Assembly Journal of March 17, 1992 .......... Page: 983
Point of order:
Representative Deininger rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 44 to Senate Bill 281 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (e).
Representative Welch rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 44 to Senate Bill 281 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c).
The chair ruled the point of order raised by Representative Deininger not well taken.
The chair ruled the point of order raised by Representative Welch well taken because assembly amendment 44 is substantially similar to assembly amendment 2 that was previously adopted.
Point of order:
Representative Gruszynski rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 45 to Senate Bill 281 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:
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.
Senate Journal of March 26, 1992 .......... Page: 827
[Point of order:]
Senator Feingold raised the point of order that Senate substitute amendment 2 [to Assembly Bill 180, relating to requiring consent for an unemancipated minor's abortion, informed consent of a woman to her own abortion, granting rule-making authority and providing a penalty] is not germane.
[Note:] Following a long session in which the senate adopted S.Amdts 21 and 22 and S.Amdt-27 (as aff. by 4 amendments thereto) to 1991 AB 180 as received from the assembly, S.Sub.Amdt-2 was offered containing only the wording received from the assembly.
Under S.Rule 50 (5), an amendment [or substitute?] "restoring a proposal to its original form" is germane.
The point of order may have been raised because the relating clause of S.Sub.Amdt-2 differed from the original bill. It was, however, worded exactly the same as the relating clause shown on the printed engrossed bill.
The Chair [President Risser] ruled the point not well taken.
1 9 8 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 17, 1988 .......... Page: 912
Point of order:
Representative M. Coggs rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 110 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 850 [relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the 1988 annual budget bill, and making appropriations] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (e) [negating effect of earlier amendment].
[Note:] An amendment limited to negating the effect of an earlier adopted amendment is improper because the same effect could be achieved by reconsidering the adoption of the earlier amendment.
A.Amdt.110 did not "negate"; rather it "modified" by adding a further qualification to text created in an earlier amendment.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 16, 1985 .......... Page: 462
Point of order:
358 Representative Ladwig rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 3 to assembly amendment 4 [to Senate Bill 120, relating to campaign financing, providing a penalty and making an appropriation] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
[Note:] The issue was A.Rule 54 (3)(e), declaring "not germane" any amendment "which negates the effect of another assembly amendment previously adopted".
In this case, A.Amdt.4 to SB 120 restricted individual contributions, permitted nationwide, to residents of Wisconsin. A.Amdt.2 to that amendment relaxed the proposed restriction somewhat by permitting individual contributions from residents of this state and residents of states contiguous to Wisconsin.
A.Amdt.3 to A.Amdt.4 removed the entire restriction, retaining the status quo. This was not negation (limited to the effect of A.Amdt.2) but, rather, a decision that the proposed wording, though improved by the adoption of A.Amdt.2, was not as desirable as the text already law.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 16, 1985 .......... Page: 450
Point of order:
Representative Clarenbach rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 8 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Joint Resolution 45 [relating to excepting pari-mutuel betting on horse racing from the prohibition against legislative authorization of lotteries (first consideration)] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (e) because it negated the effect of assembly amendment 2 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Joint Resolution 45.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken.
[Note:] A.Amdt.2 had removed from the proposal the requirement that the state's share of the proceeds of pari-mutuel betting be used "for property tax relief" as provided by law. A.Amdt.8 specified one form of property tax relief, "for property tax credits".
While a motion to table A.Amdt.8 was pending, a 2nd point of order on the amendment was not timely.
Representative Clarenbach moved that assembly amendment 8 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Joint Resolution 45 be laid on the table.
Representative R. Travis rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 8 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Joint Resolution 45 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3)(f) [expansion of scope].
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not timely.
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 31, 1982 .......... Page: 3166
Point of order:
359 Representative Tuczynski rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 5 to assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 700 [relating to authorizing banks to establish
branches under certain circumstances and to acquire real estate used for remote paying and receiving facilities] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (e) [negating effect of earlier amendment].
[Note:] A.Amdt.2 made special provision for a 10-block area in Milwaukee between 2nd and 4th street, south of Wright street (2500 north) and north of Brown street (2000 north). AA-4 to AA-2, a floor amendment which was
adopted, had changed the southern boundary to Becher street (2100 south, 41 blocks south of Brown street).
AA-5 to AA-2, by proposing to move the southern line from Brown street to Walnut street (1700 north), did not negate the earlier amendment but, rather, reduced the difference.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach] ruled the point of order not well taken. [Both AA-5 to AA-2, and A.Amdt.2, were subsequently rejected.]
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 21, 1980 .......... Page: 2329
Point of order:
Representative Wagner rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 5 to Assembly Bill 367 [relating to increasing marriage license application and related fees] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (e) because it negates the effect of assembly amendment 4.
[Note:] The bill proposed to increase the fee for a marriage license from $4.50 to $9.50 without changing the state share ($1.50 per license). A.Amdt.4, which was adopted, authorized each county to set its own fee subject to a $9.50 maximum and the $1.50 state share.
Since it accepted marriage license fees set by county boards, A.Amdt 5 did not negate AA-4. A.Amdt.5 dealt only with the detail of county board fee setting (eliminate $9.50 maximum, $1.50 state share).
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 25, 1979 .......... Page: 1599
Point of order:
Representative Rutkowski rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 3 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 792 [relating to rights of witnesses and secrecy at grand juries] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (2) (e) because it negated the effect of assembly amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 792.
360 [Note:] As introduced, 1979 AB 792 allowed any witness in grand jury proceedings to have counsel present, and allowed the counsel to "examine his or
her client, and call and cross-examine other witnesses." A.Sub.1, by the committee on judiciary, retained the witness right to have counsel present, but said nothing about any counsel right to examine or cross-examine.
A.Amdt.1, which was adopted (A.Jour. p. 1590), prohibited witness counsel examination or cross-examination; the attempt to remove that prohibition by AA- to AA-1 had failed 47 to 50. A.Amdt.3 proposed to remove the prohibition inserted by A.Amdt.1, and to substitute a counsel right to "examine his or her client" coupled with a prohibition of counsel cross-examining other witnesses or arguing before the grand jury.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 7 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 7, 1978 .......... Page: 3393
Point of order:
Representative Schneider rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 321 was not germane under Assembly Rule 50 (3) (e) and (f) because it negated the effect of senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 321 and expanded the scope of the bill by adding the word "severely". The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of March 8, 1978 .......... Page: 3450
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Schneider on Tuesday, March 7 that assembly amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 321 was not germane. The complete text of the speaker's ruling will be printed at a later date.
Assembly Journal of March 28, 1978 .......... Page: 4046
Point of Order Relating to Senate Amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 321
On March 7, 1978 the Representative from the 93rd Assembly District, Representative Schneider, raised the point of order that, under Assembly Rule 50, Assembly Amendment 1 to Senate Amendment 1 to 1977 Assembly Bill 321 is not germane and, thus, is not properly before the Assembly. In support of this point of order Representative Schneider pointed out that:
(1) under Assembly Rule 50 (3) (e) "an amendment which negates the effect of another amendment previously adopted" is not germane; and (2) under Assembly Rule 50 (3) (f) "an amendment which substantially expands the scope of the proposal" is also not germane. The Chair took the point of order under advisement.
Background
361 Assembly Bill 321 would prohibit the expenditure of state and local government funds on abortions except for: (1) those abortions which are medically determined to be needed either to save the lives of the women involved or to protect them from grave physiological injuries; and (2) those abortions performed to terminate pregnancies caused by rape or incest. Senate Amendment 1 eliminates the "grave physiological injury" exception to this general funding prohibition. Assembly Amendment 1 to Senate Amendment 1, on the other hand, would amend the Senate Amendment to create a new exception for abortions performed to prevent "severe physiological injury." (Emphasis added.) Assembly Rule 50
entitled "Germaneness of Amendments" is the principal rule governing the admissability of amendments in this house. Because the rule contains a good deal of broad, general and even somewhat conflicting language, the Chair is repeatedly called upon to interpret the rule's application to specific amendments. In determining the meaning of any rule, the Chair has attempted to favor the simplest construction consistent with the language of the rule and its apparent intent, the language and intent of other related rules, the general status and purposes of the body of rules of which the rule under question is a part, and the general powers and responsibilities which have been given to this house. The case in point is no exception.
Findings
As Assembly Rule 94 points out, the Wisconsin Constitution grants to each house of the Legislature the power to establish its own rules of procedure. It follows, then, that assembly rules can only, and are intended to only, govern the proceedings of this house. Applying this principle to Assembly Rule 50, it further follows that this rule is intended to govern only the admissability of Assembly amendments to proposals under consideration in the Assembly. This conclusion about the scope of the rule's applicability is also suggested by language found in the rule itself. Section (2) of the rule states that questions of germaneness raised under this rule "shall apply only to amendments originating in the Assembly ...."
Assembly Rule 50 (3) (e) provides that an amendment is not germane if it "negates the effect of another amendment previously adopted." Since Assembly Rule 50 as a whole is intended to govern only Assembly consideration of Assembly amendments, it seems reasonable to assume that where the rule refers to actions taken on amendments (such as "adoption") it likewise is intended to refer only to Assembly actions on such amendments. To construe this provision of the rule more broadly to prohibit the consideration of any Assembly amendment which would negate the effect of a previously adopted Senate amendment to the same proposal would be to interpret this rule in a way which could significantly restrict the ability of this house to disagree with Senate actions. The Chair can think of no plausible reason for so restricting the Assembly's authority and, for this reason, concludes that no such effect was ever intended. Instead of such a broad, far-reaching construction, the Chair believes the underlying intent of this portion of Assembly Rule 50 is much simpler and the same as that cited in previous rulings on Assembly Rule 50 (3) (c): to prevent the repeated consideration of amendments to a particular proposal which deal with the same issue, once the Assembly has made a conscious decision concerning the issue.
Accordingly, the Chair finds that Assembly Rule 50 (3) (e) is a prohibition only against the consideration of any Assembly amendment which would negate the effect of another previously adopted Assembly amendment to the same proposal. Since the first argument raised by the Representative of the 93rd District is that the Assembly amendment would negate the effect of a Senate amendment, and since there is no Assembly amendment that would be negated, the Chair further finds that this argument in support of the point of order is not well taken.
362 The second argument made by the Representative from the 93rd District is that Assembly Amendment 1 to Senate Amendment 1 would significantly expand the scope of the proposal and, thus, is not germane under Assembly Rule 50 (3) (f). According to Assembly Rule 97 (61), the term "proposal" is a general term which refers to any proposition put before the Assembly for a determination. Since the only matter concerning Assembly Bill 321 which is presently before this house for a determination is Senate Amendment 1, in the opinion of the Chair, it is this amendment, not the bill itself, which
must be viewed as the "proposal" contemplated by Assembly Rule 50. The question to be resolved, then, is whether or not Assembly Amendment 1 expands the scope of Senate Amendment 1. Because the Assembly and Senate Amendments clearly deal with the same subject matter, the Chair finds that the Assembly amendment does not expand the scope of the proposal before this house.
While not pointed out by the Representative from the 93rd, Rule 50 also prohibits the Assembly from considering any Assembly amendment "which is intended to accomplish a different purpose than that of the proposal to which it relates ...." The purpose of the proposal before us (Senate Amendment 1) is to delete certain language from Assembly Bill 321. The purpose of Assembly Amendment 1 to Senate Amendment 1 is to insert language in that proposal which is very similar to the language it would otherwise delete from the Assembly Bill. Consequently, in the opinion of the Chair, the intent of the Assembly amendment is to accomplish a purpose considerably different from the purpose of the proposal to which it relates. For this reason, albeit somewhat different than either of the arguments raised by the Representative of the 93rd District, the Chair rules well taken the point of order that Assembly Amendment 1 to Senate Amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 321 is not germane.
Abstract
Assembly Rule 50 (Germaneness of Amendments) applies only to Assembly amendments to proposals before the Assembly; A.R. 50 (3) (e) only prohibits an Assembly amendment which negates the effect of a previously adopted Assembly amendment to the same proposal; in the case of an Assembly Bill amended and returned by the Senate, "proposal" in Assembly Rule 50 means the Senate amendment or amendments.
Assembly Journal of February 15, 1978 .......... Page: 3066
Point of order:
Representative Kirby rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 528 [relating to various regulations affecting loans made by certain licensees and oral requests for information under the uniform commercial code] was not germane under Assembly Rule 50. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of February 28, 1978 .......... Page: 3310
The speaker made the following ruling:
On February 15, 1978 the Representative of the 13th Assembly District, Representative Kirby, raised the point of order that Assembly amendment 1 to 1977 Senate Bill 528, offered by the Representative from the 9th Assembly
District, was not germane under Assembly Rule 50 (3) (e). The chair took the point of order under advisement.
During the debate preceding the point of order, the Representative from the 9th district requested that consideration of the bill be delayed until an engrossed text of the bill incorporating senate amendment 2 was printed. In the time since the point of order was raised, an engrossed text has been printed and distributed, and the amendment offered by the Representative from the 9th district has been rewritten by the Legislative Reference Bureau to apply to the engrossed text. Both of these documents should now be in the members' folders.
363 The difference between the text of assembly amendment 1 as originally offered and as it presently reads now that an engrossed text of the bill is available is helpful in understanding why the point of order was raised. When assembly amendment 1 was
initially offered it read: "On page 5, line 15, insert the material deleted by senate amendment 2." In its present form the amendment refers to the printed engrossed bill and now reads: "On page 5, line 14, delete 'applies' and substitute 'and chs. 421 to 427 apply'." In its original form then assembly amendment 1 appears at first blush that it might be in violation of Assembly Rule 50 (3) (e) which provides that an amendment is not germane if it "negates the effect of another amendment previously adopted." In its revised form, however, although it would have precisely the same substantive effect, no such violation is suggested.
Regardless of the original form of this amendment, however, Assembly Rule 50 is a rule of this house and as such is intended to apply only to actions taken by this house. Accordingly, the prohibition contained in Rule 50 (3) (e) applies only to an amendment which would negate an amendment previously adopted by the Assembly. An assembly amendment which does nothing other than restore the text of a Senate Bill to the wording which that bill had when introduced in the Senate or, in the case of an Assembly Bill amended by the Senate and returned to the Assembly, restores the text of an Assembly Bill to the wording or effect which the bill had when passed by the Assembly, must be held to be germane. For this reason, the point of order raised by the Representative from the 13th district is ruled not well taken.
Summary: Assembly Rule 50 (3) (e) prohibiting amendments which negate the effect of an amendment previously adopted applies only to amendments previously adopted by the Asssembly; an Assembly amendment which restores the text of an Assembly Bill amended and returned by the Senate to the wording or effect which that bill had when passed by the Assembly is germane.
Assembly Journal of June 22, 1977 .......... Page: 1528
