The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken.

  Point of order:

  Representative Ward rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 53 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 349 [relating to recodification of the code of ethics for state public officials, granting rule-making authority, making an appropriation and providing penalties] was not germane under Assembly Rule 50 (3) (c) because it was substantially similar to assembly amendment 1 to assembly amendment 27 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 349.

  The chair ruled the point of order not well taken.

  Point of order:

299   Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 33 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 2, November 1977 Special Session was not germane under Assembly Rule 50 (3) (c) because it was substantially similar to assembly amendment 11 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 2, November 1977 Special Session.

  The chair ruled the point of order not well taken.

  Point of order:

  Representative Wahner rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 41 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 100 [relating to revision of laws applicable to actions affecting marriage] was not germane under Assembly Rule 50 (3) (c) because it was substantially similar to assembly amendment 21 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 100.

  The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken.

  Point of order:

  Representative Wahner rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 42 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 100 was not germane under Assembly Rule 50 (3) (c) because it was substantially similar to assembly amendment 21 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 100.

  The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken.

  Point of order:

  Representative Tesmer rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 43 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 100 was not germane under Assembly Rule 50 (3) (c) because it was substantially similar to assembly amendment 21 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 100.

  The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken.

  Point of order:

  Representative Wahner rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 33 to Assembly Resolution 6 was not germane under Assembly Rule 55 because it was substantially similar to assembly amendment 16 to Assembly Resolution 6.

  The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken.

[Point of order:]

  Senator Flynn raised the point of order that senate amendment 17 [to Senate Bill 426, relating to a residential landlord and tenant act] was identical to senate amendment 4 and was therefore, not germane.

  The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken pursuant to senate rule 50 (6).

[Point of order:]

  Senator Berger raised the point of order that senate amendment 31 [to Senate Bill 15, relating to revision of municipal employment collective bargaining impasse resolution procedures, providing for final and binding arbitration, authorizing a limited right to strike, granting rule-making authority and providing penalties] was similar to senate amendment 2 to senate amendment 2 to senate substitute amendment 6 and therefore, was not germane.

  The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken pursuant to senate rule 50 (6).

[Point of order:]

  Senator Berger raised the point of order that senate amendment 112 [to Senate Bill 77, relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the executive budget bill of the 1977 legislature, and making appropriations] was identical to senate amendment 20 and therefore was not germane.

  The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled that, pursuant to senate rule 50 (6), the point of order was well taken.

  Point of order:

  Representative Jackamonis rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to senate substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 128 was not germane because it was substantially similar to assembly amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 128.

  The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order not well taken.

  Point of order:

  Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 10 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 605 was not germane because

  it was substantially similar to assembly amendment 6 to assembly amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 605.

  The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order well taken.

  Point of order:

  Representative Conta rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 8 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 1040 was not germane under Assembly Rule 55 because it was substantially similar to assembly amendment 5 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 1040.

301   The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order well taken.

  Point of order:

  Representative Czerwinski rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 7 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 455 [relating to revision of child abuse law] was not germane because it was substantially similar to assembly amendment 5 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 455.

  The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order well taken.

  Point of order:

  Representative Rooney rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 9 to assembly amendment 6 to senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 725 [relating to provisions of professional liability insurance policies for health care providers] was not germane because it was substantially the same as assembly amendment 5 to assembly amendment 6 to senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 725.

  The chair ruled the point of order well taken.

  Point of order:

  Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 65 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 222 was not germane pursuant to Assembly Rule 55 (3) (c). He cited as a precedent, the ruling of the chair

  which appears on page 700 of the 1965 Assembly Journal in which assembly amendments 4 and 5 to 1965 Senate Bill 37 were ruled substantially similar.

  The speaker [Anderson] made the following ruling on the point of order.

  "It happens I do recall the bill that was under discussion at that time and I have examined very carefully the documents which the Gentleman from the 83rd has offered. I am persuaded that the Speaker at that time, Speaker Huber, was correct in his interpretation of the rule and that the 2 amendments were substantially the same - virtually identical. However, whether something is the same or different is a matter of judgment.

  Obviously, there is a difference of opinion between the Gentleman from the 83rd and the Gentleman from the 32nd and I suspect a majority of the people in this house. It may be that the difference is modest, but in the judgment of the chair, a significant difference. In any event, sufficient to take it outside the rule and accordingly the chair rules the point of order not well taken.

302   I might further go on to say, Gentleman from the 83rd, again it is always useful to consider what the purpose of the rule is in interpreting the rule. The rule should not be used to achieve a different purpose than that for which it is originally enacted. The purpose of it is to prevent repeated unnecessary consideration of the same subject matter once a conscious determination has been made in this house. There is no member of this house that is unaware of the fact that the result of the vote last evening, at least in the case of 4 members of this house on both sides of the issue - 3 on one and 1 on the other, turned out to be a mistake and therefore the result was different than that the members intended - at least those 4. And had they voted the way they intended to vote and tried to vote, the result would have been different.

  I am persuaded that this amendment is significantly different on its own, even if that were not true, but I remind the Gentleman that the purpose for which the rule was adopted in the first place is not violated by the chair ruling even if I was wrong on the merits. For these reasons, the point of order raised by the Gentleman from the 83rd is not well taken."

  [Identical amendment:]

  Senator Whittow moved that senate amendment 5 [to Assembly Bill 222, relating to state finances and appropriations constituting the executive budget bill of the 1975 legislature, and making appropriations] be placed after senate amendment 8.

[Point of order:]

  Senator Lorge raised the point of order that senate amendment 8 was essentially identical to senate amendment 5 and therefore was not germane.

  The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken as senate amendment 8 was not before the senate and therefore no ruling on germaneness could be made.

[Point of order:]

  Senator Schultz raised the point of order that Senate amendment 2 to [Senate Joint Resolution 10 relating to the vote on certain tax increase laws (first consideration)] was not germane.

  The Chair ruled the point not well taken.

[Point of order:]

  Senator Risser raised the point of order that Senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 358 is not germane.

303   The Chair took the point of order under advisement.

  Ruling of the chair:

  Earlier today the Senator from the 26th raised the point of order that Senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 358 [relating to limitations of actions regarding professional accounting services] was not germane.