Chair further finds that this argument in support of the point of order is not well taken.
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.
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.
1 9 7 7 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of September 20, 1977 .......... Page: 1188
[Point of order:]
Senator Peloquin raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 [to Senate Bill 4, relating to allowing coupons to be redeemed by other manufacturers] was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of September 27, 1977 .......... Page: 1245
On Tuesday, September 20, 1977, Senator Peloquin raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 4 was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate rule 50 (1) specifically states that "...any substitute or amendment which .... is intended to accomplish a different purpose .... or would totally alter the nature of the original proposal..." is nongermane.
The main purpose of Senate Bill 4 is to allow "cross-couponing" between manufacturers, that is, it would allow coupons issued with merchandise packed by one manufacturer to be redeemed by another manufacturer.
The purpose of senate substitute amendment 1, on the other hand, is to allow coupons, trading stamps or any similar device to be issued by anyone, with the wholesale of retail sale of any goods or merchandise, and redeemable by anyone including redemption centers for cash or merchandise.
These opinions [options] were neither intended nor contemplated by the authors of the original bill. Because the provision of senate substitute amendment 1 would accomplish a totally different purpose and would totally alter the nature of the original proposal, it is the opinion of the chair that senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 4 is not germane and the point of order raised by Senator Peloquin is well taken.
FRED A. RISSER
President pro tempore
Senate Journal of February 17, 1977 .......... Page: 227
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 1 to Senate Resolution 8 offered by Senator Swan. Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that the amendment was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of March 29, 1977 .......... Page: 289
354 On Thursday, February 17, 1977, the last day of Floor Period I, Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 to Senate Resolution 8 (relating to combining
the standing committees on Natural Resources and on Tourism) was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate amendment 1 would repeal the Committee on Senate Organization; Senate Resolution 8 would combine the standing committees on Natural Resources and Tourism.
Senate Rule 50 (1) states that the Senate shall not consider any amendment which, "...is intended to accomplish a different purpose, would require a title essentially different or would totally alter the nature of the original proposal."
The title of Senate Resolution 8 clearly limits the purpose of the resolution to "...combining the standing committees on Natural Resources and on Tourism." There is no hint, in either the title or body, that the author intended the resolution to have a wider application, or affect any other Senate Committee.
The purpose of senate amendment 1 is also clear .... to repeal a committee which is not mentioned in the title or body of the original proposal (viz. Senate Organization).
Since the Committee on Senate Organization is never mentioned directly or indirectly in the original proposal, any attempt to abolish that committee via amendment is in direct violation of Senate Rule 50.
Such an attempt "...totally alters the nature of the original proposal" and is therefore not germane, in the opinion of the chair.
Sincerely
FRED A. RISSER
President pro tempore
1 9 7 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 6, 1975 .......... Page: 755
Point of order:
Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 152 was not germane under Assembly Rule 55. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of May 6, 1975 .......... Page: 757
The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order raised by Representative Thompson on assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 152 well taken because the amendment would expand the scope of the bill and require a title substantially different.
1 9 7 5 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of June 17, 1976 .......... Page: 2421
[Point of order:]
Senator Risser raised the point of order that senate amendment 4 to senate substitute amendment 1 [to Senate Bill 2, special session] was not germane.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken pursuant to senate rule 50 (1).
Senate Journal of March 11, 1976 .......... Page: 1982
[Point of order:]
355 Senator Berger raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 [to Assembly Bill 137, relating to representation of minority and disadvantaged groups in the
administration of programs affecting them, and granting rule-making power to the secretary of administration] was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of March 11, 1976 .......... Page: 1988 Ruling of the chair:
As it relates to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 137, the chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the amendment not germane pursuant to senate rule 50 (1). Therefore, the point of order raised by Senator Berger was well taken.
Germaneness: negating effect of earlier amendment (not permitted)
1 9 9 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 17, 1992 .......... Page: 977
Point of order:
Representative Black rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 35 to Senate Bill 281 [relating to the preparation and adoption of a model livestock exclusion ordinance, the management of priority watersheds, issuance of orders related to nonpoint source pollution, establishing performance standards for drainage districts and the organization and management of drainage districts, construction site erosion control, creating a vehicle title and title transfer fee and highway salt tax to finance nonpoint source pollution abatement, granting bonding authority, granting rule-making authority, providing an exemption from rule-making procedures, providing penalties and making appropriations] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f). The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of March 17, 1992 .......... Page: 981
Ruling of the chair:
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Black that assembly amendment 35 to Senate Bill 281 was not germane.
356 [Note:] The bill was limited to issues related to nonpoint source pollution.
A.Amdt-35 expanded the scope of the bill by prohibiting liens against farmland for farmland preservation tax credits if, at cancellation of the preservation agreement, all requirements relating to the agreement had been satisfied by the owner.
A.Amdt-44 proposed to modify a change in the proposal made by senate amendment 11, as affected by the assembly's adoption of A.Amdt-2 to the senate amendment. The assembly rule prohibiting negating another amendment is limited to assembly amendments. On the other hand, because A.Amdt-44 was substantially similar to A.Amdt-2 already acted upon by the assembly, the further consideration of A.Amdt-44 was nongermane under A.Rule 54 (3) (c).
A.Amdt-45 expanded the scope of the proposal by vesting, in the departments of agriculture and of natural resources, a joint rule-making power to establish statewide standards for erosion control at construction sites for public buildings and for places of employment.
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.
