WISCONSIN BLUE BOOK 1985-1986


    opportunity to withdraw a bill from committee by a simple majority vote
except by a
    withdrawal petition....
      Thus, a motion to withdraw a bill from committee and refer it to the
calendar, assum-
    ing that the bill has been in committee for 21 days, will require a simple
majority vote,
    provided that the motion is made in accordance with [the applicable rule]
and further
    provided that it has not been previously made. Thereafter, in accordance
with [the rule
    here discussed], any motion to withdraw the bill and place it on the
calendar would
    require a two-thirds vote.
      A motion to withdraw a bill from committee and take it up immediately,
or to with-
    draw a bill and accomplish some other action which would require suspension
of the
    rules will not exhaust the single opportunity contemplated by [the rule
here discussed] to
    withdraw a bill from committee and place it on the calendar by a simple
majority vote at
    least one time.
    When the Assembly changed the text of the rule in its 1979 rules adoption
(Assembly Resolution 7), the change was specifically attributed to the 1973
prece-
dent that unsuccessful attempts to withdraw and refer a proposal "under
sus-
pension of the rules [two-thirds vote] do not destroy the opportunity for
one
motion to withdraw a proposal from committee" by majority vote:
      If Once a motion to withdraw a proposal from a committee is-made-and
which re-
    quires a majority vote fails, all subsequent motions to withdraw that
proposal from the
    same committee shall require a two-thirds majority for adoption.Stleh
mfatie ss and
    shall be decided without debate.
    The following 1963 ruling by Speaker Robert D. Haase (Assembly Journal,
4/4/
63, page 488), itself a refinement of a 1959 ruling by Speaker George Molinaro,
was the basis not only for the creation of a new rule in 1963 (Assembly Resolution
38), but was referred to again in 1979 (Assembly Resolution 7) to clarify
the rule
created in 1963:
       The 1963 ruling (excerpt): .... it is the custom of the assembly to
honor the recom-
    mendations of the standing committee by taking action on its recommendation
.... If a
    proposal is recommended for indefinite postponement and an amendment
is offered
    from the floor or revived, the first question is on the adoption of the
amendment and the
    first action on the proposal itself [said Speaker Molinaro] is still
indefinte
    postponement....
      The Chair [Speaker Haase] concurs in the opinion of [Rep. Glen E. Pommerening,
    Milwaukee-20] that the assembly intends to pass a measure which they
amend in the face
    of a recommendation to indefinitely postpone. To ignore this very obvious
gesture is to
    neglect the basic precept of the legislative process, namely to expedite
legislation. We
    must take the action of the assembly at its face value, and the adoption
of the amend-
    ment appears to demonstrate that the assembly desires to pass the bill.
      The adoption of a floor amendment gives a proposal a new lease on life.
Defeat of the
    measure can still be accomplished by a specific motion.
      Text of the 1963 rule. When the Assembly acts upon the recommendation
of a Stand-
    ing Committee, the question conforms to the recommendation of the committee;
except
    that if the recommendation of a committee is adverse and an amendment
is introduced
    from the floor and adopted, the question shall be stated in the affirmative.
    The Reference Bureau's analysis of 1979 Assembly Resolution 7 explained
the further rule change: "Reversal of the question, from adverse to
positive
and as the result of the adoption of a new amendment, occurs not only when
a negative question was recommended by the committee, but also when the
motion for adverse disposition was offered from the floor. In addition, the
amended rule picks up a ruling by Speaker Haase .... that a new amendment
may not only be an amendment offered after the motion for adverse disposi-


120