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
Point of order:
Representative Ferrall rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 5 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 240 was not germane under Assembly Rule 50 (3) (e) because it negates the effect of assembly amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 240.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken.
Germaneness: particularized detail (addition permitted)
1 9 9 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 10, 1994 .......... Page: 767
Point of order:
Representative Prosser rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1241 [relating to assisting beginning farmers and the financing of property tax deferral loans by the Wisconsin housing and economic development authority] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
364 [Note:] A.Amdt-1 was ruled germane. It proposed to transfer the administration of the property tax deferral loan program from WHEDA to DOA. Originally, the program had been in DOR; in 1991 it was transferred from DOR to DOA and in 1993 from DOA to WHEDA. It is likely that the administration of the program was considered a question of administrative detail, and such questions are usually held germane as part of the "particularized details" permitted under A.Rule 54 (4) (e).
The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of March 10, 1994 .......... Page: 769
Ruling of the chair:
The speaker ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Prosser that assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1241 was not germane.
Assembly Journal of October 26, 1993 .......... Page: 453
Point of order:
Representative Underheim rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 3 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 21 [relating to eligibility for academic excellence higher education scholarships] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
The chair took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] Assembly substitute amendment 3 increased the number of academic excellence scholarships to be awarded by a large high school (more than 2,500 pupils) and contained detailed tie breaker provisions for the single scholarship to be awarded by a small high school (less than 80 pupils).
Assembly amendment 3 to A.Sub.Amdt-3 appeared to introduce a new concept: any person from a small high school appointed to attend a military academy during the next academic year was to forfeit the state's academic excellence scholarship to the pupil having the next highest academic standing in that school.
However, an existing provision of the academic excellence scholarship law limited the use of that scholarship to attendance at an institution of the U.W. system or a VTAE campus, so that the amendment could be considered dealing only with "particularized detail" [germane under A.Rule 54 (4) (e)].
Assembly Journal of October 26, 1993 .......... Page: 454
Ruling of the chair:
The chair (Speaker pro tempore Carpenter) ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Underheim that assembly amendment 3 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 21 was not germane.
1 9 9 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 21, 1994 .......... Page: 876
[Point of order:]
365 Senator George raised the point of order that the amendment [Senate amendment 2 to Senate Bill 750, relating to waiver of juvenile court jurisdiction, jurisdiction over and
disclosure of the identify of a child who is accused of causing death or great bodily harm by committing certain offenses, jurisdiction over a child who is accused of violating a state criminal law after the juvenile court has waived its jurisdiction over the child for a previous violation, victim attendance at waiver hearings, adult court access to juvenile court records and providing a penalty] was not germane.
[Note:] 1993 WisAct 98 had made extensive changes in the juvenile justice system in relation to gangs and drug crimes. In SB 750 as introduced, eight of the bill's 23 sections already made changes in statutes affected by 1993 WisAct 98.
Sen.Amdt-2 made changes in 2 other statutes affected by 1993 WisAct 98, so as to bring those statutes in agreement with the purposes of SB 750.
The Chair ruled the point not well taken.
Senate Journal of October 26, 1993 .......... Page: 526
[Point of order:]
Senator George raised the point of order that Senate amendment 6 to Senate Bill 200 [relating to general relief benefits, eligibility, procedures and reimbursements] is not germane.
[Note:] The bill placed about 2 dozen specific restrictions on general relief eligibility, based on particular circumstances.
Senate amendment 6 was another such restriction, resulting from the applicant's intentional false or misleading statements or misrepresentation.
The chair's ruling of germaneness was sustained by the senate 18 to 14, and the senate went on to adopt the amendment.
The Chair [President Rude] ruled the point not well taken.
Senate Journal of October 21, 1993 .......... Page: 496
[Point of order:]
Senator Plewa raised the point of order that Senate amendment 3 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 141 [relating to gangs, crimes, weapons, waiver of juvenile court jurisdiction, a disposition for a child who has committed a gang-related delinquent act, access by law enforcement agencies, school principals and school boards to court records relating to children who commit gang-related delinquent acts and making appropriations] is not germane.
366 [Note:] Senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 141, in an effort to combat gang violence, already contained "sanctions for a child who has had contact with a gang member in violation of a juvenile court order", and doubled, for crimes committed by juveniles "at the request of or for the benefit of a criminal gang" all applicable fines.
Senate amendment 3 to senate substitute amendment 1 added to the proposal "establishing a juvenile boot camp program for delinquent children". Apparently this was considered "an amendment adding new statutory material on the same subject and with the same purpose"; considered germane under S. Rule 50 (5). Immediately after the ruling, the amendment was tabled by the senate.
Senate amendment 7 to senate substitute amendment 1 generally outlawed "armor piercing ammunition" without any special reference to crimes committed by juveniles. This was an amendment relating to a "different specific subject" from the bill and substitute amendment, and was not germane under S.Rule 50 (7).
The Chair [Senator Lasee] ruled the point not well taken.
Senate Journal of October 21, 1993 .......... Page: 497
[Point of order:]
Senator Lasee raised the point of order that Senate amendment 7 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 141 was not germane.
The Chair [President Rude] ruled the point well taken.
1 9 9 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 26, 1992 .......... Page: 1084
Point of order:
Representative Rutkowski rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 308 [relating to the alcohol concentration of vehicle operators] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (a) and (f).
[Note:] A.Amdt-2 was limited to increasing, from 5 years to 10 years, the period for consideration of prior violations by persons accused of certain motor vehicle violations modified in the engrossed bill received from the senate.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 3, 1992 .......... Page: 901
Point of order:
Representative Seery rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 977 [relating to suspension of aid to families with dependent children payments because of certain acts] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f). The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of March 4, 1992 .......... Page: 914
Ruling of the chair:
The speaker [Speaker Kunicki] ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Seery on Tuesday, March 3 that assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 977 was not germane.
367 [Note:] As introduced, 1991 AB 977 provided that only a court could decide to suspend an individual's eligibility for AFDC because the individual misrepresented or withheld certain information.
A.Amdt-1 expanded the scope of the proposal by adding that the decision to suspend could also be based on an administrative hearing.
A.Amdt-2 clarified the intent of the proposal so that, except in case of extreme hardship as determined by the general relief agency, the individual whose AFDC eligibility was suspended by the court would also be ineligible for general relief during the suspension.
A.Sub.Amdt-1 combined the original bill with A.Amdt-2, but also included the administrative hearing proposed by A.Amdt-1.
Assembly Journal of March 3, 1992 .......... Page: 901
Point of order:
