Representative Walling asked unanimous consent to be recorded as voting "Aye" on the previous question. Granted.
Representative Matty asked unanimous consent to be recorded as voting "No" on the previous question. Granted.
Point of order:
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 592 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] took the point of order under advisement. [Intervening text omitted.]
[Note:] A.Amdt.1 to SB 592 proposed a uniform statewide bar opening time of 6 a.m. On the face of it, that introduced a new issue into the multi-issue bill.
The drafting record of A.Amdt.1 shows that it was to be "the same as engrossed AB 244" [relating to changing bar opening time to 6 a.m.] which had already been passed to the Senate. If A.Amdt.1 was intended to prevent a possible conflict requiring a future reconciliation, then a generous construction of the germaneness rule might hold the amendment germane since one of the issues enumerated in the title of SB 592 was to make "technical and minor policy changes in regard to alcohol beverages".
On the other hand, it is one of the purposes of the veto review floorperiod [Jt.Rule 82 (1) (c)] to consider revisor's correction bills. If both AB 244 and SB 592 had been enacted into law (both 1983 bills failed), the revisor would have placed a proposed reconciliation into one of the correction bills.
Assembly Journal of April 5, 1984 .......... Page: 1165
The assembly reconvened. [7:30 p.m.] Speaker Loftus in the chair. [Intervening text omitted.]
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 592 was germane and the point of order not well taken.
Representative McEssy moved that assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 592 be laid on the table. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-33, noes-66.] Motion failed.
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 592 be adopted? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-78, noes-21.] Motion carried.
Assembly Journal of March 20, 1984 .......... Page: 979
Point of order:
454 Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 663 [relating to the individual and corporate surtaxes, the homestead credit, the
required general fund balance, reducing the bonding authority for highway projects, income tax exemptions, income and franchise tax deductions for intercorporate dividends and for insurers' loss carry-backs, property tax statements, the definition of the internal revenue code for purposes of the income, franchise, inheritance and minimum taxes, required health insurance coverage, income tax exemptions, utility taxes on telephone companies, decreasing the primary guaranteed valuation, providing penalties and making an appropriation] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
[Note:] Does any multi-issue bill set its own "special session" environment? In a special session, the Legislature is free to treat any of the issues raised by the Governor by doing nothing, but it cannot treat additional unrelated issues. For a multi-issue bill, this might mean that amendments to
delete the treatment of individual separable issues are germane, but that amendments to ingraft additional unrelated issues are not germane.
The legislative rules on germaneness of amendments derive from long-term experience with single issue bills. They really do not address the special germaneness questions raised by multi-issue bills. It is likely that multi-issue bills to adjust the state's budget and revenues will be introduced for many sessions to come.
The biennial budget bill, though a multi-issue bill, holds a special status under law and legislative rule (shared, until 1981, by the biennial "budget review bill"), and germaneness rules have not been strictly applied.
The speaker [Loftus] took the point of order under advisement [see p. 983, below. Intervening text omitted.]
Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 663 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
The speaker took the point of order under advisement [see p. 982, below. Intervening text omitted.]
Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 663 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
The speaker ruled the point of order well taken. [Intervening text omitted.]
Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 5 to Senate Bill 663 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
The speaker ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 20, 1984 .......... Page: 980
[Intervening text omitted.]
Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 7 to Senate Bill 663 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
The speaker ruled the point of order well taken. [Intervening text omitted.]
Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 3 to Senate Bill 663 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
The speaker ruled the point of order well taken. [Intervening text omitted.]
Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 11 to Senate Bill 663 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
455 The speaker ruled the point of order well taken. [Intervening text omitted.]
Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 12 to Senate Bill 663 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
The speaker ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 20, 1984 .......... Page: 982
[Ruling on the point of order:]
The speaker ruled well taken the points of order on the germaneness of assembly amendments 2 and 14 [?] to Senate Bill 663.
Assembly Journal of March 20, 1984 .......... Page: 983
[Ruling on the point of order:]
The speaker ruled the point of order on assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 663 well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 20, 1984 .......... Page: 984
Point of order:
Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 24 to Senate Bill 663 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
The speaker ruled the point of order well taken.
Point of order:
Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 23 to Senate Bill 663 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 20, 1983 .......... Page: 481
Point of order:
Representative D. Travis rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 260 [relating to official identification cards, changing the legal drinking age, establishing a curfew and creating and changing penalties] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (1).
456 [Note:] It is generally held that an amendment "limiting the scope of the proposal" is germane [see A.Rule 54 (4) (c)], but it is also true that an amendment is not germane if it "would totally alter the nature of the proposal" [A.Rule 54 (1)]. The scope and nature of a proposal must determine which rule governs in the specific case. Assembly Bill 260 of 1983 was not only a bill to change the legal drinking age, but also a bill dealing with identification card violations and with an early morning driving curfew for persons under 18 years of age.
If the several subjects are so closely related to the drinking age question that the inclusion of other similar subjects or the deletion of any of the existing subjects - other than the nucleus subject of raising the drinking age - will not totally alter the nature of the proposal, then amendments to include [A.Rule 54 (4) (e)] or delete [A.Rule 54 (4) (c)] such subjects will be germane.
On the other hand, if the peripheral subjects are only vaguely related to the core subject of raising the drinking age, then any amendment to delete one of those subjects might "totally alter the nature of the proposal" [A.Rule 54 (1)] and therefore be not germane.
The chair [Speaker Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken.
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.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken. [Intervening text omitted.]
Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 6 to senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 83 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (a) and (f).
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 8 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 29, 1984 .......... Page: 809
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 2 [to Senate Bill 663, known as the "budget surplus adjustment bill"] offered by Senators Chilsen, Hanaway, Theno, Lorman, Davis, Harsdorf and Engeleiter.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 2?
Senator Cullen raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 2 was not germane.
[Note:] Although the bill itself changed the state homestead tax credit formula, it did not change the definition of "income" which is used as one part of that formula.
S.Amdt.2 attempted to exclude the first $15,000 of farmland depreciation from that "income" definition.
S.Amdt.7 (below) attempted the same change for the first $20,000.
457 The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator Chilsen appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was: Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the senate? The ayes and noes were required and the vote was [roll call vote omitted; ayes-18, noes-14]. So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
Senate Journal of March 29, 1984 .......... Page: 810
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 5 to assembly substitute amendment 2 offered by Senator Harsdorf.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 5 to assembly substitute amendment 2?
Senator Cullen raised the point of order that senate amendment 5 to assembly substitute amendment 2 was not germane.
[Note:] Although 1983 SB 663 addressed a large number of issues, each was narrowly drafted and specifically reflected in the proposal's title.
S.Amdt.5 (changing the dates of property tax relief payments) and S.Amdt.4 (below; increasing the state property tax credit payment) each attempted to add new issues to the proposal.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator Harsdorf appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was: Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the senate? The ayes and
noes were required and the vote was [roll call vote omitted; ayes-21, noes-9]. So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Senate Bill 663?
[Point of order:]
Senator Cullen raised the point of order that senate amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 2 was not germane.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator Harsdorf appealed the ruling of the chair. The ayes and noes were required and the vote was [roll call vote omitted; ayes-18, noes-13]. So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 7 to assembly substitute amendment 2 offered by Senators Chilsen and Lorge.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 7 to assembly substitute amendment 2?
Senator Cullen raised the point of order that senate amendment 7 to assembly substitute amendment 2 was not germane.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator Chilsen appealed the ruling of the chair. Senator Chilsen asked unanimous consent that the ruling of the chair be written and printed in the senate journal. Senator Cullen objected.
458 The question was: Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the senate? The ayes and noes were required and the vote was [roll call vote omitted; ayes-18, noes-13]. So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
Senate Journal of March 13, 1984 .......... Page: 706
[Point of order:]
