Representative Willkom asked unanimous consent that Assembly Bill 213 [relating to agricultural commodity producers' payments to growers, granting rule-making authority and providing a penalty] be referred to joint committee on Finance. Granted.
Representative Willkom asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 213 be withdrawn from the joint committee on Finance and taken up at this time. Representative Gower objected.
Representative Willkom moved that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 213 be withdrawn from the joint committee on Finance and taken up at this time.
150 Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the motion was not in order because Wisconsin Statutes 16.47 (2) and Joint Rule 24 (2) and Joint Rule 24 (11) precluded withdrawing the bill from the joint committee on Finance and passing it at this time without an emergency statement.
[Note:] In 1975, Joint Rule 24 (11) had the wording shown below. The fiscal estimate procedure was revised in 1977; see Joint Rule 41 (3) (a).
"(11) Whenever an amendment or substitute amendment so affects a proposal that the original fiscal note ceases to be valid, the joint committee on finance may, on the basis of additional information, attach to the report on such proposal a statement of the fiscal effect of the proposal as amended, and such statement shall be spread on the journal with the report."
The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order not well taken because assembly amendment 2 with its adoption became part of the bill as defined in Wisconsin Statutes 16.47 (2) and because Joint Rule 24 (11) was permissive not mandatory.
Fiscal estimate: revised general fund summary for "major fiscal bill"
1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 20, 1984 .......... Page: 973
Point of order:
Representative Prosser rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 1, February 1984 Special Session [relating to the rates of the individual and corporate surtaxes] was not properly before the assembly because it did not contain a proper general fund summary [as required by s. 20.004 (1) for any "major fiscal bill"].
Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1, February 1984 Special Session offered by Representatives Loftus, Johnson and Munts.
The question was: Shall assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1, February 1984 Special Session be adopted? Motion carried.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order raised by Representative Prosser moot because of the adoption of assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1, February 1984 Special Session [which contained the required general fund summary].
Germaneness: amendment to amendment (germane to amendment and proposal)
1 9 9 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 24, 1994 .......... Page: 928
Point of order:
151 Representative Black rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 498 [relating to nonmetallic mining reclamation, granting rule-making authority and providing a penalty] was not germane under Assembly Rules 54 (3) (f) and 54 (5).
[Note:] An amendment to an amendment must be germane to both the amendment and the original proposal - see A.Rule 54 (5) and Sen.Rule 50 (4). But, an amendment in the bill's house of origin cannot change an amendment from the 2nd house so as to make changes in the text originally agreed to by the house of origin.
AB 498, as passed by the assembly, contained a provision (beginning on page 15, line 24) authorizing land owners to register parcels containing nonmetallic mineral deposits with the county or counties in which each parcel is located. Sen.Amdt-1 prefaced that provision with a June 1, 1994 effective date.
A.Amdt-1 to S.Amdt-1 deleted the effective date inserted by the senate and substituted a new authorization for the governing board of the county, city, village or town in which the parcel is located to object to the registration of the nonmetallic mineral deposit.
A.Amdt-2 to S.Amdt-1 (below) deleted the effective date inserted by the senate and attempted to substitute a complete deletion of the county-registration provision from the assembly-passed bill.
The chair (Speaker pro tempore Carpenter) ruled the point of order well taken.
Point of order:
Representative Black rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 2 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 498 was not germane under Assembly Rules 54 (3) (f) and 54 (5).
The chair (Speaker pro tempore Carpenter) ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 23, 1994 .......... Page: 892
Point of order:
Representative Roberts rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 796 [relating to the uniform commercial code statewide lien system and making appropriations] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
The chair took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] As passed by the assembly and amended by the senate, the scope of the bill was limited to an appropriation under chapter 20 of the statutes and uniform commercial code provisions under chapter 409 of the statutes
A.Amdt-1 to Sen.Amdt-1 dealt with mortgage foreclosure judgments and agricultural property. That issue had not been raised in the assembly version of the bill, and was not raised by Sen.Amdt-1 which was limited to an appropriation statute.
An amendment to an amendment must be germane to both the amendment and the original proposal - see A.Rule 54 (5) and Sen.Rule 50 (4).
The chair (Speaker pro tempore Carpenter) ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Roberts that assembly amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 796 was not germane.
Assembly Journal of May 18, 1993 .......... Page: 170
Point of order:
Representative Deininger rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 2 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 324 [relating to a grant for training employes of a business that is closing and making an appropriation] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
[Note:] The bill was narrowly drafted to provide retraining money for the employes of the Ringier printing plant in Waukesha county that was about to
close. It appears that other plants, including OMC Trade Winds of Manawa, may have had similar needs because of large lay-offs.
Both houses had already agreed on the concepts of the bill, with the only outstanding issue being the amount of the retraining grant, raised from $250,000 to $1 million by Senate Amendment 1.
Assembly Amendment 2 to Senate Amendment 1 was an attempt to reach, by amending the senate amendment, into the bill itself and open the program to statewide application. The amendment clearly was a substantial expansion not only of the content of Senate Amendment 1, but also of the bill itself.
The request to withdraw the point of order, followed by the tabling of assembly amendment 2 to senate amendment 1, helped to avoid a protracted debate on the merits of an expanded program [A.Amdt-2 was tabled].
Representative Kunicki asked unanimous consent that the point of order be withdrawn. Granted.
1 9 9 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 10, 1992 .......... Page: 931
Point of order:
Representative Fortis rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 388 [relating to limits on wrongful death actions for loss of society and companionship] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (e) and (g).
Representative Krug rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 388 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c).
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Krug under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c) because assembly amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 388 was not substantially similar to a previously adopted assembly amendment.
The chair ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Fortis under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (g) because it is appropriate to consider an assembly amendment to a senate amendment to an Assembly Bill already passed by the assembly.
153 The chair ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Fortis under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (e), because, had the assembly not considered an amendment when Assembly Bill 388 was originally in the assembly to limit the awards of wrongful death actions, an assembly amendment modifying the senate action would be in order. However, because the assembly previously took a position on limitations, the assembly must either accept the senate amendment to modify the assembly position, or adhere to the assembly position and nonconcur in the senate amendment.
[Note:] The reference to A.Rule 54 (3) (g) was inappropriate. That rule, speaking to bills for which amendments are prohibited by law, may be obsolete. Amendments to amendments are covered by A.Rule 52 (2).
When the assembly amended 1991 AB 388 before passage, A.Amdt-2, which raised the wrongful death award ceiling from $50,000 to $100,000, was ruled a nongermane expansion of the proposal because it included under the new ceiling the amount of any medical malpractice award. The assembly then adopted A.Amdt-1 (as aff. by Am-1 to Am-1), raising the ceiling on wrongful death awards from $50,000 to $250,000.
The ruling had removed A.Amdt-2 from consideration and vote by the assembly. Consequently, although the new A.Amdt-1 to S.Amdt-1 had some of the same ingredients as the earlier A.Amdt-2, it was not an amendment substantially similar to an amendment "already acted upon" by the assembly [nongermane under A.Rule 54 (3) (c)].
In adopting A.Amdt-1 to AB 388 as affected by Am-1 to A.Amdt-1, the assembly had rejected a $100,000 ceiling on wrongful death awards, and had passed a $250,000 ceiling. The senate, by S.Amdt-1 to AB 388, had lowered the proposed ceiling to $150,000.
Considering concurrence in S.Amdt-1, the assembly could: 1) adhere to its earlier position ($250,000, nonconcur in the senate amendment); 2) accept the senate position ($150,000, concur in the senate amendment); or 3) propose a compromise between the 2 positions by an amendment that would be germane not only to S.Amdt-1 but also to AB 388 as passed by the assembly [A.Rule 54 (5)].
Any assembly amendment for a dollar figure lower than the amount proposed by the senate and also lower than the amount earlier agreed to by the assembly negated the effect of the assembly's earlier action and was therefore nongermane under A.Rule 54 (3) (e). Both of the assembly amendments to S.Smdt-1 proposed to lower the ceiling to $100,000 (as indexed for inflation).
In addition, A.Amdt-1 to S.Amdt-1 again proposed to bring medical malpractice awards under the dollar ceiling for wrongful death awards, which was a nongermane expansion of the senate amendment under A.Rules 54 (3) (f) and (5).
Assembly Journal of March 10, 1992 .......... Page: 931
Point of order:
Representative Krug rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 2 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 388 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (e).
154 The chair ruled the point of order well taken for the same reasons stated in the previous ruling. The assembly already acted on a similar assembly amendment when the bill originally was before the assembly and [A.Amdt-2 to S.Amdt-1] is not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (e).
Assembly Journal of July 3, 1991 .......... Page: 379
Point of order:
Representative Welch rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 9 to Assembly Bill 485 [relating to providing that the Wisconsin housing and economic development authority may issue bonds and notes for loans to finance construction, renovation and development of property to be used primarily as a sports and entertainment home stadium; providing a property tax exemption and sales tax exemptions related to certain stadiums; the administrative costs of the county sales tax; and an income and franchise tax exemption] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
[Note:] 1991 AB 485 allowed WHEDA financing of a loan not exceeding $35 million for the purpose of building a new home stadium for the Milwaukee Brewers baseball team. To stimulate investment in sky boxes or private luxury boxes at the stadium, the bill excluded the cost of general admission tickets for box lease holders from the definition of "gross receipts" subject to the sales tax, even though admissions to athletic events are taxed.
A.Amdt-9 not only deleted the special exemption for box lease holders, but included the cost of the lease in the sale of admissions to athletic events subject to the general sales tax. That change in policy was held to not constitute a substantial expansion of the scope of the proposal.
On the other hand, when A.Amdt-1 to A.Amdt-11 proposed to change the name of the minor league Beloit Brewers to the south central Wisconsin Brewers in addition to the change, required by A.Amdt-11, from Milwaukee to Wisconsin Brewers in exchange for the state's financial aid with the stadium, the Beloit change was ruled a substantial expansion of the scope of A.Amdt-11.
Assembly Journal of July 3, 1991 .......... Page: 380
Point of order:
Representative Robson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to assembly amendment 11 to Assembly Bill 485 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of June 26, 1991 .......... Page: 336
Point of order:
155 Representative Prosser rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to assembly amendment 49 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 91 [relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the executive budget act of the
1991 legislature, and making appropriations] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (e) and (f).
[Note:] A.Amdt-49 was the compiled "tax package" amendment to the budget, offered by the Republican caucus. Assembly Am-1 to A.Amdt-49, offered by Speaker Kunicki, proposed to delete from A.Amdt-49 items 76 to 88 and 90 to 92 decreasing certain appropriations to the UW-system and, in item 89, funding a "tobacco intervention and research institute" at the university.
Under A.Rule 54 (3) (e), an amendment is not germane if it "negates the effect of another assembly amendment previously adopted". Under A.Rule 54 (3) (f), an amendment is not germane if it "substantially expands the scope of the proposal". While A.Amdt-49 was in the amendable stage, Am-1 to A.Amdt-49 did not negate but, rather, modified the effect of A.Amdt-49 by deleting certain items.
Removing a proposed appropriation decrease from an amendment does not expand the scope of the proposal but, rather, restores the appropriation to the amount offered in the proposal.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 9 1 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of February 27, 1992 .......... Page: 685
[Point of order:]
Senator Farrow raised the point of order that Senate amendment 1 to Senate amendment 7 to Senate substitute amendment 1 [to Assembly Bill 655, relating to establishing a group health insurance plan for employes of small employers, creating a board to oversee the plan, creating a fund for catastrophic claims and a catastrophic claims fund board, creating an individual income tax deduction for certain medical care insurance costs paid by certain self-employed persons, granting rule-making authority and making an appropriation] was not germane.
The Chair [President Risser] ruled the point well taken.
156 [Note:] As received by the senate in the form of A.Sub.Amdt-2, 1991 AB 655 contained provisions, also contained in the original bill, to create an individual income tax deduction for certain medical care costs. The provisions were not contained in S.Sub.Amdt-1 offered by the Special Select Committee on Health Care Access and Affordability.
S.Amdt-7 to S.Sub.Amdt-1 attempted to insert the income tax deduction into the substitute amendment. Although perhaps offered as "an amendment restoring a proposal to its original form" [germane under S.Rule 50 (5)], S.Amdt-7 was in reality a nongermane expansion of the scope of S.Sub.Amdt-1.
Senate Am-1 to S.Amdt-7 dealt with an entirely different subject: reducing the capital gains tax on assets held more than 3 years. It may have been offered in the mistaken assumption that an amendment to an amendment would be germane, regardless of its content, as long as it affects only the statute section, subsection and paragraph affected by the original amendment.
[Point of order:]
Senator Barrett raised the point of order that Senate amendment 7 to Senate substitute amendment 1 [to Assembly Bill 655] is not germane.
The Chair ruled the point well taken.
1 9 8 7 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of May 28, 1987 .......... Page: 207
[Point of order:]
Senator Te Winkle raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 2 [to Senate Bill 166, relating to establishing a speed limit of 65 miles per hour for rural interstate highways] was not germane.
[Note:] A.Amdt.2 to SB 166 added to the bill's 65 mph speed limit a night-time speed limit of 55 mph.
S.Amdt.1 to A.Amdt.2 proposed a day-and-night speed limit of 55 mph for trucks over 10,000 lbs. Although that proposition might have been a germane amendment to the original bill (because it reduced the range of vehicles permitted to operate at the new 65 mph limit) it was not a germane amendment to A.Amdt.2 which only dealt with night-time hours.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of June 28, 1985 .......... Page: 279
Point of order:
Representative Medinger rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 21 to senate amendment 137 to Assembly Bill 85 [relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the executive budget bill of the 1985 legislature, and making appropriations] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
[Note:] The amendment attempted to reach through the senate's superamendment to the engrossed assembly bill, to preserve a limited state income tax exclusion for retirement benefits of ex-federal employes.
Under A.Rule 54 (5), an amendment to an amendment must be germane to the amendment as well as to the original proposal. Even though the issue was covered in the engrossed assembly bill, the amendment was not germane because the issue had not been touched in the senate superamendment.
157 The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of June 23, 1983 .......... Page: 286
Point of order:
Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 5 to senate amendment 1 [compiled amendment, 122 items] to assembly amendment 4 [compiled amendment, 486 items] to Senate Bill 83 [relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the executive budget bill of the 1983 legislature, and making appropriations] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (a) and (f).
[Note:] A.Amdt.5 did not propose to amend any of the issues covered by SA-1 to AA-4 to SB 83; rather, its first item attempted to reach the bill itself, and its 2nd item attempted to add a 6/30/85 sunset for any permanent tax increases contained in AA-4.
Similarly, A.Amdt.6 to SA-1 to AA-4 to SB 83 only attempted to reach the bill itself.
