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.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not timely.
Senate Journal of April 6, 1984 .......... Page: 874
[Point of order:]
The question was: Adoption of the Committee of Conference Report [on Assembly Bill 706, relating to the financial assistance program for septic tank replacement and rehabilitation]?
Senator Lee raised the point of order that the Committee of Conference Report was not germane.
[Note:] When a conference committee submits its report, the proper motions are to adopt or to reject the report, including any legislation which the committee has "attached to and made a part of" the report. Under J.Rule 3 (3): "Approval of the conference report by a roll call vote in each house sufficient to constitute final passage of the proposal shall be final passage of the bill or joint resolution in the form and with the changes proposed by the report".
Since there is no separate vote on the legislation submitted with the conference report, such legislation is never directly before the house and, therefore, its germaneness cannot be challenged by a point of order.
While J.Rule 3 (1) implies that a conference committee is to make its recommendation within the limits of the disagreement between the 2 houses, it is up to the legislature to adopt or reject the report.
In adopting the report, the legislature gives its approval to the manner in which the conference committee has used its authority.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of April 7, 1982 .......... Page: 3305
Motion:
Representative Thompson asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that Senate Bill 712 [relating to senate and assembly districts] be made a special order of business at 4:00 P.M. today.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the request out of order because Senate Bill 712 was in a conference committee.
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of June 25, 1980 .......... Page: 3649
Point of order:
69 Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the language on page 1, lines 18 and 19 of the conference committee report on Assembly Joint Resolution 2, June 1980
Special Session [relating to revising the right to bail and authorizing the legislature to permit circuit courts to deny release on bail for a limited period to certain accused persons (first consideration)] was not germane to the special session call as required by Assembly Rule 93 (1).
[Note:] June 1980 AJR 2 had been introduced by the "committee on Assembly Organization, by request of Governor Lee Sherman Dreyfus" under paragraph (1) of the governor's proclamation of May 22, 1980, which read:
"(1) Amending Section 8 of Article I of the Wisconsin Constitution to authorize the Legislature by statute to permit circuit courts to deny release on bail for a limited period to certain accused persons."
On June 26, 1980, the governor issued a supplementary call to amend paragraph (1) to read:
"(1) Amending Section 8 of Article I of the Wisconsin Constitution, relating to revising the right to and conditions of bail and authorizing the Legislature, by law, to permit circuit courts to deny release on bail for a limited period to certain accused persons."
The supplementary call permitted introduction of Assembly Joint Resolution 9, June 1980 Special Session, which passed both houses.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken because the language in the conference committee report related to the regulation of bail and was self-executing.
1 9 7 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 4, 1980 .......... Page: 1443
[Background: The question was: Concurrence of assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 260, relating to patient access to medical records? Senator Berger moved nonconcurrence of assembly substitute amendment 1.]
The question was: Nonconcurrence of assembly substitute amendment 1?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-22, noes-10.] So the motion prevailed.
Senator Berger asked unanimous consent that the senate appoint a Committee of Conference on Senate Bill 260. Senator Kleczka objected.
Senator Berger moved that the senate appoint a Committee of Conference on Senate Bill 260.
Senate Journal of March 4, 1980 .......... Page: 1444
[Point of order:]
Senator Kleczka raised the point of order that the motion to appoint a Committee of Conference was not timely.
