The Chair [Pres. Risser] ruled that because Senator Berger withdrew his motion to appoint a Committee of Conference the point of order raised by Senator Kleczka was moot.
1 9 7 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 31, 1978 .......... Page: 4307
Point of order:
Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 17 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1220 was an amendment in the 3rd degree and was not in order under Assembly Rule 48 (2).
[Note:] Section 409 of Masons's Manual of Legislative Procedure deals with amendments to amendments. It prohibits, as too confusing, amendments to the 3rd degree in the same house, but: "5. An amendment of one house to an amendment adopted in the other house is only an amendment in the first degree."
The concept was incorporated into the assembly rules in the 1979 rules adoption (A.Res. 7) by the creation of a new rule:
"Senate amendments presented to the assembly for concurrence are proposals for purposes of this rule and, therefore, an amendment to a simple amendment to a senate amendment is in order."
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken based on past precedents and section 409 of Mason's Legislative Manual.
Assembly Journal of March 7, 1978 .......... Page: 3451
Point of order:
Representative Hanson rose to the point of order that the motion for nonconcurrence in senate amendment 1 was not proper under Assembly Rule 65 because that motion had been made previously and had failed. Representative Shabaz stated that the motion was also not proper under Assembly Rule 69 because there had been no significant intervening business.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled not well taken the point of order raised under Assembly Rule 65 because the language "shall not be allowed again on the same day and at the same stage in the consideration of that proposal" required both conditions to be met. Because the motion for nonconcurrence in senate amendment 1 had been made and lost on a previous day, the motion was ruled proper.
61 The speaker ruled that the motion was also proper under Assembly Rule 69 because action on other amendments, action on other bills and adjournment constituted "significant business" under Assembly Rule 69.
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
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
62 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.
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.
63 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.
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)
64 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.
1 9 7 5 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 26, 1976 .......... Page: 2211
[Background (assembly message) .... the assembly has amended and concurred in as amended: Senate Bill 105; assembly amendments 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 13 adopted. Senate Bill 106; assembly amendments 8, 9, 10, 11 and 13 adopted.]
Senate Journal of March 26, 1976 .......... Page: 2214
[Point of order:]
Senator Whittow moved that Senate Bills 105 and 106 be considered for action at this time.
Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that it required a two-thirds vote to consider Senate Bills 105 and 106.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken in that only a majority vote would be required.
Senate Journal of March 25, 1976 .......... Page: 2173
[Point of order:]
Senator Knowles raised the point of order that pursuant to senate rule 18 (2) [1975: distribution of printed calendar] he was entitled to a 24 hour written notice of measures to be considered. To do otherwise would require a suspension of the rules. [Intervening text, including recess, omitted.]
As it relates to the point of order raised by Senator Knowles, the chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken. Senate bills with assembly amendments which are received under the seventh order are not referred to any committee pursuant to senate rule 41 (2), and therefore, require only a majority vote to be considered for action.
Senate Journal of September 26, 1975 .......... Page: 1449
[Point of order:]
Senate amendments 1 and 2 to assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 420 [relating to authorizing cities and villages to use tax incremental financing in connection with certain public improvement projects] offered by Senator Kleczka.
65 Senator Hollander raised the point of order that the assembly amendments could not be amended. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of September 26, 1975 .......... Page: 1457
Ruling of the chair:
As it relates to the point of order raised on Senate Bill 420, the chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled that assembly amendments could be amended in this house, and therefore, the point of order was not well taken.
Senate Journal of September 26, 1975 .......... Page: 1449
[Point of order:]
The question was: Concurrence in assembly amendment 2 [to Senate Bill 420, relating to authorizing cities and villages to use tax incremental financing in connection with certain public improvement projects]?
Senator Bablitch moved that Senate Bill 420 be referred to joint committee on Finance.
Senator Hollander raised the point of order that the bill could not be referred to joint committee on Finance.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken pursuant to senate rule 41 (2) [1975: ...."concurrence in amendments of the other house .... shall in no case be referred to committee"].
Conference committee: procedures relating to
1 9 9 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of July 1, 1993 .......... Page: 266
Point of order:
Representative Deininger rose to the point of order that Assembly Joint Resolution 70 [relating to creating a committee of conference on 1993 Senate
Bill 44] was not properly before the assembly under Joint Rule 3 and Assembly Rule 95.
66 [Note:] 1993 Senate Bill 44 was the executive budget act of the 1993 legislature.
Early in its deliberations, the Joint Committee on Finance offered senate substitute amendment 1 (based on a paper prepared by the Legislative Fiscal Bureau) from which all "nonbudget" extraneous policy issues had been removed. Senate substitute amendment 2 contained the recommendations of the joint committee on the governor's proposals.
The senate passed the budget with many changes (compiled into several super-amendments) and ordered the budget printed engrossed before it was delivered to the assembly. In the ordinary course, all further action would have to be on the printed engrossed version - which would have meant rewriting all fiscal bureau explanations and redrafting of all budget amendments in the reference bureau.
Assembly Joint Resolution 70 was an attempt, ultimately successful, to speed up the process. The joint resolution incorporated a compiled amendment (the pieces were drafted to senate substitute amendment 2) setting forth the position of the assembly majority party.
The point of order properly stated that the proposed procedure was in violation of the conference committee procedure under Jt.Rule 3 and related definitions under A.Rule 95. However, the point overlooked that the adoption of the joint resolution by both houses would constitute a suspension of the regular procedure.
By concurring in Assembly Joint Resolution 70, the senate agreed to use the original senate substitute amendment 2, as affected by the senate amendments, as the basis for conference committee negotiations, and the original fiscal bureau documents could be used to explain the senate amendments as well as the assembly issue amendments compiled into the attachment to the joint resolution.
On July 7, both houses agreed to a senate amendment to the joint resolution increasing the membership of the conference committee to 4 members from each house. On July 16, 1993, both houses agreed to the conference report on 1993 Senate Bill 44.
The speaker [Speaker Kunicki] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 28, 1987 .......... Page: 505
Point of order:
Representative Loftus rose to the point of order that the motion to refer the committee of conference report on Senate Bill 7 [relating to requiring motor vehicle operators and passengers to wear safety belts, granting rule-making authority, requesting a study and providing a penalty] to a committee was not proper. The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] took the point of order under advisement.
67 [Note:] The conferees (Sens. Czarnezki, Risser, Weeden; Reps. Loftus, Hauke, Nelsen) brought in a report whereby the Assembly would recede from its position on Assembly Amendment 24; the Senate would recede from its position on Assembly Amendment 17; and both houses would agree to the concept of Assembly Amendment 10 as reworded, the concept of Assembly Amendment 18 at 15% subject to sunset on June 30, 1989, and a technical correction concerning farm trucks and dual-purpose farm trucks, all incorporated, together with parts of the bill previously agreed to by both houses, into Conference Substitute Amendment 1 (LRBs0411/1), which was attached to and made a part of the conference report.
Rep. Hauke (majority leader), received unanimous consent "that Senate Bill 7 be taken up at this time". Rep. Schneider (cochair, Jt. Fin. com.), asked unanimous consent to refer Senate Bill 7 to the Joint Committee on Finance, to which Rep. Nelsen (minority leader) objected. Rep. Schneider then offered a regular motion "that Senate Bill 7 be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance".
When a standing or special committee reports a bill, that bill constitutes business to be decided by the house. The committee report recommends, but does not limit, house action. "Any business to be decided by the assembly may be referred to a committee .... while under debate by the assembly"; Assembly Rules 13 (1) (b) and 65 (2) (d) and (e).
The problem was the unanimous consent "that Senate Bill 7 be taken up". A bill reported by a conference committee is no longer open to house action - the alternatives are limited to adoption or rejection of the conference report before the house. "The vote by each house to adopt the conference report constitutes final action on the proposal"; Joint Rule 3 (2).
Although the motion to refer the bill was here allowed, it was defeated, as were subsequent motions to refer the bill to a different standing committee and to reject the report of the conference committee. Both houses approved the conference report (Assembly Journal, pages 506-7, Senate Journal, page 469) and the bill, as affected by the conference report, became 1987 Wisconsin Act 132.
At the opening of the 1989 Session, the assembly adopted Assembly Rule 45 (6): "Except as incidental to calendar scheduling by the committee on rules, the report of a committee of conference may not be referred to committee."
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that the report of a committee of conference may be referred to a committee and ruled the point of order, that the motion to refer Senate Bill 7 to committee [was improper], was not well taken.
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 28, 1986 .......... Page: 1130
Point of order:
Representative Becker introduced a privileged joint resolution.
Assembly Joint Resolution 2, relating to authorizing the convening of a 2nd committee of conference on Senate Bill 1 of the May 1986 special session. By Representatives Loftus, Becker and T. Thompson.
Representative Hephner rose to the point of order that a two-thirds vote was required for adoption of Assembly Joint Resolution 2, May 1986 Spec. Sess., under Joint Rule 96.
[Note:] A "parliamentary inquiry" might have informed the members as to the vote required. A "point of order" is appropriate only to obtain a decision by the presiding officer concerning an issue currently before the house. Had the resolution been adopted by a majority but less than 2/3, a point of order might have been appropriate (the actual vote was 76 to 21). Since the roll had not been called, there was no issue.
Although My6AJR 2 was adopted and concurred in, both houses subsequently agreed to the report submitted by the first conference committee.
