changed to resemble those of the Senate in the areas "you seem to be praising."
The organization that represents reporters covering the state capital had retained an attorney to investigate whether the House was violating state law by withholding some of the expense-account information. No lawsuit had been filed.