Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Hubler that the committee of conference report on Assembly Bill 133 is divisible.
The complete text of the Chair follows:
"The Lady from the 75th had raised a Point Of Order that didn't basically agree with the Chair declaring her motion to divide the Conference Committee Report. She raised a Point Of Order that the Conference Committee Report could be divided, as I understood it, into Sections 1, 2, and 3. I believe her original motion was to divide it into Item 3.
The Chair has spent some time trying to work through this particular Point Of Order to make sure because I am sure that the Lady will ask that it become precedent in the rulings of the Chair. So the Chair has taken some time looking at Assembly Rules, Joint Rules, Senate Rules, Mason's Manual and Jefferson's Manual to try to resolve this issue. The Lady from the 75th and the Gentleman from the 44th make the Point Of Order that we can divide it into different components based on Assembly Rule 80(4).
Assembly Rule 80(4) lists what is not divisible and because the Report On Committees doesn't happen to show up there it is the belief, I believe, of the Lady from the 75th and the Gentleman from the 44th that because it is merely not stated there, that it is divisible. One has to, I believe, look at Assembly Rule 80(1), which is "any member may request a division of simple amendments and motions involving distinct and independent propositions or concurrent action if they are severable without being rewritten or restated and the question shall be divided if each separate proposition or action to be voted on is complete and proper, regardless of the action taken on the other portions of the original question."
So the Chair looked, taking the advice that the Lady from the 75th and the Gentleman from the 44th were telling the Chair that this is a Report on the Committee On Conference. It is not an amendment, they report, because it is not specifically talked about in Assembly Rule 80(4). Therefore, it is divisible. It is the Chair's opinion, that under Assembly Rule 80(1), which governs what is divisible, this simply is not an amendment. It is not a simple amendment. Actually, if we were even to take conference amendment l, which is an amendment to the Assembly Substitute Amendment, I think members can easily see that this is just not a simple amendment. It is rather complex. It's actually a little longer than Gone With the Wind, and has quite a bit more intrigue in it, I think.
So, it is clearly, to the Chair, not a division of a simple amendment because as the Lady from the 75th and Gentleman from the 44th pointed out in their Points Of Order, that it was a report that should be divided based on the fact that it didn't show up in 80(4).
Then the Chair went one step further just to have a little more comfort because if it were an amendment, could this amendment be divided and taken up in three different components? It is the Chair's belief that under Assembly Rule 80(1), that each question if they were divided, Question l., Question 2 and Question 3 and were separate propositions or actions to be voted on, would be complete and proper regardless of the action taken on the others. And it is this Chair's opinion that they would not be, as the Chair was asking during the point of order that was being raised if Section l were adopted and Section 2 and Section 3 were not, could the bill stand on its own? The Chair's belief is, no it could not. If Section 2 were adopted but not Sections 1 and 3 the same situation. Or, if only Section 3 were adopted without negating the actions taken by the Senate and Assembly, could it stand on its own? It is the Chair's belief that it could not.
But wanting to make sure because knowing the Lady from the 75th was going to be fairly persistent and the Gentleman from the 44th is a scholar of the rules, I wanted to make sure that I wasn't not reading this properly and when one looks at the Joint Rules, Joint Rule 3(3) "approval of the Conference Report by 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." And the Joint Rules really are silent on whether or not we can amend the Conference Report.
So the Chair looked at Senate Rules which are somewhat more obscure than ours and really not to the point, so the Chair looked at what other rules are available to us to determine and under Assembly Rule 91(1) "in the absence of pertinent Assembly or Joint Rules questions of parliamentary procedure shall be decided according to applicable rules of parliamentary practice and Jefferson's Manual which are not inconsistent with constitutional or statutory provisions relating to the functioning of the legislature."
So, upon reading about the statutory provisions, we did a search of the Wisconsin Statutes and Constitution to see if there is something that would apply there. Of course, that didn't help us. So the Chair then referred to Jefferson's Manual. And, if members want to take a look on page 47 in the section on Conferences on page 48 as well and the ending of this regarding conference committees "and each party reports in writing to its respective house the substance of what is said on both sides and entered into the Journal."
And that is the report we have before us. "This report can not be amended or altered as that of the committee may be." So, the backup for Assembly Rules and Joint Rules was Jefferson's Manual but also wanting to make sure that that is the established precedent, I looked to Mason's Manual which is the manual we often refer to as well and under Section 770 (2) it says "in voting in a conference committee, the committee of each house votes separately. The committee on conference from each house submits its report to the house from which it was appointed, "which we have. "The report upon being received may be treated like other reports except that the report of the conference committee is usually given higher precedence."
That's why we're here at l0:00 p.m. "Under no condition, including suspension of the rules may the house alter or amend the Report of the Committee, but must adopt or refuse to adopt the report in the form submitted."
So it is the opinion of the Chair that the Lady from the 75th's Point Of Order is not well taken based on those following reasons."
[Note:] Assembly Rule 80 (4) was later amended to provide: Bills, joint resolutions, resolutions, and substitute amendments, and amendments received from the senate for assembly concurrence, may not be divided. A bill vetoed in its entirety by the governor may not be divided. A report of a committee of conference may not be divided.
Assembly Journal of October 6, 1999 .......... Page: 384
Point of order:
Representative Cullen rose to the point of order that Assembly Joint Resolution 79 was privileged.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair ruled well taken that the point of order raised by Representative Cullen that Assembly Joint Resolution 79 was privileged.
[Note:] The joint resolution provided that the conference report on 1999 AB-133 is amendable but only as to the provision converting lottery appropriations to general program revenue funding.
This may have been a parliamentary inquiry, not a point of order. A parliamentary inquiry might have informed the members whether the joint resolution was privileged. A point of order is appropriate only to obtain a decision by the presiding officer concerning a question currently before the house. Had the joint resolution been ruled not privileged, the point of order could have been made.
Assembly Rule 43 (1) Any resolution or joint resolution relating to the officers, members, former members, procedures, or organization of the assembly or legislature is privileged in that it may be offered under any order of business by a member who has the floor and may be taken up immediately before all other proposals, unless referred by the presiding officer to a standing committee or to the calendar.
Assembly Journal of November 9, 1999 .......... Page: 534
Point of order:
Representative Krug rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 580 was not properly before the Assembly under Assembly Rule 35 (1).
Speaker pro tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of November 10, 1999 .......... Page: 547
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Krug on Tuesday, November 9, that Assembly Bill 580 was not properly before the Assembly under Assembly Rule 35 (1). Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order not well taken because twenty four hours had elapsed.
[Note:] Assembly Rule 35 (1) A proposal, conference committee report, or veto, except a resolution under rule 33 or 43, may not be considered until it has been made available to the members for at least 24 hours excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. If the rules are suspended for the consideration of any proposal before it is available, the proposal shall be read at length at least once before its final passage or final adoption and concurrence.
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. .......
Assembly Journal of March 9, 2000 .......... Page: 737
Point of order:
Representative Duff rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Resolution 26 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
Speaker pro tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of March 29, 2000 .......... Page: 892
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Duff on Thursday, March 9, that Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Resolution 26 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
[Note:] The resolution requested South Carolina to stop flying the confederate flag. The amendment prohibited expense reimbursement for out of state travel to attend meetings of organizations that have members from South Carolina.
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 15, 2000 .......... Page: 758
Point of order:
Representative Powers rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 4 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 187 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (1).
Speaker pro tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of March 15, 2000 .......... Page: 761
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Powers that Assembly amendment 4 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 187 was not germane
[Note:] ASA-1 created a service award program for volunteer fire fighters and the amendment applied the program to both volunteer and paid fire fighters.
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 28, 2000 .......... Page: 854
Point of order:
Representative Meyer rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 860 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
Speaker pro tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of March 30, 2000 .......... Page: 898
Representative Jensen asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 860 be taken up at this time. Granted.
Assembly Bill 860
Relating to: references to the Internal Revenue Code for income tax and franchise tax purposes, withholding income taxes from the amount paid to purchase the assignment of a lottery prize and requiring the lottery administrator to report to the department of revenue the federal income tax number of an assignee.
Representative Hahn asked unanimous consent that Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 860 be withdrawn and returned to the author. Granted.
[Note:] The bill updated reference in the statutes to the Internal Revenue Code. The amendment added individual income tax modifications for medical insurance premiums.
Assembly Journal of March 29, 2000 .......... Page: 880
Point of order:
Representative Meyer rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 942 was not properly before the Assembly under Assembly Rule 35.
The Chair (Representative Duff) took the point of order under advisement.
Representative Meyer withdrew his point of order that Assembly Bill 942 was not properly before the Assembly under Assembly Rule 35.
[Note:] Assembly Rule 35 (1) A proposal, conference committee report, or veto, except a resolution under rule 33 or 43, may not be considered until it has been made available to the members for at least 24 hours excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. If the rules are suspended for the consideration of any proposal before it is available, the proposal shall be read at length at least once before its final passage or final adoption and concurrence.
Assembly Journal of May 2, 2000 .......... Page: 938
Point of order:
Representative Jensen rose to the point of order that the motion to take up Senate Bill 320 was not properly before the Assembly because the bill had died pursuant to Joint Rule 83 and Senate Joint Resolution 1 on March 30, 2000, when the last general business floorperiod ended.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] There was no ruling on the point of order.
Joint Rule 83 (4) At the conclusion of the last general-business floorperiod scheduled by the session schedule for the spring of the even-numbered year, any bill or joint resolution not yet agreed to by both houses, and any resolution not yet passed by the house of origin, is adversely disposed of for the biennial session and recorded as "failed to pass," "failed to adopt," or "failed to concur."
1999 Senate Joint Resolution 1 Section 1 (2) (p) Last general-business floorperiod. The last general-business floorperiod commences on Tuesday, March 7, 2000, at 10 a.m., and, unless adjourned earlier, ends on Thursday, March 30, 2000.
Assembly Journal of May 2, 2000 .......... Page: 938
Point of order:
Representative Krug rose to the point of order that the motion to take up Assembly Bill 781 was not properly before the Assembly because the bill had died pursuant to Joint Rule 83 and Senate Joint Resolution 1 on March 30, 2000, when the last general business floorperiod ended.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] There was no ruling on the point of order.
Joint Rule 83 (4) At the conclusion of the last general-business floorperiod scheduled by the session schedule for the spring of the even-numbered year, any bill or joint resolution not yet agreed to by both houses, and any resolution not yet passed by the house of origin, is adversely disposed of for the biennial session and recorded as "failed to pass," "failed to adopt," or "failed to concur."
1999 Senate Joint Resolution 1 Section 1 (2) (p) Last general-business floorperiod. The last general-business floorperiod commences on Tuesday, March 7, 2000, at 10 a.m., and, unless adjourned earlier, ends on Thursday, March 30, 2000.
1 9 9 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of November 9, 1999 .......... Page: 334
Point of order:
Senator Chvala raised the point of order that Senate amendment 5 to Senate Bill 277 is not germane.
The Chair took the point of order on Senate amendment 5 to Senate Bill 277 under advisement.
Senate Journal of November 11, 1999 .......... Page: 344
Ruling of the Chair:
The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the Senator Chvala on Tuesday, November 9, that Senate amendment 5 to Senate Bill 277 is not germane. It is the opinion of the Chair that Senate amendment 5 incorporates the language of Senate Bill 178 and clearly expands the purpose of the bill. Therefore, pursuant to Senate Rule 50 the Chair rules that Senate amendment 5 is not germane and the point of order is well taken.
