Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order well taken.
Representative Richards 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-55, Noes-40. Motion carried.
[Note:] The substitute amendment required a two-thirds majority of each house on bills increasing net revenue from sales and income and franchise taxes. The amendment added real and personal property taxes to the taxes that would require a two-thirds majority to increase.
Assembly Rule 54 (3) Assembly amendments that are not germane include:
(f) An amendment that substantially expands the scope of the proposal.
Assembly Journal of February 7, 2002 .......... Page: 650
Point of order:
Representative Duff rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 769 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order well taken.
Representative Schooff 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-53, Noes-41. Motion carried.
[Note:] The bill related to the sales tax on purchases of a motor vehicle purchased after a consumer receives a refund under a new motor vehicle warranty. The amendment related to on purchases made with a manufacturer's rebate.
Assembly Rule 54 (3) Assembly amendments that are not germane include:
(f) An amendment that substantially expands the scope of the proposal.
Assembly Journal of February 7, 2002 .......... Page: 650
Point of order:
Representative Duff rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 769 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order well taken.
Representative Schooff appealed the ruling of the chair.
Assembly Journal of February 7, 2002 .......... Page: 651
The question was: Shall the ruling of the Chair stand as the ruling of the Assembly?
The roll was taken. The result follows:
Ayes - 48, Noes - 36, Absent or not voting - 15. Motion carried.
[Note:] The bill related to the sales tax on purchases of a motor vehicle purchased after a consumer receives a refund under a new motor vehicle warranty. The amendment related to the amount of the sales tax on amounts paid by a motor vehicle manufacturer under an employee purchase program.
Assembly Rule 54 (3) Assembly amendments that are not germane include:
(f) An amendment that substantially expands the scope of the proposal.
Assembly Journal of March 7, 2002 .......... Page: 743
Point of order:
Representative Freese rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Resolution 56 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair (Representative Duff) ruled the point of order well taken.
Representative Krug 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-58, Noes-41. Motion carried.
[Note:] The bill urged Congress to provide federal funds to modernize the locks and dams on the Upper Mississippi. The amendment changed that to maintaining and rehabilitating waterways and aquatic ecosystems on the Upper Mississippi.
Assembly Rule 54 (1) General statement: The assembly may not consider any assembly amendment or assembly substitute amendment that relates to a different subject or is intended to accomplish a different purpose than that of the proposal to which it relates or that, if adopted and passed, would require a relating clause for the proposal which is substantially different from the proposal's original relating clause or that would totally alter the nature of the proposal.
Assembly Journal of March 7, 2002 .......... Page: 749
Point of order:
Representative Krug rose to the point of order that Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 872 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order well taken.
Representative Carpenter 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-77, Noes-21. Motion carried.
[Note:] The bill related to the size of the county board in Milwaukee County. The substitute amendment also addressed the amount of time worked and the salary of county board members.
Assembly Rule 54 (3) Assembly amendments that are not germane include:
(f) An amendment that substantially expands the scope of the proposal.
Assembly Journal of March 7, 2002 .......... Page: 750
Point of order:
Representative Krug rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 872 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order well taken.
Representative Carpenter 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-74, Noes-24. Motion carried.
[Note:] The bill related to the size of the county board in Milwaukee County. The amendment provide that any decrease in the size of the county board would have to be approved at a referendum.
Assembly Rule 54 (3) Assembly amendments that are not germane include:
(f) An amendment that substantially expands the scope of the proposal.
Assembly Journal of March 7, 2002 .......... Page: 762
Point of order:
Representative Jeskewitz rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 892 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order well taken.
Representative Krug 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-56, Noes-43. Motion carried.
[Note:] The bill related to credit unions and universal banks and created additional exceptions to the priority of wage claims liens statute. The amendment deleted those additional exceptions and also deleted the existing exceptions.
Assembly Rule 54 (3) Assembly amendments that are not germane include:
(f) An amendment that substantially expands the scope of the proposal.
2 0 0 1 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of January 30, 2001 .......... Page: 44
Point of order:
Senator Chvala raised the point of order that Senate amendment 5 to Senate Bill 2 was not germane.
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair ruled the point well taken.
Senator Welch appealed the ruling of the Chair.
The question was; Shall the ruling of the Chair stand as the judgement of the Senate?
The roll was taken. The vote was: Ayes-18, Noes-15. The ruling of the Chair stands as the judgement of the Senate.
[Note:] The bill related to the scope of regulation and reports by nonresident registrants under the campaign finance law. The amendment prohibited certain contributions and disbursements.
SENATE RULE 50. Amendments must be germane, general statement. (1) A standing committee may not report any substitute or amendment for any proposal originating in either house and referred to the committee and the senate may not consider any substitute or amendment that relates to a different subject, is intended to accomplish a different purpose, or would totally alter the nature of the original proposal.
(7) A substitute or amendment relating to a specific subject or to a general class is not germane to a bill relating to a different specific subject, but an amendment limiting the scope of the proposal is germane.
Senate Journal of February 13, 2001 .......... Page: 72
Point of order:
Senator Welch raised the point of order that Senate Bill 1 requires an Emergency Statement and is not properly before the Senate.
Ruling on the point of order:
Senate Bill 1 was referred to the Joint Committee on Finance on January 25, 2001. The Senate Co-Chair of the Joint Committee has attempted to schedule a meeting; however, the Assembly Co-Chair has refused to concur with a meeting schedule.
There are two issues involved prior to consideration of Senate Bill 1 by the full Senate:
1. The first is the requirement for an "emergency statement" as required by ss. 16.47(2).
2. The authority of the Senate Committee on Finance to report the proposal to the Senate when the proposal was referred to the Joint Committee on Finance by the Senate.
Section 16.47(2) of the statutes requires that prior to passage of the biennial budget bill, any proposal which impacts state finances by an amount exceeding $10,000 requires an emergency statement before either house of the legislature may take a vote on final passage of the proposal.
The fiscal impact information provided by the Legislative Fiscal Bureau indicates a cost of $16 Million in fiscal year 2001-02 and approximately $106 million in fiscal year 2002-03. Clearly, in accordance with ss 16.47(2), the bill requires an emergency statement.
A brief history of the "emergency statement" requirement is in order at this time. The concept was developed as the result of one of the first Legislative Council Study Committees on the Budgetary Procedure. The Legislative Council by its resolution establishing the subcommittee advised that the subcommittee "consider the feasibility of including all appropriations in a single bill". The report of the subcommittee stated: "Studies bring out an alarming trend of the large number of separately enacted appropriation bills, including the executive budget bill. The last three sessions show 84 bills in the 1943, 85 bills in 1945 and 110 bills in 1947." The subcommittee also stated: "It is often questionable whether or not all the members of the legislature have a clear picture of the financial condition of the state. Nor do they know whether or not the appropriation bills being acted upon fit into a sound pattern for the state's financial welfare."
The subcommittee reviewed a recommendation of a prior committee on the budget, chaired by the late Senator Melvin R. Laird Sr. That recommendation was to employee 5 budget assistants to advise the legislature on fiscal policy. Senator Laird was quoted as saying: "Budgetary systems are concerned with the coordination of public finances into financial plans. It is apparent that with technical assistance given, the budget can be evaluated and considered in a better legislative light."
The Legislative Council Subcommittee recommended the adoption of a proposal that would accomplish the goal of informing the members of the legislature on fiscal matters and provide for speedy and effective consideration of appropriation bills.
Assembly Bill 11 was introduced into the 1949 Legislative Session, relating to a state fiscal policy and appropriation procedures. The bill as originally introduced clearly restricted the legislature's ability to act on appropriation bills. One provision of the proposal read as follows: "No appropriation bill shall be passed by either house until the executive budget bill has passed both houses; except that the governor may recommend the enactment of an emergency executive budget bill which shall continue in effect only until the executive bill becomes effective or until the next succeeding July 1, whichever is later. There was additional language in the bill to provide for the Joint Committee on Finance to report and propose a Joint Resolution on the fiscal condition, and a requirement that appropriation bills provide a source of revenue, this last provision did not become law.
The proposal recommended by the Legislative Council was viewed by the media as; "suggestions which should make future budget requests considerably more honest". (State Journal "Under the Dome" by Sanford Goltz, date unknown)
The legislature recognized the problem with an outright restriction on its ability to pass appropriation bills prior to passage of the budget bill. Early in the 1951 session the 1949 law was modified to remove the outright restriction on the passage of appropriation bills prior to the budget bill and allow for the passage of any appropriation bill that was recommended for passage by the Joint Committee on Finance. There was no requirement of an emergency statement until 1957 when the language was amended to provide for the "emergency statement" procedure, as we know it today.
Therefore, of the original purposes outlined by the Legislative Council for restricting the consideration of appropriation bills prior to the passage of the budget, only the education of members and the heightened awareness of the fiscal impact survived. The first law enacted was an outright prohibition on the consideration of such bills prior to passage of the budget. This was repealed after only one session. The language in force today clearly is to heighten the awareness of the membership and the public that the proposal has a definite fiscal impact that may not be part of the biennial budget bill.
The authority of the Assembly to act without an emergency statement arose in a point of order raised in 1995 on Assembly 73, in which the question was raised as to the authority of the Assembly to withdraw a proposal from the Joint Committee on Finance when an emergency statement was required. The motion was to suspend the rules to withdraw AB 73 and take it up immediately. The Speaker, Representative Prosser, ruled that since the motion was to suspend the rules, the motion was valid. This clearly demonstrates that Speaker Prosser believed that one house of the legislature could act on a proposal requiring an emergency statement by suspending the rules, therefore giving credence to the authority of each house to determine its own rules of procedure.
