The history of the Senate Committee on Finance indicates that under Senate Rule 20(4)(b), the Senate Committee on Finance has the authority to report any proposal to the Senate that the Joint Committee fails to.
The Senate Finance Committee has on occasion taken action to report proposals to the Senate. It is well established that the Senate Finance Committee has the authority to act when the Joint Committee on Finance fails to do so, for whatever reason.
On October 17, 1973, Senator Hollander raised the point of order that the Senate Finance Committee has full control over Senate proposals. The Chair ruled that the Senate Committee on Finance has full jurisdiction over bills and joint resolutions under the control of the Senate, which are referred to the Joint Committee on Finance. The Chair furthers stated: "To rule otherwise would allow the Assembly members of the Joint Committee on Finance to control the independent operation of the Senate and would violate the basic concept of bicameralism".
This Presiding Officer, while serving as Minority Leader of this Senate, raised a point of order on October 25, 1973, questioning the authority of the Senate Finance Committee to report a proposal to the Senate that had been referred to the Joint Committee on Finance.
The Chair ruled the point of order well taken and stated that only the Joint Committee on Finance could have jurisdiction over legislation referred to the Joint Committee. The ruling of the Chair was appealed, and on a vote of 8 ayes and 23 noes, the ruling was not held as the judgement of the Senate. From that time forward, it has been the determination of this Senate that Senate Rule 20(4)(b) grants authority to the Senate Finance Committee to act on proposals referred to the Joint Committee on Finance.
The Senate Rules were amended by 1975 Senate Resolution 21. The resolution had bipartisan authors and a relating clause of "relating to senate committee procedures." The rule change was a direct result of the rulings of the Chair in the previous session.
It should be noted that the Joint Committee on Finance in the early 70's consisted of 9 members of the Assembly and 5 Senators. The split party control and the disproportionate representation of the Senate on the Joint Committee were a major reason for the actions taken by the Senate Finance Committee.
It is interesting to note that in the 75 Session, democrats controlled both houses of the legislature, yet the Senate, with strong bipartisan support, wanted to make it very clear, in the rules, that the Senate Finance Committee had jurisdiction and the authority to report proposals that had been referred to the Joint Committee on Finance, without restriction.
The statutes require no special action other than to include in their report to the house a recommendation that a proposal be passed and that a statement be made to the effect that they are emergency bills. It is clear that the Senate Finance Committee has the authority to report a proposal to the full Senate. The Committee has the same resources available to it as does the Joint Committee to determine the fiscal impact of proposals, and is clearly in a position to fulfill the requirements set forth in ss. 16.47(2).
The intent of the Senate Rule 20(4)(b) is clear in that it was adopted to allow the Senate to take action on any proposal that the Joint Committee on Finance has failed to report. It is also clear to the Chair that it was the intent and purpose of the Senate in the early 70's to grant full authority to act to the Senate Finance Committee. Furthermore, as stated by a previous presiding officer, to not allow the Senate Finance Committee to act would grant the authority to the Assembly Co-Chair, the authority to block the independent operation of the Senate.
In addition, as supported by case history, parliamentary manuals and as demonstrated by the ruling by the Speaker in the Assembly, the Senate has the authority to determine its own rules of procedure, even if they conflict with an existing statute, as long as they don't conflict with the Constitution or infringe on the rights of individual members.
Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure states in section 3, paragraph 2:
The house and senate may pass an internal operating rule for its own procedure that is in conflict with a statute formerly adopted.
In Section 2, paragraph 3, Mason's also states:
Rules of procedure fulfill another purpose in protecting the rights of members. Individual members, for example, are entitled to receive notices of meetings and the opportunity to attend and participate in the deliberations of the group. Minorities often require protection for unfair treatment on the part of the majority, and even the majority is entitled to protection from obstructive tactics on the part of minorities.
I am reminded of a quote from Cushing's Legislative Assemblies, "Elements of the Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies in the United States of America:
The great purpose of all rules and forms, says Cushing, is to subserve the will of the assembly rather than to restrain it; to facilitate and not to obstruct the expression of its deliberate sense.
Clearly the Senate has the authority, through its adopted rules, to authorize a committee to report a proposal in the same manner prescribed by law for a Joint Committee.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair, that Senate Rule 20(4)(b) grants to the Senate Finance Committee the full authority of the Joint Finance Committee as it relates to the reporting of proposals referred by the Senate, to include the recommending of passage of a proposal with emergency statement attached.
The Chair rules the point not well taken.
Senator Welch appeals the ruling of the Chair.
The question was: Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgement of the Senate?
The roll was taken. The vote was: Ayes-18, Noes-15. Decision of the Chair stands as the judgement of the Senate.
[Note:] Senate Rule 20 (4) (a) The members of the senate committee on finance are the senate members of the joint committee on finance.
(b) When the joint committee on finance fails to report a proposal referred to it by the senate, the proposal may be returned to the senate by the senate committee on finance.
Fiscal estimate: not required
1 9 9 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 23, 1999 .......... Page: 134
Point of order:
Representative Schneider rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 216 was not properly before the Assembly because the bill required a fiscal estimate under Joint Rule 41(1)(a).
The Chair (Representative Duff) ruled the point of order not well taken.
[Note:] The bill required, that in order to qualify for a grant for campaign expenses, a candidate for legislative office must raise at least 50% of his or her qualifying contributions from individuals who are residents of a county having territory within the district in which the candidate seeks office.
Joint Rule 41 (1) (a) All bills making an appropriation and any bill increasing or decreasing existing appropriations or state or general local government fiscal liability or revenues shall carry a fiscal estimate.
Joint Rule 49 (1) Any member may at any time that a bill is before the house raise the issue that the bill requires a fiscal estimate, and if the presiding officer determines that the bill (not having the estimate) requires an estimate, the presiding officer shall direct the legislative reference bureau to secure the requisite estimate.
(2) Bills requiring fiscal estimates shall not be voted on by either house, and shall receive neither a public hearing nor be voted on by a standing committee, before the receipt of the original fiscal estimate for the bill.
Assembly Journal of May 19, 1999 .......... Page: 199
Point of order:
Representative Schneider rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 170 was not properly before the Assembly under s. 13.093 (2) Wisconsin Statutes because it required a fiscal estimate.
Speaker pro tempore Freese ruled the point of order not well taken.
[Note:] The bill permits school boards to adopt rules regarding dress of pupils, including the wearing of uniforms.
13.093(2)(a) Any bill making an appropriation and any bill increasing or decreasing existing appropriations or state or general local government fiscal liability or revenues shall, before any vote is taken thereon by either house of the legislature if the bill is not referred to a standing committee, or before any public hearing is held before any standing committee or, if no public hearing is held, before any vote is taken by the committee, incorporate a reliable estimate of the anticipated change in appropriation authority or state or general local government fiscal liability or revenues under the bill, including to the extent possible a projection of such changes in future biennia. .....
Fiscal estimate: required
1 9 9 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 2, 2000 .......... Page: 629
Point of order:
Representative Duff rose to the point of order that the motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 630 from the committee on Health was not in order under s. 13.093 (2)(a), Wisconsin Statutes, because a fiscal estimate had not been received.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Representative Duff withdrew his point of order that Assembly Bill 630 was not in order because a fiscal estimate has not been received
Representative Meyer moved that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 630 be withdrawn from the committee on Health and taken up at this time.
[Note:] The bill designated areas of the state that have a shortage of providers of personal care services.
The fiscal estimate may have been received after the point of order was made and before the ruling.
13.093(2)(a) Any bill making an appropriation and any bill increasing or decreasing existing appropriations or state or general local government fiscal liability or revenues shall, before any vote is taken thereon by either house of the legislature if the bill is not referred to a standing committee, or before any public hearing is held before any standing committee or, if no public hearing is held, before any vote is taken by the committee, incorporate a reliable estimate of the anticipated change in appropriation authority or state or general local government fiscal liability or revenues under the bill, including to the extent possible a projection of such changes in future biennia. For purposes of this paragraph, a bill increasing or decreasing the liability or revenues of the unemployment reserve fund is considered to increase or decrease state fiscal liability or revenues. .......
1 9 9 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 24, 1998 .......... Page: 733
Point of order:
Representative Notestein rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 942 was not properly before the Assembly because pursuant to s. 13.093(2)(a) of the Wisconsin Statutes and Joint Rule 41(1)(a), a fiscal estimate is required before action by the Assembly can be taken.
Speaker Jensen took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of March 25, 1998 .......... Page: 754
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Notestein on Tuesday, March 24 that Assembly Bill 942 was not properly before the Assembly pursuant to s. 13.093 of the Wisconsin Statutes and Joint Rule 41(1)(a) at that time. However, since a Fiscal Estimate had been received since that time, Assembly Bill 942 was now properly before the Assembly.
[Note:] 13.093 (1) All bills introduced in either house of the legislature for the appropriation of money, providing for revenue or relating to taxation shall be referred to the joint committee on finance before being passed.
Joint Rule 41 (1) (a) All bills making an appropriation and any bill increasing or decreasing existing appropriations or state or general local government fiscal liability or revenues shall carry a fiscal estimate.
Germaneness: amendment to amendment (germane to amendment and proposal)
1 9 9 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of June 29, 1999 .......... Page: 257
Point of order:
Representative Black rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 25 to Assembly Amendment 2 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 Assembly Bill 133 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3)(c) and (5).
The Chair (Representative Duff) ruled the point of order not well taken.
The Chair ruled as follows:
"Assembly amendment 25, which prohibited constitutional officers, except the governor, from having their likeness on an outdoor sign, sought to replace language in Assembly amendment 2 prohibiting constitutional officers, except the governor, from using state funds to place their likeness on a billboard.
Assembly amendment 25 is not a substantial expansion of Assembly amendment 2 because it amended and modified the same section, subject and related to the particularized details included in Assembly amendment 2. The amendment also did not substantially expand the scope of the original proposal, a multi-subject executive budget bill, because it merely adds to the directives and requirements to state agencies and constitutional officers that are typically included in budget bills."
Representative Meyer appealed the ruling of the Chair.
The question was: Shall the ruling of the Chair stand as the ruling of the Assembly?
The roll was taken. The vote was: Ayes-54, Noes-45. Motion carried.
[Note:] Assembly Rule 54 (3) Assembly amendments that are not germane include:
(e) An amendment that negates the effect of another assembly amendment previously adopted.
(5) An amendment to an amendment must be germane to both the amendment and the original proposal.
1 9 9 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of April 28, 1998 .......... Page: 815
Point of order:
Representative Huebsch rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 1 to Senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 736 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3)(f) and Assembly 54 (5).
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Huebsch that Assembly amendment 1 to Senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 736 was not germane.
Representative Schneider appealed the ruling of the Chair.
The question was: Shall the ruling of the Chair stand as the ruling of the Assembly?
The roll was taken. The vote was: Ayes-52, Noes-46. Motion carried.
[Note:] The bill made various changes to hunting and fishing regulation. Senate amendment 1 related to licenses for those eligible for social security benefits. The assembly amendment permitted applicants to refuse to provide social security numbers for religious reasons.
Assembly Rule 54 (3) Assembly amendments that are not germane include:
(f) An amendment that substantially expands the scope of the proposal.
(5) An amendment to an amendment must be germane to both the amendment and the original proposal.
Assembly Journal of May 5, 1998 .......... Page: 847
Point of order:
Representative R. Young rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 5 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 351 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54(5).
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of May 5, 1998 .......... Page: 848
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative R. Young that Assembly amendment 5 to Senate substitute amendment 1to Assembly Bill 351 was not germane.
Representative Walker moved that Assembly amendment 5 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 351 be laid on the table.
[Note:] The bill related to felony sentences, parole, and community supervision. The substitute amendment also created a criminal penalties study committee. The amendment prohibited requests for funding under the bill for programs that promote, encourage, or counsels in favor of birth control, abortion, or sterilization.
Assembly Rule 54 (5) An amendment to an amendment must be germane to both the amendment and the original proposal.
Germaneness: appropriation to implement intent (addition permitted)
2 0 0 1 A S S E M B L Y
