"The House will be in order and the Members will be in their seats. We'll be led in prayer this morning by Reverend John Worten from the Winnetka Bible Church.
Reverend Worten."
"Thank you. This morning I want to lead you in prayer for the people of our nation and for the governments at the national and the local levels. Let us pray. Almighty God, because Your word teaches us to pray for all in authority we join our hearts this morning to ask for your blessing and grace upon our nation. We pray for the President of the United States and we ask that by Your grace he might have special wisdom, stamina in his duties and a very clear vision of the good that he desires for this land. We pray that Bills would be proposed and acted and upheld which would create in the United States a vigorous capitalism and at the same time a tangible compassion for people. We would pray for those who are active in School Boards, municipalities, local governing authorities and we pray that they might have a renewed desire to serve the people. That they might have a better understanding of their responsibilities and that all across America You would give us spirit of involvement by informed and educated, concerned citizens. We pray, Oh Lord, that You would soon bring that day when justice will reign. And when all of our Bills and programs have been enacted we will still pray. Oh God, shed thy grace on America and bring that day when Messiah shall reign and justice and righteousness shall reign throughout the whole world. Amen."
"Representative Rhem will lead the pledge this morning."
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of 1 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
"Roll Call for attendance. Take the record, Mr. Clerk. 170 answering the Roll. A quorum of the House is present. On the calendar on page ten under the Order of Senate Bills, Second Reading appears Senate Bill 954, Representative Hoffman. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk. Representative Friedrich, for what purpose do you seek recognition?"
"Well, Mr. Speaker, before we get into the serious business of the day I'd like to put something into the record which I think will be of interest to all of you. You probably remember that the Supreme Court is contented from time to time that the money that lawyers pay in for their license and for their annual fee is not public funds. You probably also know that they set up this little outfit called the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission and they've said that the people that work for that were not state employees and the funds that were handled with them was not subject to audit. Well, a rather interesting thing came out yesterday and you may have gotten a copy of it that one of the problems was were they eligible for state pensions. They had their own little deal going and which they've put them in Social Security system and yesterday the bulletin came out which says, 'the Social Security administration decision to cancel coverage was based on its determination that the Commission is an agency in the Judicial branch of the State of Illinois.' Coverage could be obtained the Social Security administration only through agreement between the state and the Social Security system. I hope that settles that once and for all that the money you attorneys pay in for your 2 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 license is, in fact, public funds."
"Senate Bill 954, Representative Hoffman. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk. Representative Getty."
"On the point raised by the Gentleman. What is the source of that, Representative Friedrich?"
"As a matter of fact it's the bulletin put out by the agency we're talking about."
"That's the Social Security administration."
"Would you like a copy of it? It's put out under the letter headed Attorney Registration Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois. I have this if you'd like to see it."
"What I'm addressing myself to is who made that decision?"
"The Social Security administration."
"So that was a decision made by a hearing officer in the Social Security administration not a Judicial..."
"No, I suppose the Supreme Court still contends that they're not accountable to us or anybody else."
"I just wanted to be clear on who made that decision. I didn't know that it was..."
"They have indicated the reason behind that in the first place was they said so."
"I'd like to suggest to all of you that have your lights on if you've got something you want to talk about on that issue you ought to get with Representative Friedrich so we can move along with the business that we're here to do. Representative Brummer, for what purpose do you seek recognition? Turn his light off. Alright, Senate Bill 954, once more."
"Senate Bill 954, a Bill for an Act to amend the School Code, Second Reading of the Bill. Amendment #1 was adopted in Committee."
"Are there any Motions filed with respect to 3 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Amendment #1?"
"Motion, I move to table Amendment #1 to Senate Bill 954, Representative Jesse White."
"Representative White, on Amendment #1 or Motion. Representative Hoffman."
"I'm sorry I wasn't able to get your attention a little earlier. This is another version of the school aid formula and due to attendance at the present time I'd like to take it out of the record."
"Out of the record. Senate Bill 956, Representative Smith. Out of the record. Senate Bill 999, Representative Polk. Read the Bill."
"Senate Bill 999, a Bill for an Act in relationship to public aid fraud, Second Reading of the Bill. No Committee Amendments."
"Are there any Amendments from the floor?"
"Floor Amendment #1, Polk-Darrow, amends Senate Bill 999..."
"Representative Polk, on Amendment #1."
"Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen, Amendment #1 changes a couple lines to bring this into conform with the federal law. It provides that a person who is convicted twice of welfare fraud shall be ineligible for public assistance. Now that's what the original Bill does. This Amendment then changes that to say to the extent permitted by federal law. It also says state and state... that officials which... employees of the Department of Public Aid or of local government units who willfully fail to report welfare fraud or abuse to State Attorney or DPA special investigation unit shall be subject to disciplinary proceedings by the Department of Public Aid or their own local government unit. It eliminates language which would allow assignment of public aid vouchers for recruitment or 4 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 ... payments obtained through welfare fraud. A few other technical errors. I would appreciate your support on Senate Amendment #1. Thank you."
"Representative Chapman."
"Mr. Speaker, the reason that I was asking to be recognized is that the Amendment coming up shortly, Amendment #4, is an extremely important Amendment. A very substantial Amendment and I think that every Member of this Body would want to be on the floor to listen to this Amendment and to discuss it and I'm just going to ask if it could be..."
"Representative, we're on Amendment #1. Now, do you have some comment on Amendment #1?"
"Well, I was just going to suggest the Bill should be taken out of the record until we have a better attendance."
"Is there any further discussion on Amendment #1? The Gentleman moves for the adoption of Amendment #1. All in favor will signify by saying 'aye', all opposed 'no'. The 'ayes' have it and the Amendment's adopted. Further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #2, Ronan-McClain, amends Senate Bill 999 on page eight and so forth."
"Representative Ronan. Representative McClain."
"Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Withdraw #2 please."
"Withdraw #2. Further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #3, McClain, amends Senate Bill 999."
"Representative McClain, on Amendment #3."
"Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, Amendment #3 puts back the penalties for Public Aid fraud at the same level as is a present law. Now, the intent of the Sponsor, I believe, is to restrict and constrict public aid fraud throughout the State of 5 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Illinois. It's not to double penalties that our usual crimes effecting throughout the State of Illinois. For instance, right now under the present Bill in case of involving less than $150.00 would be a Class A misdemeanor. A fine up to $2,000. Well, the present law is defines the maximum of $1,000. In a case involving $150.00 to $1,000 it's a Class 4 felony and a fine up to $10,000 in the current law there's a fine between $500 and $2,000. What in essence we've done with this piece of legislation is really contrary to the general flow of the State of Illinois in our criminal penalties. I'm no flaming liberal but what I do suggest to everybody on both sides of the aisle is to double penalties for public aid fraud is really wrong and should not be done. What we're going to end up doing is have judges give lesser fines than the intent of the Legislators are and we're going to have fewer convictions and fewer convictions of, let's say a Class 4 felony because of these horrendous fines that Mr. Polk and Mr. Thomas and Mr. Darrow are trying to subject to this public aid fraud. The issue really is in a conviction of public aid fraud is the State's Attorney has to move on it. You have to have the evidence and then the judge has to put the penalty on. The issue really is encouraging State's Attorneys to prosecute Public Aid fraud and that's what I think Mr. Polk has done 'pretty ably' in this piece of legislation. On the other hand, on the convictions and the penalties I think you go too far and I think the penalties are too much for public aid fraud. You've got to remember who these people are and for a Class 4 felony which is for fraud between $150.00 to $1,000 a fine up to $10,000 you know darn well that public aid recipients don't have that kind of money and so they're not going to get that kind of penalty as a pragmatic matter. But secondly and more 6 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 importantly, what you're doing is you're setting up a whole new system of penalties throughout the State of Illinois and I'd urge the adoption of Amendment #3."
"Representative Polk."
"Will the Sponsor of the Amendment yield?"
"He indicates he will."
"Representative McClain, I'm just concerned about the bottom line of what you did in regard to changing the fines. Now, I ask you to look at your Amendment in relation to, let's say, a pediatric who is convicted the second time or a provider of any type who is convicted the second time. What would the penalty or the fine be?"
"Between how much money?"
"Over ten thousand dollars."
"Right now it's a Class 2 felony. We've increased it to be a Class 1 felony which is a more substantial amount so we've actually made it a stiffer penalty than the present law is by making it a Class 1 felony."
"Would you read that Section? It appears here that you eliminated that, Mike. That was a technical question we had with your Amendment. And it appears now that anybody that..."
"That's not our intent."
"I know that's not your intent."
"Our intent was to increase it from a Class 2 felony to a Class 1 felony. Are you on page one of Amendment #3, line 16 and 17."
"You would address page nine of the Bill lines starting with eleven and twelve. It appears that you eliminated that Section."
"Mr. Polk, we deleted lines 12 through line 19. That's correct. But we then inserted guilty of a Class 1 felony which increases the penalty from the present law of a Class 7 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 2 felony to a..."
"Well, okay, we can accept that but the Section, Mike or Representative McClain, for the second offense which then is at Section 5 you seem to have deleted that entire Section."
"What we did was in Section 4 and 5 which are second offenders we have said that any offense over five thousand dollars, instead of the present law being a Class 2 felony we've made it a Class 1 felony. So, we've actually, compared to present law, we've made that stiffer for a two time offender."
"I guess what concerns us is the... where the original Bill says five thousand or more but less than ten and we felt that you did not address that."
"I could tell you as in any second offense over five thousand dollars now becomes a Class 1 felony under this Amendment."
"Well, I guess, Mike, what we're saying is that technically your intent.. I can understand what your intent is but you did not eliminate that Section."
"Well, if your staff would look, we eliminate lines 12 through 19. Line 11 says, is five thousand dollars or more but less than ten thousand dollars shall be and that we included Class 1 felony. So we go to five thousand dollars or more less than ten thousand dollars would make a Class 1 felony for subsequent offense."
"Well, to the Bill, Mr. Speaker. I still feel that unfortunate.. I feel that technically it's incorrect and that anyone who would be arrested convicted of abuse of over ten thousand would not follow the statutes. To the Bill, I have to oppose it simply because I think it's technically... would make the Bill technically incorrect."
"Any further discussion? Representative McClain, 8 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 to close."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, this Amendment, I wish people would pay attention. Under the present Bill of Senate Bill 999 we double the fines for Public Aid fraud. Double the fines. I think that is a poor public policy. We set up a totally new category. We believe that the fines are adequate right now for Public Aid fraud. The real issue in Public Aid fraud is getting State's Attorneys to prosecute. That's the real issue and that should be the intent of Senate Bill 999. I believe that is the intent of Senate Bill 999. This Amendment just puts back the fines where they ought to be. Right now, under Mr. Polk and Mr. Thomas' Bill, for a Class A misdemeanor which involves less than $150.00 potential fine is $2,000. If you have Public Aid fraud of $150.00 or less and have counted $2,000 I think is too severe and ought to go back to the old Class A misdemeanor penalty which is the present law of $1,000. For subsequent offense we make the penalty stiffer under this Amendment than in present law. For a second offender we make it a Class 1 felony rather than a Class 2 felony. And on those grounds I ask you to vote 'aye'."
"The Gentleman moves for the adoption of Amendment #3 to Senate Bill 999. All in favor will signify by saying 'aye', all opposed 'no'. All in favor signify by saying 'aye', all opposed by saying 'no'. It's a tie. All in favor signify by voting 'aye', all opposed by voting 'no'. Have all voted who wish? Take the record, Mr. Clerk. On this question there are 80 voting 'aye', 66 voting 'no', one voting 'present' and the Gentleman's Motion prevails and Amendment #1 (sic) is adopted. Are there further Amendments? Number three is adopted. Are there further Amendments?" 9 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Floor Amendment #4, Reilly, amends Senate ...."
"Representative Reilly, on Amendment #4."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Amendment #4 to Senate Bill 999 provides the basis for some cost containment measures in the Department of Public Aid. These are changes that perhaps each taken by themselves people might not want to see. But we face a choice in this state. We're either going to make some reasonable attempts to control Public Aid costs or the one cent sales tax increase that we're talking about is going to look like chicken feed compared with what we're going to need to balance the general fund. That's the choice and the only choice. The Amendment makes four or five changes. It changes the eligibility requirements for children. It says if the state.. the Department can provide by rule as to whether it's going to include those between 18 and 21. Current federal law requires that these people be included and unless the federal law is changed this Amendment won't make any difference. But we're pretty sure the federal law's going to be changed and we don't want to be in the situation where the federal law is changed. The state then cannot come into compliance because its own law prohibits that. The position then would be the state would have to pay and not receive any federal match in money. The same kind of argument applies to a couple of other changes that it makes. It allows the Department to consider the income and resources of a stepparent as available to the trial in determining need and it allows the Department to set a maximum on work expenses. Again, in both cases this is in anticipation of a federal law change. If the federal change doesn't happen the state won't be able to save money by this but the danger is that the federal law change will come which it almost certainly will and the state will then 10 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 lose money rather than being able to save money. The next change is that it clarifies the Department of Public Aid Code to expressly provide that the Department isn't required to cover all the services listed for all the populations covered under the program. Next change is that it clarifies the right of the Department to determine what rates, the rates at which it will pay hospitals. As it currently stands the Department simply pays the hospital anything the Department.. the hospital says that it wants. This will allow the Department to set those rates. And finally, it deals with a... simply clarifies that the provision allowing freedom of choice which is not in any way changed. It simply clarifies that that doesn't mean that if a hospital, for example, says well we're just not going to provide service because we don't think you're paying enough, clarifies that that is not in any way a denial of freedom of choice. If the hospital makes that choice it is not, after all, the state's fault. I'll be glad to answer questions about this. I would remind those of you who have been concerned about cuts, for example, for dentists and podiatrists and all kinds of different groups that are invited.. involved in Public Aid, that unless we are able to give the Department the flexibility that it needs to make these kinds of choices, those cuts are going to have to be made. If we do give the Department the flexibility this Amendment will allow, then many of those cuts can be dealt with and compromised and worked out in a reasonable way. I would urge adoption of Amendment #4 to Senate Bill 999."
"Is there any discussion? Representative Bowman."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I hope everyone listened very carefully to what Representative Reilly just described in this Amendment. It 11 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 is a very lengthy and complicated Amendment. It enacts the Governor's proposals to slice money out of his budget in several different ways. Now, we're all for economies in government. Let me point out a couple of things that it does which I think the House may not have been aware of because Representative Reilly is eloquent and has a way of making even the most pernicious kinds of changes seem very very reasonable indeed. One of the things that the Department of Public Aid proposes to do which this Bill would permit, is to cap what is called the income disregard. At the present time the Department, in determining eligibility for Public Aid, tries to set up a system of incentives so people will actually go out and work instead of languishing on Public Aid. So that it provides what is called an income disregard so that a certain proportion of earned income will be disregarded in setting the Public Aid allotment so, thereby, people can go out and work and not have their amount of Public Aid benefits reduced dollar for dollar. Thereby, they have an incentive to work. Well, this Bill would give the Department the completely open-ended power to limit those disregards. They, at the present time, have expressed their intent to cap the disregards. That is, in other words, to cap the incentive to work. We are, if we pass this Bill, giving the Department a blank check to cap the incentive to work. I would also point out that the Department has completely unlimited authority in this Bill to set hospital rates. Now, just before we adjourned at this... on this floor last night we past House Joint Resolution 42 which was in response to the cries and pleadings of the hospitals because they didn't like some of the things that the Health Finance Authority was doing to them. They didn't like some of the rules and regulations 12 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 regarding their costs and their reimbursements. Well, let me tell you, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, if you voted for that Resolution you ought to be voting against this Amendment because this Amendment undoes everything that we did last night on House Joint Resolution 42. So, if you want to encourage people in welfare to work and if you want to respond to the hospitals who are claiming distress then you want to vote against this Amendment."
"Representative Chapman."
"Mr. Speaker, I also oppose this Amendment in addition to the reasons Mr. Bowman presented. I'd like you to know that the Health and Family Services Committee had an opportunity to thoroughly discuss this Amendment. It was tacked on to another Bill in a surprise move by the administration. But in spite of this tactic on a bipartisan vote the Committee defeated the Amendment and then for good measure defeated the Bill to which it had been offered. So, we have here a substantial Bill in the form of Amendment #4 which has been thoroughly considered by a Committee and has been defeated by both Republicans and Democrats voting against a Bill that is not fair to providers in many instances, is not fair to recipients, and certainly is not fair to tax payers. I'd like to underscore the point that Representative Bowman made because your voters and my voters want to see Public Aid recipients working and we want to help get them off the Public Aid rolls. This Bill specifically will discourage this by giving the opportunity to the Department in the intent to use it, they indicate, to put caps on the disregards. This means that while, right now, work expenses like transportation costs are authorized and the Department disregards $30 and 1/3 of earned income as an incentive to work. We want people to work. Not just to 13 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 stay at home and draw Public Aid. They estimate that 12,500 cases are involved with adults earning income. Their initial estimate of savings as a result of these disre... capping the disregards is 19.8 billion...million but this amount, they admit, should be adjusted downward to 4 million because they believe that that many recipients would stop working. I hope you're all listening to this. They admit, the Department admits that this is going to cause substantial numbers of Public Aid recipients to quit working because they will no longer have any incentive to work. I believe this is the kind of proposal that costs the tax payer more in the long run and it is directly counter to the kind of messages that your voters and my voters are giving to us. They say, 'get Public Aid recipients off Public Aid while they're on Public Aid. They should be encouraged if not required to work.' This completely flies in the face of the views of our voters. I'd like to suggest to you also that these complicated suggestions have not been studied by this Legislature which has given a number of years and many dollars to a Commission that did a thorough job of a study of a revision of the Public Aid code. Not a single one of these recommendations being offered to us today by the Department of Public Aid was raised by the Department in the consideration. And I'm sure the Speaker since he chaired this Committee, would be interested in this information. Finally, this is not timely. Even if these were good recommendations these are not the recommendations that we should be following at this time because they try to look into a crystal ball to determine what the administration in Washington and the Congress in Washington is going to do. We're going to find, I'm afraid, that when the dust settles in Washington that these issues which are being also 14 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 discussed in Washington will be acted on in ways that will find these statutory changes inconsistent. If we should be taking this action, the time to do it is not now. It is farther on down the road. Farther on into this year after the decisions have been made by the federal government. I urge every Member of this House, both Democrat and Republican, to vote 'no' on this Amendment and reflect what occurred in the Committee just recently."
"Is there any further discussion? Representative Currie."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. The House Committee on Health and Family Services was right to reject this proposal when it came before it. The proposal..."
"Representative Reilly."
"The proposal that was defeated in the Committee was quite a different proposal from this. It's true that some of the elements of this proposal were included in that but not nearly all of them. There have been a great deal of compromise since then. All of the provider groups except the hospital have since come into agreement or at least neutrality on this. I wish we would restrict our discussion to the Amendment that's before the House which was not the Bill that was before that Committee."
"Representative Greiman, for what purpose do you seek recognition?"
"Well, Mr. Speaker, probably the most abused thing in this General Assembly is the term point of order. Now, the last speaker took issue with some of the statements that Ms. Currie was making. That is not grounds for a point of order. A point of order deals with the process. If he disagrees with the substance he should wait for his time to close but hardly raise it as a point of order. It is 15 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 not... that has nothing to do with our procedures nor our process. It is a very abused kind of statement. I think we should govern ourselves in accordance with Robert's rule, Sir."
"Proceed, Representative Currie. And would you confine your remarks to the Amendment that's before us?"
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. The Committee on Health and Family Services was right to reject substantially similar legislation that came before it during the early part of this month. This legislation, the legislation embodied in Amendment #4 to House.. to Senate Bill 999 is at best premature. We don't know how the dust will settle in Washington. In fact, this very day the Governor of this state, as I understand it, is visiting with Mr. 'Schweiker', the head of Health and Human Services in Washington, to negotiate what kinds of medicaid cuts might end up coming down to us from the feds. For us at this point, to adopt these proposals would be indeed to jump the gun. At worst, however, this proposal is a lot more than just premature. This proposal would take away the legislative authority that is usually so dear to the hearts of the Members of this chamber. We don't like it when administrative agencies decide how they're going to run state programs. How they're going to interpret state mandates. What this Amendment does is to take the mandates away all together. It says to the Department of Public Aid, 'do it your way kiddos. Don't ask us for advice. Don't ask us to tell you what it is you're suppose to be doing.' I don't know how the Department of Public Aid is regarded in your home areas but I know that in my area there's a good deal of flap and a good deal of consternation about the capacity of that Department to run its ordinary business in an ordinary straight forward and 16 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 well put together fashion. To adopt this proposal at this time abrogates entirely the authority of this legislative chamber to determine what kinds of standards that Department should implement. Had we been fortunate enough to vote on Speaker Ryan's House Bill 79, which embodied the proposals of the Commission to revise and rewrite the Illinois Public Aid Code, we could at least have felt some security that the Department when it established rules and regulations would have done so in a manner that would have given us and the public an opportunity to participate in that procedure. Unfortunately, we didn't have a chance to vote on Speaker Ryan's good House Bill 79 and that means that if we give this authority to the Department of Public Aid at this time there are no guarantees, Ladies and Gentlemen of this House, no guarantees to you as a Legislator, no guarantees to your people back home, that the resulting rules and regulations will bear any resemblance to fair and non-discriminatory treatment for either recipients or the vendors who provide service under the medicaid program. This Amendment is premature and it is a travesty in terms of the control of the Legislature over what kind of help, what kind of programs we, in fact, want our state to operate. I strongly urge 'no' votes."
"Is there any further discussion? Representative Smith (Margaret)." Smith(M.): "Thank you, Mr. Speaker and to my learned colleagues on the floor. I stand in opposition to Amendment #4 because even though they have many technical Amendments attached to this, I'm concerned about one in particular when we think in terms of medicaid. I represent a district that .... are dependent upon medicaid and in order to.. for these people to survive some of them have never had the opportunity to even go into a doctor's office. But they 17 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 are dependent upon these outpatient clinics. And to think in terms of cutting out this provision in the Amendment that any time that our Executive branch during the fiscal year would want to give option to exhaust in any of these programs that are going to help people because he wants to cut back on his budget. I think it is not consideration for all people. And the people who are aided by medicaid are people who are blind, lame, and are in need of these types of services. I understand that the Department intends to limit the medical assistance no grant or general assistance program. They intend to eliminate the aid to the medically indigent programs to reasonable minimum coverage which is an estimate of one hundred and thousand medical assistant no grant recipients. Most aged, and blind and are disabled people and that 92,000 general assistant an aid to medically indigent cases would be impact by these changes. This is an addition to the reduction of optional medical services for the medical assistance no grant recipients. To exclude non-emergency dental care, podiatry and chiropractic service and other medical care. The bulk of our people in many of our sections that we represent comes under this category and I think that inasmuch as this program is premature and under the national level we don't know how it's going to come out. I think that it said that we should prepare for war in time of peace. But let me say to you my learned colleagues that the war is now and I think that we should think twice in passing this Amendment. I vote 'no'."
"Is there any further discussion? Representative Younge."
"We should be voting 'no' against this Amendment because it will take away the incentives that are presently available for women who find themselves in a poverty... 18 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 culture of poverty to work. Our policy should be that we encourage mothers with children to seek part-time employment and try to get the family out of a poverty situation. We should.. we have a whole institution that has not encouraged people to work in the past and we are beginning with some of the incentives that are a part of the administrative practices of the Illinois Department of Public Aid beginning to encourage people to work. That should be our policy now to have people work. Work is not a luxury. It is not a privilege. It is a necessity. If you take a person's work from them you take their very life. You take their reason for living. Our policy should be that we encourage all people to work and this Amendment has the effect of taking away the incentive for women and families finding themselves in a hardship financial situation to seek gainful employment. We often find ourselves going into two and three different directions at the same time. If you are in favor of increasing and leaving incentives in place that would encourage work then you ought to vote 'no' on this Amendment. This is a very important part of our ethic as a society and I encourage you to vote 'no' on this Amendment."
"Representative Bower."
"Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question."
"The Gentleman moves the previous question. All in favor will signify by saying 'aye', all opposed by saying 'no'. The 'ayes' have it and the Motion prevails. Representative Breslin, do you seek recognition?"
"I do. I would request a Roll Call and would ask five other Members to join me."
"Representative Bower withdraws his request for the previous question. Representative Jones, you're the only one left. It's your turn." 19 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know if that Motion had carried I guess I wouldn't have had to come to the podium and find out why you wouldn't recognize me because my light had been on since this Amendment was introduced by the Sponsor and I would hate to take the time of the House to come to the podium to find out why."
"Would you proceed on the Amendment, Representative?"
"Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the Sponsor yield to a question? Representative Reilly, you indicated that the stepfathers in the event of marriage.. the step.. their income would be included as being taken into consideration as regarding a grant for a dependent child."
"It.. the Amendment would allow the Department to provide for including that income assuming that federal law is changed. It would allow them to provide for including that by rule, yes."
"Well, could you tell... explain to the Body how they would proceed in doing this?"
"If the Representative from the Department could come back perhaps I could. Basically, I assume they would provide some by rule some way of... some percentage of that income would be included in the family's income just as a real father's income is included."
"Why, as I read the Amendment, what the Amendment would actually do is discourage a person from getting married. Am I correct?"
"No. If.. I certainly wouldn't see it that way."
"Well, because the way I see it that if his income is going to be included in taking care of a stepchild and that made.. his income may not be enough so rather than get married and everything the individual would not get married. Am I correct?" 20 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Well, all we're trying to do is get in line with the federal law. If the federal laws change then we have to include that or we won't receive the federal reimbursement. If the federal law isn't changed this won't have any effect. But I don't see that it would discourage anyone from getting married at all. The.. if, in fact, the income the person, call him a stepfather or you know whatever, if, in fact, that income is going to support the child it ought to be included. It's fraud not to include it."
"Another question. You mentioned something about putting a ceiling on the amount that the Department would reimburse the hospital ... for the care of Public Aid recipients. Could you elaborate on that?"
"As it.. this is really the heart of the Amendment. The.."
"Representative Chapman, for what purpose do you seek recognition?"
"Sir, could we have some order. I'm trying to listen to Mr. Jones and Mr. Reilly and I can't hear a word either one of them are saying."
"They don't talk very clear. Could we have some order in this chamber, please, for Representative Chapman? Proceed."
"Alright, the Department, as it stands now simply pays the hospital whatever the hospital says the charge is. Now, we'd all like to be in that position. That's a wonderful position to be in except it's terrible for the tax payers. All this says is that the Department of Public Aid can decide what it wants to charge or what it wants to pay. What it thinks is a reasonable fee for that particular service and pay that. Again, Representative Jones, I'd remind you that the cuts are coming. The question is, are we going to make them here or are we going 21 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 to take them out of the recipient grant lines or where are we going to take them. It's not a happy choice but if we're going to take them I would suggest that this is the best place rather than out of those lines that actually provide help to assist recipients."
"Well, what impact would this have on the hospital as in regards to the treating of the elderly and the poor when they come in for assistance on the hospital? What impact would it have?"
"For most hospitals it would have no impact. There would be some hospitals I guess that might decide that the Department of Public Aid wasn't paying enough and might choose not to take Public Aid recipients. But for the average hospital for which the rate will be established there will be no effect. The recipient will still be able to go there and we'll still receive the same care they receive now."
"You've already taken the aspirins away from senior citizens, the non-prescription drugs. You've taken that away from them and now what you're doing in essence with this Amendment is fixing it so that senior citizens who are in need of hospital care, poor people who are in need of hospital care cannot really receive the proper health treatment they need because the hospitals, as a result of this Amendment, will refuse to treat Public Aid recipients and persons will be left to die in their homes and not receive proper medical treatment. This is the effect of this Amendment. Am I correct?"
"No, you're not correct. If you have an understanding, as I'm sure you do, of the terrific financial involvement of hospitals with the Department of Public Aid the idea that they're going to cut off their nose to spite their face and bankrupt themselves by refusing, in many cases, 22 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 the heavy financial contribution that Public Aid makes simply because they may not approve rules is in my opinion simply wrong. Recipients will continue to receive service. The state will save some money and we will be able to avoid cuts in the recipient grant lines and restore some of those services in the pharmacists lines that might have been taken away from senior citizens under early proposals."
"Actually, in effect, this legislation is really not needed because you know and this Body knows that the proposed changes in Congress have not taken effect. We don't know what they are going to be and these funds are reimbursable by the federal government. So, therefore, for you to attempt to confuse the issue by introducing this particular Amendment to actually hurt the poor, I'm really shocked at you. Let me ask you another question. The Speaker of the House spent $400,000 of the tax payers money to rewrite the Public Aid Code and I want to commend him on doing such a tremendous job. But, I noticed that the Department of Public Aid did not provide any of these changes in the Commissions report. Now, I want to know from you, Representative Reilly, do you support the recommendations of the Speaker in House Bill 79 to all the changes to rewrite the Public Aid Code?"
"No."
"So, in your opinion did the Speaker waste the time.."
"I'm a very independent fellow."
Speaker Ryan: "Representative Jones, would you confine your remarks to Amendment #4 to Senate Bill 999?"
"My remarks, Mr. Speaker, is confined to the Bill because these issues are all inter-related. Now, House Bill 79, which I consider a good piece of legislation, and could you tell me why these provisions were not included in House Bill 79?" 23 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"No, I can't. I just don't know."
"Well, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, in addressing this Amendment, again we have a clear example of the other side of the aisle and the Reagan policy in socking it to the poor. They've taken away their podiatrists. They've taken away the prescription drugs, the non-prescription drugs. They are now fixed as where the poor people, elderly citizens, who are in need of hospital treatment can be refused by the hospital because the Department of Public Aid is going to set a cap as to how much those hospitals will be reimbursed for treating poor people. If you want to make some cuts, there are other areas in the state budget where you can make the cuts. But to make the cuts on those persons who can least afford it is actually ridiculous. This Amendment should be soundly defeated. I'm really surprised at my colleague, Representative Reilly, for introducing this Amendment. I know he is ashamed of doing it because he's not that type of a person. So, I want every individual on this side of the aisle and that side of the aisle to reject this ridiculous Amendment."
"Is there any further discussion? Representative Watson."
"I'd like to move the previous question."
"The Gentleman moves the previous question. All in favor will signify by saying 'aye', all opposed 'no'. The 'ayes' have it and the Gentleman's Motion prevails. Representative Reilly, to close on Amendment #4."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We've heard a lot of red herrings raised here today and in the continuing battle between my alleged eloquence and the perniciousness of this proposal, I would hope that I'm winning. The Amendment, in no way, discourages people from working. It simply 24 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 provides for a reasonable cap on work related expenses. We all know that those expenses should have some kind of limit and this simply provides that. But the guts of this Amendment is simply to say and the issue before is, are we going to control the Public Aid budget or not and if we are going to control it are we going to take the money from the recipients or are we going to take the money from some of the provider groups which I'm reluctant to do, but which nonetheless, can afford the cost better than the recipients can? That's what this is involved with. The voters did indeed speak in November. They spoke about controlling Public Aid costs. They spoke about balanced budgets. They spoke about controlling state spending. What this Amendment does is put us in a position to have some flexibility in response to the federal changes that are being made to bring the Department of Public Aid budget at long last, under some rational control. I would urge a favorable vote on this Amendment, Amendment #4 to Senate Bill 999."
"The Gentleman moves for the adoption of Amendment #4 to Senate Bill 999. All in favor will signify by voting 'aye', all opposed by voting 'no'. Representative Satterthwaite, one minute to explain your vote."
"Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, if we are going to make this decision today it seems to me that we have very little faith in what our Governor is trying to accomplish by being in Washington today. Until a decision is made there it is really premature for us to be going ahead and deciding what the state policy will be and, in fact, giving more weight for the federal government to take a course that we may feel is not desirable for our residents. As was indicated before, this will, in fact, put more people on the welfare rolls because they will find 25 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 that it is not worth working if they cannot have as much money to live on in the long run and I urge a 'no' vote."
"Representative Wolf, one minute to explain your vote." Wolf, J.J.: "Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. This decision has.. other decisions we are forced to make as the General Assembly are not always easy. We're talking here a twenty or thirty million dollar item, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. I don't think I have to go through a great dissertation on what the economy of this state is. What the state of the revenue projections are. This is a very important Amendment. I think we have to bite the bullet on this one. I think it's one that has to be adopted and I would urge a few more green lights on this Amendment."
"Representative Leverenz, one minute to explain your vote."
"Yes, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I understand if we would adopt this Amendment we would begin construction on the Billy Page Memorial Hospital. I urge your red vote."
"Representative Robbins, one minute to explain your vote."
"For a while I served as Vice-Chairman of the Public Aid Board in our county. We had and knew of violations. The Board had no right to go in on those violations underneath the law. This would give the Board the right to see that your dollars are spent like they should be spent. The people that are taken care of will receive... that need to be taken care of will receive Public Aid and those that don't won't. Now, isn't this what you want? Fair legislation for those that need it to get it and have enough money to get what they need or do you want some of 26 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 the people just because they can get on to get on and free load and take it away from the real needy? This needs more green votes for honesty and fairness in government."
"Representative Levin, one minute to explain your vote."
"Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, the Legislature in the last few years has moved in the direction of taking more control over what goes on through the joint Committee. We had last night a Resolution because an agency was doing something they had no authority to do in terms of their rules. This goes directly contrary. This says, 'Department of Public Aid, we're going to take away all of the legislative standards. We're going to let you do whatever you want.' I think no matter what your position is in terms of cost cutting that's the wrong direction that we should be moving and we should be providing the direction to the Department of Public Aid not giving them the discretion to do anything they want."
"Representative Dunn, Jack Dunn, one minute to explain your vote." Dunn, Jack: "Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I would just remind those people who have their red lights on that the Public Aid budget now is about 30% of the entire state budget. I think we've got an opportunity to get a little better handle on those kinds of costs by pressing your green button. Thank you."
"Representative Chapman, one minute."
"Mr. Chap.. Mr. Speaker, I only ask that we verify the affirmative Roll Call should this Amendment be adopted."
"Have all voted who wish? Representative Yourell, one minute to explain your vote."
"Yes, thank you. I'm voting against this Bill because as you recall the last order of business last night was the 27 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 adoption of House Joint Resolution 42. I don't recall the exact number of the vote on that Bill but it was over 135 on that Resolution. If you look at this Amendment you'll see on page 8 I believe it is, this puts it back into this Bill so that the Illinois Hospital Finance Authority can set the rates for hospitals. Now this is exactly opposite of what we did last night with House Joint Resolution 42 and I think that in itself should be enough to defeat this Amendment. We can't do something last night and then negate that action that I think most of the majority of the Members of this House agreed with and then put it right back in in this Amendment. So I would suggest you take a good look at this Amendment and vote 'no' until something's done with at least that part of it. Or vote 'yes'."
"Representative Nelson, one minute to explain your vote."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House. The worst argument that I've heard against this Amendment is that it makes us look into a crystal ball. I think that what we need to do as elected Representatives of the people is look farther into the future than just in a time of crisis. I think that we need to realize what is coming and I think that this Amendment is a good Amendment that does provide for flexibility. I've read the entire Amendment and I cannot find any wording in this Amendment that supports the exaggerated claim that persons on Public Aid will no longer be encouraged to work. We just passed Senate Bill 848 and I would urge your 'aye' vote on this Amendment."
"Representative Ewell, one minute to explain your vote."
"Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, when I first got here about 5% of the Public Aid budget went for all the support services like the doctors, the hospitals, the dentists, 28 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 etc. This figure has risen steadily over the years until it is now approximately 60% of the Public Aid budget. 10% is paid out in administrative costs which mean the recipients get 30% of the whole budget. I would like to suggest we put a cost of living in for the doctors, the dentists and the pharmacists which will costs us millions of dollars. If we were concerned about economy surely their cost of living would have been considered first and it would have been one of the first things cut out of the budget. I cannot support this as it is and I'm inclined to tell you I've got to vote 'no'."
"Representative Kulas, one minute to explain your vote."
"Yes, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I'd like the Members on this side of the aisle who wanted to take a ride on that elephant to take a look at that board because this is the beginning of your ride."
"Have all voted who wish? Take the record, Mr. Clerk. On this question there are 85 voting 'aye', 87 voting 'no', none voting 'present'. Representative Reilly."
"I request a poll of the absentees and then a verification of the negative."
"Poll of the absentees, Mr. Clerk."
"Poll of the absentees. Abramson. Garmisa. Jackson. Margalus and Redmond."
"The Gentleman requests a verification of the negative. Poll of the negative Roll Call."
"Alexander. Balanoff. Beatty. Bowman. Bradley. Braun. Breslin. Brummer. Bullock. Capparelli. Carey. Catania. Chapman. Christensen. Cullerton. Currie. Darrow. Deuchler. DiPrima. Domico. Donovan. Doyle. John Dunn. Epton. Ewell. Farley. Flinn. Virginia 29 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Frederick. Getty. Giglio. Giorgi. Greiman. Hallstrom. Hanahan. Henry. Huff. Jaffe. Jones. Kane. Katz. Keane. Dick Kelly. Kornowicz. Kosinski. Krska. Kulas. Laurino. Lechowicz. Leon. Leverenz. Levin. Madigan. Martire. Matijevich. Mautino. McClain. McGrew. McPike. Mulcahey. Murphy. O'Brien. Ozella. Pierce. Pouncey. Preston. Rea. Rhem. Richmond. Ronan. Saltzman. Satterthwaite. Schneider. Schraeder. Slape. Margaret Smith. Steczo. Stewart. Stuffle. Terzich. Turner. Van Duyne. Vitek. White. Sam Wolf. Younge. Yourell and Zito."
"Representative Reilly, do you have any questions of the negative .."
"Yes, Mr. Speaker."
"Representative Wolf(J.J.) in the Chair."
"Mr. Speaker, are you ready?"
"Yes, Mr. Reilly, proceed."
"Representative Braun."
"For what purpose does the Lady from Cook, Representative Chapman, arise?"
"What's the count at this point, please, Sir?"
"What's the count, Mr. Clerk? 85 'aye', 87 'no'. What was that, Mr. Reilly, now?"
"Representative Braun."
"Representative Braun. Is the Lady in the chamber? How is she recorded, Mr. Clerk?"
"The Lady's recorded as voting 'no'."
"Remove her from the Roll Call."
"Representative Bullock."
"Representative Bullock in the chamber? How is the Gentleman recorded?"
"The Gentleman's recorded as voting 'no'."
"Remove him from the Roll Call." 30 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Representative Capparelli."
"He's in his seat."
"Representative John Dunn."
"Representative John Dunn. Is he in the chamber? Not in the chamber. How is he recorded, Mr. Clerk?"
"The Gentleman's recorded as voting 'no'."
"Remove him from the Roll Call and restore Mr. Bullock to the Roll Call. He has returned to the chamber."
"Representative Farley."
"Mr. Farley. How is the Gentleman recorded?"
"The Gentleman's recorded as voting 'no'."
"Remove him from the Roll."
"Representative Flinn."
"Representative Flinn. Is he in the chamber? How is he recorded, Mr. Clerk?"
"The Gentleman's recorded as voting 'no'."
"Remove him from the Roll."
"Representative Ha.. Representative Henry."
"Representative Henry. Is the Gentleman in the chamber? How is he recorded, Mr. Clerk?"
"The Gentleman's recorded as voting 'no'."
"Remove him from the Roll."
"Representative Hanahan."
"Mr. Hanahan in the chamber? How is he recorded, Mr. Clerk?"
"The Gentleman's recorded as voting 'no'."
"Remove him from the Roll Call."
"Representative Dick Kelly."
"Mr. Kelly in the chamber? How is he recorded, Mr. Clerk?"
"The Gentleman's recorded as voting 'no'."
"Remove him from the Roll Call."
"Representative Laurino." 31 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Mr. Laurino in the chamber? How is he recorded, Mr. Clerk?"
"The Gentleman's recorded as voting 'no'."
"Remove him from the Roll Call and Mr. Henry has returned to the chamber. Put him back on the Roll."
"Representative Leon."
"Mr. Leon in the chamber? How is he recorded?"
"The Gentleman's recorded as voting 'no'."
"Remove him from the Roll Call."
"Leverenz."
"Mr. Leverenz. He's in his seat."
"Martire."
"Who was that?"
"Representative Martire."
"Mr. Martire is not in the chamber. How is he recorded, Mr. Clerk?"
"The Gentleman's recorded as voting 'no'."
"Wait a minute. He's in the rear, in the rear seat next to Mr. Bianco. And put Mr. Leon back on the Roll Call. Was Mr. McClain taken off?"
"No, he was not."
"Proceed."
"Representative McPike."
"He's in the chamber."
"Representative Murphy."
"Mr. Laz Murphy. Is the Gentleman in the chamber? How is he recorded, Mr. Clerk?"
"The Gentleman's recorded as voting 'no'."
"Remove him from the Roll."
"Voting 'no'? Let's not remove him. Representative O'Brien."
"Mr. O'Brien in the chamber? Mr. Murphy was voting 'no' and he was removed, Mr. Reilly. Who was the last one?" 32 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 O'Brien?"
"O'Brien."
"How is he recorded?"
"The Gentleman's recorded as voting 'no'."
"Remove him from the Roll Call."
"Representative Richmond."
"Richmond. Is Mr. Richmond in the chamber? He's in his seat."
"Representative Giorgi."
"Mr. Giorgi is down here in the side aisle."
"Alright, Representative Sam Wolf."
"He's in the chamber."
"Representative Ronan."
"Mr. Ronan. How is the Gentleman recorded?"
"The Gentleman's recorded as voting 'no'."
"Remove him."
"I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. Was he removed?"
"Mr. Ronan?"
"He's in the chamber?"
"No, Mr. Ronan has been removed from the Roll."
"Okay. Representative Deuchler."
"Representative Deuchler. Is the Lady in the chamber? How is she recorded, Mr. Clerk? She's right here. Alright, never mind. Any further?"
"Representative Huff."
"Mr. Huff. Is the Gentleman in the chamber? How is he recorded, Mr. Clerk?"
"The Gentleman's recorded as voting 'no'."
"Remove him from the Roll Call."
"Alright, Representative Satterthwaite."
"She's in her seat."
"No further questions, Mr. Speaker."
"What purpose does the Gentleman from Cook, 33 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Representative Jackson, arise?"
"How am I recorded, Mr. Speaker? How am I recorded?"
"How's the Gentleman recorded, Mr. Clerk."
"The Gentleman's not recorded as voting."
"Record me as 'no'."
"Record the Gentleman as 'no'. The count is now 85 'yeas', 77 'nos'. The Lady from Cook, Mrs. Chapman."
"Would you repeat that, Sir? I wanted to ask for a verification if it's necessary and I didn't hear the count."
"The Lady requests a verification of the affirmative. Starting count is 85 'yea', 77 'nay'."
"Poll of the affirmative. Ackerman. Alstat. Barkhausen. Barnes. Barr. Bartulis. Bell. Bianco. Birkinbine. Bluthardt. Boucek. Bower. Collins. Conti."
"Representative Chapman."
"May I request that you pull the curtains because it's very difficult for us to see. We're looking into the light."
"The Lady would like to be kept in the dark."
"The light blinds me."
"Is that part of Mr. Kulas' theory?"
"That may be."
"Continuing with the poll.."
"Thank you very much."
"How's that Mrs. Chapman? Alright?"
"Well, that's a lot better. Yes, thank you, Sir."
"Continuing with the poll of the affirmative. Daniels. Davis. Deuster. Jack Dunn. Ralph Dunn. Ebbesen. Ewing. Fawell. Findley. Dwight Friedrich. Griffin. Grossi. Hallock."
"One moment. Mr. Daniels, for what purpose do you seek recognition? The Gentleman seeks to be verified. Is 34 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 that alright, Mrs. Chapman? Go ahead."
"Continuing with the poll of the affirmative. Hannig. Hastert. Hoffman. Hoxsey. Hudson. Huskey. Johnson. Karpiel. Jim Kelley. Klemm. Kociolko. Koehler. Kucharski. Kustra. Leinenweber. Macdonald. Mays. McAuliffe. McBroom. McCormick. McMaster. Ted Meyer. Roland Meyer. Miller. Neff. Nelson. Oblinger. O'Connell. Pechous. Peters. Piel. Polk. Pullen. Reed. Reilly. Rigney. Robbins. Ropp. Sandquist. Schuneman. Irv Smith. Stanley. Stearney. E.G. Steele. C.M. Stiehl. Swanstrom. Tate. Telcser. Topinka. Tuerk. Vinson. Watson. Wikoff. Winchester. J.J. Wolf. Woodyard. Zwick and Mr. Speaker."
"For the purpose of an introduction here we'd like to introduce the young Gentleman on my left as our honorary Parliamentarian. Brent 'Ewlick' is the son of Fred 'Ewlick' who's the Deputy Director of the Department of Public Health. The Gentleman from Cook, Representative Abramson, for what purpose do you seek recognition, Sir?"
"How am I recorded?"
"How is the Gentleman recorded?"
"The Gentleman is not recorded as voting."
"Vote me 'aye'."
"Record the Gentleman as 'aye'. Mr. Martire, do you seek recognition?"
"Mr. Speaker, how am I recorded?"
"How is the Gentleman recorded?"
"The Gentleman's recorded as voting 'no'."
"Change me to 'yes', please."
"Change the Gentleman from 'no' to 'aye'. Representative Zwick."
"Would you change me to 'no', please?"
Speaker Wolf: "Change the Lady from 'aye' to 'no'." 35 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Representative Braun."
"Mr. Speaker, how am I recorded?"
"How is the Lady recorded, Mr. Clerk?"
"The Lady has been removed from the Roll."
"Restore her to the Roll Call."
"Thank you, as a 'no' vote. Thank you."
"Questions of the affirmative. Representative Chapman."
"First, may we have a count, Sir?"
"What's the count, Mr. Clerk? Mr. Birkinbine seeks leave to be verified, Representative Chapman. Does he have permission? Okay."
"Yes."
"The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Bullock, for what purpose do you seek recognition, Sir?"
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could you indicate how I'm recorded on this Roll Call?"
"How you're recorded?"
"How am I recorded?"
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'no'."
"And I'm on the Roll Call. Thank you."
"Representative Flinn."
"Well, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to determine whether I was taken off the Roll or not."
"Has Mr. Flinn been removed?"
"The Gentleman has been removed."
"Restore him to the Roll Call, please. Representative Stewart, do you seek recognition?"
"Yes, Mr. Speaker. How am I recorded?"
"How is the Lady recorded?"
"The Lady is recorded as voting 'no'."
"Request leave to be verified or am I verified?"
"We've already polled the negative. Alright. Are 36 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 we ready for the affirmative? What's the count now, Mr. Clerk? We're starting with 86 'aye', 79 'no'. The Gentleman from Cook, from Dupage, Mr. Hudson."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could I have leave to be verified?"
"Okay, Mrs. Karpiel, are you seeking the same? Mrs. Chapman, Representative Karpiel and Hudson seek to be verified. Have leave? Okay. Tim Johnson makes the same request. Does he have leave? Findley and Fawell are seeking also to have leave to be verified. Do they have leave? Okay. Representative Chapman."
"Would you put me on, Sir? Winchester."
"We've been putting you on for a long time, Mrs. Chapman."
"Trying hard anyway. Winchester."
"Mr. Winchester is in his seat."
"Schuneman."
"Mr. Schuneman. Is the Gentleman in the chamber? How is the Gentleman recorded, Mr. Clerk?"
"The Gentleman's recorded as voting 'aye'."
"Remove Mr. Schuneman from the Roll Call."
"Vinson."
"Representative Vinson is in his seat."
"Deuster."
"Mr. Deuster is in his seat as usual."
"Griffin."
"Mr. Griffin is in his seat and I believe Mr. Mays is seeking leave to be verified. Does he have leave?"
"Polk."
"Who was that? Polk?"
"I'm sorry. Mr. Pechous."
"Mr. Pechous. Is the Gentleman in the chamber? How is he recorded, Mr. Clerk?" 37 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"The Gentleman's recorded as voting 'aye'."
"Remove him from the Roll Call."
"McAuliffe."
"Mr. McAuliffe. Is the Gentleman in the chamber? Occupied temporarily. Remove him from... how's he recorded, Mr. Clerk?"
"The Gentleman's recorded as voting 'aye'."
"Remove him from the Roll Call."
"Mr. Stearney."
"Representative Stearney. Mr. Stearney in the chamber? How is the Gentleman recorded?"
"The Gentleman's recorded as voting 'aye'."
"Remove him from the Roll Call, Mr. Clerk."
"Mr. Ewing."
"Ewing was that?"
"Yes, Sir."
"Representative Ewing, is he in the chamber? Return Mr. Schuneman to the Roll Call, Mr. Clerk. Mr. Ewing in the chamber? How is the Gentleman recorded?"
"The Gentleman's recorded as voting 'aye'."
"Remove him from the Roll Call."
"Mr. McBroom."
"McBroom. Is Representative McBroom in the chamber? How is he recorded, Mr. Clerk?"
"The Gentleman's recorded as voting 'aye'."
"Remove him from the Roll Call."
"Mr. Mays was verified wasn't he?"
"Yes, Ma'am."
"Representative Irv Smith."
"Representative Smith? He's under his desk, you say? How is the Gentleman recorded?"
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'aye'."
"Remove Mr. Smith from the Roll Call." 38 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"E. G. Steele?"
"Representative Everett Steele? Is the Gentleman in the Chamber? How is he recorded, Mr. Clerk?"
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'aye'."
"Remove him from the Roll Call and restore Mr. Pechous to the Roll Call. Please don't snap your fingers, Mr. Pechous, I can see you. For what purpose do you arise, Sir?"
"Mr. Speaker, how am I recorded?"
"The Gentleman has been removed from the Roll."
"Please vote me 'no'."
"Record the Gentleman as 'no'. Representative Sandquist, you seek recognition, Sir?"
"Yes, how am I recorded?"
"How is the Gentleman recorded?"
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'aye'."
"Well, vote me 'no'."
"Change the Gentleman to 'no'. Representative Zwick?"
"How am I recorded?"
"I think the same way you changed the last time. How is the Lady recorded?"
"The Lady has changed from 'aye' to 'no'."
"Please change me back to 'yes'."
"Back to 'yes'. Any further?"
"Mr. Tuerk?"
"Tuerk? Fred Tuerk, he is in his seat."
"Mr. Kucharski?"
"Kucharski? Is Representative Kucharski in the Chamber? How is the Gentleman recorded, Mr. Clerk?"
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'aye'."
"Remove him from the Roll Call."
"Mr. Leinenweber?" 39 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"He's in his seat, behind the newspaper."
"Mr. Bluthardt?"
"Bluthardt? He is in the Chamber and restore Mr. McBroom, Mr. Clerk. He has returned to the Chamber."
"Mr. Huskey?"
"And restore Irv Smith to the Roll Call. He's back from the swimming pool. Who was the last one? Huskey? He's in his seat."
"Mr. Tate?"
"Representative Tate? I think, yes, he's in his seat."
"Mrs. Currie was trying to have you removed, Sir, but I talked her out of it. Mr. Barr?"
"Who was that last one?"
"Mr. Barr."
"Barr? J. Robert Barr? Is the Gentleman in the Chamber? Is Representative Barr in the Chamber? How is he recorded, Mr. Clerk?"
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'aye'."
"Remove him from the Roll Call. He may be back for his coat."
"That's all we have, Mr. Speaker. Thank you."
"Alright. What's the count now, Mr. Clerk?"
"Oh, Mr. Kelly desires to be recognized, Sir."
"Mr. Kelly, for what purpose do you seek recognition, Sir?"
"I'd like to find out how I'm recorded."
"How is the Gentleman recorded?"
"The Gentleman has been removed from the Roll."
"Well, I'm going to vote 'no' on this proposition but I want my black colleagues from Chicago, who feel that the election of black Congressman is more important than a majority of Congressman from the State that are Democrats 40 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 and I'll vote with my black colleagues on this issue. Because I believe in the issue. And I'm going to vote 'no'."
"One final name, Mr. Speaker. Representative Oblinger?"
"Ebbesen, did you say?"
"Oblinger."
"Did you say Ebbesen? Oh, Oblinger. Return Mr. Ewing to the Roll Call. He is back in the Chamber and the Gentleman from DeWitt, Mr. Vinson, for what purpose do you arise?"
"I believe that the Lady said no further questions and therefore can no longer question anybody on the Roll Call."
"I think the last question was Mrs. Oblinger. Okay, is Representative Oblinger in the Chamber? Mrs. Oblinger? How is the Lady recorded, Mr. Clerk?"
"The Lady is recorded as voting 'aye'."
"Remove her from the Roll Call. Alright, is anybody else returned to the Chamber...? What's the count, Mr. Clerk? Stand at ease while the Clerk goes over those figures. We've had a number of changes here. We want to make sure we get an accurate count. Mr. Ebbesen, for what purpose do you rise, Sir?"
"Was I removed?"
"Mr. Clerk, can I interrupt you for a moment? How is Mr. Ebbesen recorded?"
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'aye'."
"You're recorded as 'aye', Mr. Ebbesen. Is that the way you want to be? Mr. Bower, for what purpose do you arise?"
"Mr. Speaker, I was off the floor for a few minutes. I want to make certain I wasn't removed."
"How is Mr. Bower recorded, Mr. Clerk?"
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'aye'." 41 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"You're recorded as 'aye'. The Lady from St. Clair. Representative Stiehl."
"Mr. Speaker, how am I recorded?"
"How is the Lady recorded?"
"The Lady is recorded as voting 'aye'."
"Thank you."
"Mrs. Chapman, for what purpose do you arise?"
"Will you announce the vote?"
"Mrs. Chapman, we're trying to get to that. The Clerk is adding...there were a number of people that changed back and forth, from 'yea' to 'nay' and back again."
"Well, have you completed then?"
"He's working on it now and we're getting people who want...have returned to the Roll Call. We're trying to get it as fast as we can. For what purpose does the Lady from Cook, Representative Braun, arise?"
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it's an abuse for the Clerk to take longer than he ever has to tabulate a result and for the Speaker to announce the result on this Roll Call."
"Well, I'll try...hold on. Let's have a little order in the Chamber. Now, we're trying to complete the job and as you all know, there have been Members returning. They've changed their votes back and forth again. It is difficult. We want to get an accurate count and if you'll just bear with us for a few seconds here, we'll get the job done and we'll announce the Roll Call. The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. O'Connell."
"Mr. Speaker, I have remained an 'aye', despite my Party position. I have never seen it take this long to tally up a Roll. Now, the way the Roll will come out, I probably can remain 'aye' and not damage the outcome of 42 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 this vote. But I am sick and tired of the way this Session has gone with parliamentary procedures and I'm not condemning either side but this is enough. I change my vote from 'aye' to 'no'."
"Record the Gentleman from 'aye' to 'no'. Mr O'Connell, that is. The Gentleman from Whiteside, Representative Schuneman, for what purpose do you arise, Sir?"
"Mr. Speaker, I was removed from the Roll and I rise to question whether or not I've been replaced to the Roll."
"How is Mr. Schuneman recorded, Mr. Clerk?"
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'aye'."
"You're on the Roll, Mr. Schuneman. The Gentleman from Macon, Mr. Dunn, you seek recognition, Sir?"
"Yes, Sir, Mr. Speaker, how am I recorded?"
"The Gentleman, Mr. Dunn, how is he recorded? John Dunn?"
"The Gentleman has been removed from voting 'no'."
"Please restore me to the Roll as a 'no' vote."
"Alright, record the Gentleman as 'no'. Now, if everybody is seeking recognition and doesn't want to change their votes we'll try to get this thing tallied up and announce the Roll Call. Irv Smith has been restored to the Roll, yes. What's the count, Mr. Clerk? There are 78 voting 'aye', 83 voting 'no' and the Amendment fails. Further Amendments?"
"No further Amendments."
"Third Reading. Representative DiPrima, do you have some introductions you wanted to make? For the purpose of some introductions we'll put Representative DiPrima at the podium to make the introductions. Representative DiPrima."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and Gentlemen of the 43 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 House, we have some very distinguished guests from the American Legion Youth Police School-State Police Academy. They're training down here and Bob Mitchler is very thick with the program, former Senator Bob Mitchler and currently, working with the Department of Veterans Affairs. Bob Mitchler."
"Thank you, Representative DiPrima, my wonderful colleagues out there. The Illinois Police School conducted by the American Legion started in 1971 when members of the American Legion met with the Illinois State Police and decided to have a program where they would train young students, ages 14 and 15 in a week long program at the Police Academy here in Springfield and sort of have a rapport, back and forth. So, these young people could better understand our State Police and the State Police would have a chance to meet with young people and better understand their problems. And we, this week, the American Legion is sponsoring 73 boys and girls, it's a coeducational program, out at the State Police Academy and they get classes in first aid, in discipline, they have an exchange of ideas, some of the problems that the youth have, they tell to the troopers and the troopers respond and it's a very worthwhile program. They elect a president, vice-president, secretary and we have those three officers with us this morning. I'd like to introduce Meg Alexander, of Piper City. That's over near Kankakee. That's Senator McBroom...rather Representative McBroom and Representative Ryan and Representative Christensen. And Meg, you're the President, you say a few words to this fine group of State Representatives. Meg Alexander, from Piper City, over by Kankakee."
"There's not really too much to say. He's mostly said everything but I'm having a good time and I'm learning 44 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 a lot more about police and everything and it's really nice. And I'm really honored to be here. It's really great, it's a good feeling."
"And the Vice-President is Tony Simon from Waukegan. That's up in Representative Matijevich, Barkhausen and Virginia Frederick's area and Tony, what are you, about 6'4", here? Our Vice-President, Tony Simon, from Waukegan."
"There's not much to say but it's been a lot of fun and I wish could come back but I'm a little bit too old...next year. Thank you."
"And Joe 'Mecan' from Cahokia is the Secretary of the Police Academy that is sponsored by the American Legion this year. That's Representative Cis Stiehl and Monroe Flinn and Wyvetter Younge."
"I'm thrilled to be here and I want to thank the American Legion for sending me and I'm amazed at what I see. Thank you."
"We have two of our fine state troopers today. We have Corporal Bill Klemm, who is the coordinator of this program, out at the Police Academy and Sergeant 'Hobie Henson' who's the Operations Bureau Chief at the Police Academy. Right down here, good hand for state troopers. Thank you very much for the time to introduce these fine people to you. Thank you."
"For what purpose does the Gentleman from DuPage, Representative Hudson, arise?"
"Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order."
"State your point, Sir."
"Yesterday we were considering a Senate Bill, Senate Bill 733, to which various Amendments were applied. One particular Amendment, I believe it was Amendment #4, if my memory serves me correctly now, was the subject of great 45 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 debate. I sought, in as much as the title of that Amendment changed the title of the Bill, to have it moved back to Second Reading, First Legislative Day under the provisions of Rule 34d. That idea of mine was challenged by a Member on the other side of the aisle and he moved to suspend the provisions of 34d and a Roll Call was taken..."
"One moment, one moment, please. The Gentleman from Lake, Mr. Matijevich, the Gentleman is on a point of order...State your point, Sir."
"My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that right now Senate Bill 999 is on the board. If there are no further Amendments, that Bill goes to Third Reading..."
"It has already been put on Third Reading, Mr. Matijevich."
"Well, then, take it off the board."
"The Bill is on Third Reading. Continue, Mr. Hudson."
"Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Now, I have before me a copy of the verified Roll Call. There was a Roll Call taken on the Motion to suspend, which my understanding was, it took 89 votes. The Roll Call that I'm looking at, verified, indicates 88 'ayes', 62 'nos', 1 voting 'present', 26 absent, making a total of 177 votes, or Members. Now my understanding was very clear that it took 89 votes to suspend this particular rule. It would appear to me that there is something strange, I mean there was a mistake, perhaps, made. But it would appear to me that the verified Roll Call indicates that only 88 votes were here. And if that's the case then the rule was not suspended and I would request a ruling from the Chair as to the posture that that Bill is in under these circumstances. It would seems to me that the Bill either is, in fact, back on Second Reading, First Legislative Day or perhaps the Bill, 46 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 itself, is lost. I don't know."
"We're going to have the Clerk look into that, Mr. Hudson, if you'll just bear with us for a little bit. The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Bullock."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I don't want to appear to be obstructing the orderly proceedings of the House today but I think, Mr. Speaker, you have been more than fair with your colleague on the Republican side of the aisle from DuPage who has risen on a int of personal privilege, I presume. He has stated his point. The Gentleman knows full well the procedures in this House to redress his grievance. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that you apprise him of his rights. He knows the procedures to be followed if he has a grievance and file the appropriate Motion. But we should not at this time be entertaining his camouflaged point of order when we know full well that is not before the House for consideration at this point. I would urge the Speaker and the Parliamentarian to so instruct the Member on your side of the aisle."
"The Gentleman from Whiteside, Mr. Schuneman."
"Mr. Speaker, Representative Hudson, arose on a point of order. He described it as a point of order. The Gentleman is out of order when he seeks to characterize this as a point of personal privilege. It was not that, it was not characterized as that. It's a proper point of order."
"The Gentleman from Coles, Mr. Stuffle."
"Yes, I rise on a point of order."
"State your point, Sir."
"Clearly the Chair, yesterday, on the issue at hand ruled that the Motion that I put in writing had passed. Initially, with 90 votes and then when Representative 47 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Watson was removed from 'yes' to 'no', with 89. The Chair ruled on the issue, it is untimely now to take Mr. Hudson's point. The time that which he should have made that point, if he were to make it in timely fashion, was yesterday. You moved the Bill to Third Reading. You ruled the Motion had passed. And his point is not timely and ought not to be considered at this time. He should have made it yesterday if he were to make it under the rules. The Bill is clearly on Third Reading and I think he was without remedy on that point, at this time."
"The Gentleman from Madison, Mr. McPike."
"Well, I would...thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just emphasize what Representative Stuffle has already said. The Bill is on the Calendar on the Order of Third Reading. The Motion put by Representative Bullock and Representative Stuffle yesterday was verified and the Chair ruled that it prevailed with 89 verified votes. The Motion...the point of order now is not timely. It might have been timely yesterday, immediately following your ruling....If 24 hours later the Motion...the point of order is clearly not timely. The Bill is on Third Reading as you and the Parliamentarian ruled yesterday. It had 89 votes. The Motion prevailed and you declared it passed. I say his point of order is clearly not timely."
"The Gentleman from Cook, Representative Peters."
"Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, the Gentleman arose on a point of order. He explained it to the Chair. The Chair indicated it would take it under consideration and get back to the Gentleman...on an order...at another orderly time. That is where we are on it. We are not on the discussion of it. It is not up for decision of the House at this point. I suggest we proceed to the next Bill or whatever else we are doing until the 48 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Chair can come back and report to the House on its decision."
"I think your point is well taken, Mr. Peters. The Gentleman from Lake, Mr. Matijevich."
"Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't like to disagree with Representative Peters but all of this House ought to be a part of that decision because the Chair can often make a decision only based on what the maker of the point of order has said and I'd like the Chair to look at rule #50 regarding Roll Call votes being final and 50(b) says on a verified Roll Call or an oral verified Roll Call the vote shall be final when the result is declared. Now, Mr. Speaker, and Parliamentarian, when you do come around to that decision I'd like for you to look at that Roll Call, that rule because if we are to allow such a thing as coming back to this issue after the Roll Call has been declared final. Think for a moment what would happen on this Roll Call that we just had, that was verified and the Clerk took a lot of time. Very often the person that makes the verification says, can I have a count. By that count we all are determining where we are on that Roll Call and when the person asking for the verification realizes that he has enough, that they verified enough off then there are no further questions. We have to rely on that count when the Roll Call is being verified. We relied on that Clerk's count and that was declared at the time. For us to come back now, later, I think would not be justification at all. It would abrogate all of what the whole reasoning for a verified Roll Call. So, I think you'd better look hard if you're going to ever think about changing a Roll Call vote that was declared. Look at that rule, otherwise you're going to have a little turmoil here and I'm sure because all of us Members have to rely on that result being 49 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 declared."
"Representative Peters, for what purpose do arise, Sir?"
"Mr. Speaker, I renew my point. I'm not suggesting that any discussion on this measure ought to be frozen out. That people should not have a right to debate it. But the Chair is not in a position at this point nor does it appear a ruling will be made until the Roll Call can be looked at, a count can be made, the record looked at. And it seems to me that would be the proper time to discuss the matter. The Chair would make whatever ruling it makes. The Members, then, will participate in that part of the decision making process. We ought to move on."
"Your point is well taken, Mr. Peters. And that is exactly what we'll do at this particular time. I did state that we would examine the matter. We'll make a decision at a later time. Right now the Order of business before the House is the Order of Second Reading. And we'll move on to Senate Bill 1008. Representative Gene Hoffman. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 1008, a Bill for an Act to amend an Act in relationship to counties, Second Reading of the Bill. Amendment #1 was adopted in Committee."
"Are there any Motions with regard to Amendment #1?"
"No Motions filed."
"Further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #2, Johnson-Hoffman, amends Senate Bill 1008 as amended."
"The Gentleman from Champaign, Representative Johnson."
"Yes, Mr. Speaker, Members, I've spoken with Mr. Hoffman, he agrees with the Amendment. I've spoken with 50 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 the Majority...with the Chairman of the House Cities...Counties and Townships Committee and the Minority Spokesman, Mr. McMaster and Mr. Yourell and they're both in concurrence with the Amendment. It's really a technical Amendment. It allows counties in regard to solid waste disposal to also employ recycling as one of the methods it has of solid waste disposal. It simply an oversight in the law and this plugs the gap, in that respect."
"Is there discussion on the Amendment? The Gentleman has moved the adoption of Amendment #2. All those in favor will signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'nay'. The 'ayes' have it. Amendment #2 is adopted. Are there further Amendments, Mr. Clerk?"
"Floor Amendment #3, Hoffman, amends Senate Bill 1008 as amended."
"The Gentleman from DuPage, Representative Hoffman."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Amendment #3 applies only to DuPage County by population. It provides for a change in the tax rate from 2¢ to 5¢ for the purpose of remodeling or reconstruction or construction of a courthouse or courthouses. It has a backdoor referendum in the Bill for 28 days, 5% of the owners and I would move for adoption of Amendment #3."
"Any questions on the Amendment? The Gentleman from Cook, Representative Getty."
"What counties will this affect?"
"DuPage only."
"DuPage only. Something here indicated that it might affect Will County also. Are you sure that doesn't?"
"No, it only affects DuPage."
"Okay, now this is a...this would provide for a tax increase in DuPage County?" 51 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"It moves the tax for the purpose of courthouse bonds from 2% to 5%. So the answer is yes."
"Okay, now, is there any referendum provided for?"
"Backdoor referendum, 28 days, 5%."
"Does this have popular support for a tax increase in DuPage County?"
"There's no question but what the need exists."
"And does the general population want to have this tax increase in their county?"
"The general population needs the services and we're attempting to make that provision."
"Okay. Have you thought about having this be a frontdoor referendum rather that a backdoor referendum, so that the people can express their position beforehand?"
"This program was brought to me by the county board of DuPage and I'm sure that is one of the things they thought about."
"Thank you."
"Further discussion on the Amendment? The Gentleman from Cook, Representative Cullerton."
"Will the Gentleman yield?"
"He indicates he will."
"I have an interest in protecting my parents who live out in DuPage County from any tax increases. What is the money going to be used for?"
"It's going to be used to remodel or construct...remodel the present courthouse or construct a new one, which you might have some interest in."
"The courthouse in...?"
"In DuPage County."
"And where is that located? What...Wheaton? In the old part or is that the new complex, right next to the fairgrounds?" 52 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"The new complex is...the newer building is the DuPage Center, I'm not sure where they anticipate..."
"But you're referring to the old courthouse, having that remodeled?"
"Well, that would be covered, remodeled, the existing courthouse or constructing a new courthouse and related facilities. That is in the old language, that's presently in the law."
"And how much money are you attempting to raise for this purpose?"
"Frankly, I'm uncertain. I don't know."
"The tax rate is going from what, to what?"
"2% to 5,. shall not exceed, they will issue the bonds and pay them off with that rate."
"Thank you."
"The Gentleman from Peoria, Mr. Schraeder."
"Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I wonder if the Sponsor would yield to a couple of questions?"
"Let's clear that aisle over there, Gentlemen. Mr. Schraeder has been recognized. Mr. McPike, would you...Mr. McPike, would you kind of get out of the way? Thank you."
"I wonder if the Sponsor would yield to a question?"
"He indicates he will."
"Has this issue of funding for a new facility been submitted to the voters by referendum?"
"To the best of my knowledge, it has not."
"Do you have a Public Building Commission in DuPage County?"
"We do not have a Public Building Commission in DuPage County. That was preempted by the creation of a building commission in the city of Wheaton where the county facilities are located. That's part of our problem."
"Why haven't the county board, I presume a Republican 53 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 county board, requested a referendum from the people in the county?"
"I'm sorry, Sir, I cannot speak for them on that issue."
"Well, Mr. Speaker, on the Amendment. It would seem to me that this is a local issue or it should be decided by the voters of that district rather than by Members of the General Assembly and I would suggest that since DuPage is a predominately Republican area, the Republican citizens of that district ought to vote on it but if it's going to be a matter that's going to have to be voted on in the House, I would suggest that since this is a 3¢ tax rate increase for DuPage County that maybe the Republican Party ought to put the necessary votes up there to pass the legislation."
"The Gentleman from DuPage, Representative Hoffman, to close."
"Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. This is Second Reading on this Bill and we may want to look at the whole Bill on Third Reading but I would encourage your support of Amendment #3."
"The Gentleman has moved the adoption of Amendment #3 to Senate Bill 1008. All those in favor of the adoption will signify by saying 'aye', the opposed? The 'ayes' have it and the Amendment is adopted. Further Amendments, Mr. Clerk?"
"Floor Amendment #4, Hoffman, amends Senate Bill 1008 as amended."
"The Gentleman from DuPage, Mr. Hoffman."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Amendment #4 provides authorization that a county board can add a $5.00 fee on violations of the Illinois Vehicle Code or similar provisions in the county or any violations of county or municipal ordinances which are heard through the court system. The proceeds of this $5.00 54 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 fee would be used to finance the court system in the county. A county like DuPage which is changing dramatically, more and more of the general budget is being consumed by the court system and the Sheriff's Department. This is a way where we would have in a sense, a user's fee, the county could if they wished levy a $5.00 fee on each of the fines imposed going through the court system and that would be used specifically to help finance the court system in the county."
"The Gentleman from McHenry, Mr. Klemm, on the Amendment."
"Will the Sponsor yield?"
"He indicates he will."
"One question on the collection of the $5.00 fee. Apparently, the counties impose it, can they remove it at any time?"
"They can impose it and remove it. They have the authority to do either."
"Alright, if they collect additional funds in that account than their expenditures would normally require, can they transfer those excess funds, perhaps, in the general fund for other needed services for the county?"
"The purpose for the funds are specifically limited to the financing of the court system which is right on the bottom line of it."
"Would this also allow them to pay judge's salaries, perhaps, in the future?"
"Whatever costs are involved in the court system they could use it for."
"Thank you."
"Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, just let me call your attention that the House has been in Session about two hours and twenty minutes. We have moved exactly 55 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 one Bill to the Order of Third Reading. I think we probably moved about a dozen Bills yesterday. I'll let your conscience be your guide and, you know, regulate yourselves accordingly. We have a big Calendar here to move off in very short time. Any further discussion on the Amendment? The Gentleman from Peoria, Mr. Schraeder."
"Just one question. Does this pertain only to DuPage County?"
"No, it does not."
"Well, Ladies and Gentlemen, you're allowing the county board in your own counties throughout the State to impose a tax by county board action and again, this is a tax increase or a strongly potential tax increase and I would suggest maybe a 'no' vote is in order."
"The Gentleman from DuPage, Mr. Hoffman, to close."
"Mr. Speaker, in response to the last question, let me point out to you that this is one of the best examples you're going to see of a user tax. Most of us never end up in a court room. Why should we, those of us who don't end up in a courtroom, not give the county board an opportunity to give those who use the courtroom, who violate the laws and who are there using the system at our expense? What I say to you, Ladies and Gentlemen, is let them help pay for it and I would encourage the adoption of this Amendment."
"The Gentleman has moved the adoption of Amendment #4. All those in favor will signify by saying 'aye', opposed? The 'ayes' have it, the Amendment is adopted. Are there further Amendments, Mr. Clerk?"
"Floor Amendment #5, Bowman, amends Senate Bill 1008 as amended."
"The Gentleman from Cook, Representative Bowman. For what purpose does the Gentleman from Cook, Representative Collins, arise?" 56 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Mr. Speaker, I would question the germaneness of this Amendment."
"Alright, the question of germaneness has been brought up. Mr. Parliamentarian? The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Bowman."
"Well, while the Parliamentarian is considering that. I would just point out that one of...the Amendment purports to deal with the issue of using census data as the basis for setting certain things as bonding limits, a county official salaries, fees charged by counties and so forth and there is reference in the Bill, 1008, to the decennial census and how such board members shall be elected and it is precisely that kind of issue that I think we ought to deal with comprehensively in the context of a Joint House-Senate Committee to look at the full range of issues impacting on counties and municipalities insofar as the use of census data is concerned. So, I would recommend, Sir, that it is germane to 1008."
"Alright, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, the Parliamentarian, who my friends advise me is one of the best of the business, says the original Bill relates to county officers and bonding for courthouses, the Amendment #5 proposes to form a Joint Legislative Committee relative to census, and therefore, the ruling of the Chair is the Amendment is not germane. Mr. Bowman."
"I think, perhaps, the Parliamentarian did not read far enough. The purpose of the Committee is to consider, specifically the kinds of issues raised in the Bill. I mean, the Bill makes reference to census...the use of census data and for the purpose of electing county board officials and that's precisely what the Committee, itself, is going to be...look into. I would also suggest, however, if the Gentleman persists in his question of germaneness 57 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 that there are some upcoming Amendments that I'm going to be taking a pretty close look at as to germaneness if this one doesn't...is not ruled germane."
"Are you suggesting quid pro quo rulings from the Chair, Mr. Bowman?"
"Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the Chair should be even-handed in how it approaches the question of germaneness. That's what I'm suggesting. Mr. Mulcahey, the Gentleman from Winnebago, for what purpose do you rise, Sir?"
"Mr. Speaker, point of order. Is the Amendment germane or not?"
"The Chair has ruled that the Amendment is not germane. The Parliamentarian has examined it very thoroughly and now we go on to further Amendments, Mr. Clerk."
"Floor Amendment #6, McBroom-Ryan, amends Senate Bill 1008 as amended."
"For what purpose does the Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Bowman, arise?"
"I question the germaneness of Amendment #6, Mr. Speaker."
"Alright, the question of germaneness has been raised. Let's see it, Mr. Clerk. Mr. Bowman."
"I think that despite the fact that the Amendment has been sponsored by Speaker Ryan and Representative McBroom, it does purport to construct a metropolitan fair and exposition authority structure in the Kankakee area and I fail to see what that has do with House Bill...Senate Bill 1008."
"The Gentleman from DuPage, Mr. Hoffman."
"Mr. Speaker, I move to table Amendment #6."
"The Gentleman has moved to table Amendment #6. All those in favor...and 7. The Gentleman from DuPage, 58 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Representative Hoffman, has moved that Amendments #6 and 7 be tabled. All those in favor say 'aye', opposed? The Amendments are tabled. Further Amendments, Mr. Clerk?"
"No further Amendments."
"Third Reading. That's the second Bill today we've moved to Third Reading. Senate Bill 1016, Mr. Daniels. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk. Read the Bill."
"Senate Bill 1016, a Bill for an Act to amend an Act to authorize counties to issue bonds for the construction, reconstruction and remodeling of courthouses..."
"Are there any Motions? Out of the record? Out of the record, Mr. Clerk. Senate Bill 1028, Representative Hoxsey. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 1028, a Bill for an Act to amend the State Property Control Act, Second Reading of the Bill. Amendment #1 was adopted in Committee."
"Any Motions filed, Mr. Clerk?"
"No Motions filed with respect to Amendment #1."
"Are there any Amendments from the floor?"
"Floor Amendment #2, Hoxsey, amends Senate Bill 1028 as amended."
"The Lady from LaSalle, Representative Hoxsey."
"Yes, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, what Amendment #2 does is earmark some future money received from the sale of the Illinois Soldiers and Sailors Home in Normal for use by the CDB Board for conversion of the Saint Mary's Hospital in LaSalle into a Veterans Nursing Care Facility."
"Is there any discussion on the Amendment? The Gentleman from Sangamon, Mr. Kane. Mr. Mulcahey, your light is flashing yet."
"Would the Sponsor yield for a question?"
"She indicates she will." 59 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Will the money still be subject to later appropriation by the General Assembly?"
"The property is up for bids, I think, at the present time, Representative and this..."
"No, the question is, is that when that property is sold and the money comes in, this earmarks the funds. But will it be subject to later appropriation?"
"I don't believe so because this amends the Property Control Act and then I think that would authorize the distribution of those funds for that purpose."
"Mr. Speaker..."
"Representative Kane."
"Addressing myself to the Amendment. Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I think that we should not be appropriating funds by this method. I think that if we want to earmark funds for a particular purpose that comes from a particular sale then that money should go into either a fund that we appropriate money out of and appropriate a line item out of and so forth. I don't think that we can appropriate money legally or Constitutionally by this method. If we want to set aside that money and earmark it for a particular purpose, I think that we have to amend another Act and set up a particular fund for that purpose in the State Treasury. Regardless of that, I think that the Constitution specifies that all funds have to be appropriated this...before they can be spent. This is not an appropriation Bill. I don't that we can appropriate money with a substantive Bill like this and if it is the intent of the Sponsor that this is an appropriation Bill or an Amendment I think that either we ought to ask the Speaker on whether this is in order. I don't think that we can appropriate money this way and I would urge the defeat of this Amendment if that is the purpose of the Amendment." 60 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Leverenz."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I question the germaneness of the Amendment."
"A question of germaneness has been raised. Mr. Clerk, let's see the Amendment. ...from LaSalle, Representative Hoxsey."
"Mr. Speaker, I am informed that it...this would eventually take an appropriation. It was not my understanding but apparently I'm wrong and that it would, after the property is sold, take an appropriation from this General Assembly to distribute the funds to that area. In answer to Representative Kane's question..."
"The Chair will rule that the Amendment is clearly germane. Mr. Leverenz."
"Well, thank you. Will the Sponsor yield?"
"She indicates she will."
"Representative Hoxsey, if you now have just stated that the money would have to be appropriated, then in fact there is no reason for an Amendment to say that not withstanding anything in the Subsection that the proceeds of the sale of the Illinois Sailors...Soldiers and Sailors Children School when received shall be earmarked for the use of the Capital Development Board. That flies in the face of what you have said in terms of appropriating funds and I believe it would be difficult to have it both ways. How do you feel about that?"
"I believe, Representative, that this would only indicate legislative intent basically on this Bill. I personally felt that this...that these funds, since it came from a veterans facility, could be earmarked in that regard when it was sold. This was my understanding when I prepared this Amendment. However, I am informed that it would take another appropriation Bill to actually appropriate the 61 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 money. However, I would prefer to have legislative intent a matter of record with this Amendment."
"One moment, please. The Gentleman from McLean, Mr. Bradley, for what purpose do you arise, Sir?"
"On a point of order, Mr. Speaker..."
"State your point, Mr. Bradley."
"We ...I think that this Motion right now should be ruled dilatory. We voted on this same Motion on, I believe, Senate Bill 345. A Motion was made to table the Amendment adopted in Committee. It would do just exactly what this Amendment is attempting to do and this is one of the reasons that it is very difficult to move along and get the work of the House done because we come back with these same things. So I think that the Motion...the Amendment is ...this Motion is dilatory and we ought to a... you ought to rule it out of order and we ought to go to the next Amendment. It is exactly the same Amendment as I think was Senate Bill 345."
"Well, I would have to rule, Mr. Bradley, that the Motion is not dilatory, we have had other Amendments brought..."
"How many times can we vote on this one then, Mr. Speaker? Ten or fifteen times on the same issue?"
"The Amendment is not dilatory. We return back to Mr. Leverenz again. I believe you were in the midst of questioning, Mr. Leverenz."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, Representative Hoxsey, you just said all you simply want to do is show legislative intent. Don't you feel you could do that with a Resolution instead of putting it in the Statute?"
"Representative, as I indicated before, it was my intention and my understanding that this would allocate funds from the sale of this institution to LaSalle when I 62 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 prepared this Amendment. And I have since been informed that it would still take an appropriation Bill. And what I am saying to you is, with adequate support for this Amendment, I would still ask it to be passed on, voted on and legislative intent recorded as a matter of record. That is all that I can tell you."
"Mr. Speaker, to the Amendment."
"Mr. Leverenz, on the Amendment."
"Certainly and clearly by the Sponsor's own admission, the Lady intends to show legislative intent which is better done by a Resolution rather than an Amendment to a Bill. Secondly, we would have to go through the appropriations process and clearly we would have some question at a later date about appropriating money that has been earmarked for a certain cause. I would implore the Lady to withdraw the Amendment so that we do not cast any doubt about funds raised because she cannot accomplish what she wants to by her own admission. Should the Lady not withdraw the Amendment I would solicit and ask for your negative vote and a Roll Call."
"The Gentleman from Lake, Mr. Matijevich."
"Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I arise not taking any sides on the conversion of the St. Mary's Hospital in LaSalle, but on the manner in which the Sponsor of this Amendment is going about this. And I would urge the Membership to take a look at this because what we are doing is establishing a bad precedent that I don't think anybody would like to establish. You know we have many vacant public buildings all over the state of Illinois. There are vacant schools because of the loss of enrollment all over the State of Illinois and I don't think that any of us want to be put in the position where we are establishing a precedent where Members of the General 63 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Assembly would be competing for, when those buildings are being sold, competing for what purposes that they should be put into. We all have certain pet projects that we would like to have constructed. If we establish this precedent then we would put ourselves in competition to earmark the sale of certain properties for our pet projects. If this were followed through to its intent there would have to be a specific fund, really, for the conversion of St. Mary's Hospital in LaSalle. None of us I believe think that ought to be, that we ought to earmark funds. But, I really think that this is a dangerous precedent that should not be followed and for that purpose only I would urge the Members to vote against this Amendment #2."
"The Lady from LaSalle, Representative Hoxsey, to close."
"Well, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, you have heard my wishes in this regard; You have heard why this Amendment has been introduced and you have heard the fact that the funds forthcoming from the sale of this facility were originally the Veterans facility and all we are asking is that part of those funds to go to Home Nursing...to a nursing care facility for at least 60 beds of the 3,000 veterans that are going to need it within the next ten years. And I would ask your favorable vote on this Amendment."
"The Lady has moved the adoption of Amendment #2 to Senate Bill 1028. All those in favor of the adoption of the Amendment will signify by saying 'aye'. Roll Call vote has been requested, Mr. Clerk. All those in favor of the Amendment will signify by voting 'aye' and the opposed by voting 'nay'. The Board is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk will take the record. On this question...the Lady 64 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 from Cook, Representative Stewart."
"I wanted to be recorded as voting 'no'."
"Record Representative Stewart as voting 'no'. Representative Hoxsey, for what purpose do you arise?"
"I'm not recorded as 'aye' and I would like to be."
"Is the Board still open, Mr. Clerk? Record...hold on. We have a few here who want to get on the Board. Representative Hoxsey wishes to be recorded as 'aye'. Representative Vinson, record him as 'aye'. Mr. Wikoff, 'aye'. Mr. Bartulis, 'aye'. Any further? What's the count, Mr. Clerk? On this question there are 82 'ayes', 79 'nays'... Mr. Leverenz, for what purpose do you arise, Sir?"
"A poll the absentees and should it be that way we will verify the affirmative vote."
"Alright, poll the absentees, Mr. Clerk. Moving right along."
"Poll of the Absentees: Bell. Bluthardt. Catania. Davis. Garmisa. Griffin. Jackson. Johnson. Kucharski. Margalus. Ted Meyer. Redmond. Reed. Robbins. Stuffle. And Younge."
"Record Representative Reed, Betty Reed, as 'aye'. What's the count now, Mr. Clerk. And Mr. Griffin, record Mr. Griffin as 'aye'. Mr. Leverenz, do you persist in your verification? Mr. Leverenz, do you want to persist in your verification? Alright, what is the count, Mr. Clerk? 84 'aye', 79 'no'. Record Mr. Stuffle as 'no'. Mr. Stuffle is not for veterans. Record him as 'no'. Proceed with the verification of the negative...or the affirmative."
"Poll of the affirmative: Abramson. Ackerman. Alstat. Barkhausen. Barnes. Barr. Bartulis..."
"One moment, Mr. Clerk. For what purpose does 65 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Representative McMaster arise, the Gentleman from Knox?"
"Can I have leave to be verified?"
"Does he have leave to be verified, Mr. Leverenz? Alright. You have leave. Continue with the poll of the affirmative."
"Bianco. Birkinbine. Boucek. Bower. Breslin . Collins. Conti. Daniels. Deuchler. Deuster. DiPrima. Jack Dunn. Ralph Dunn. Ebbesen. Epton. Ewing. Fawell. Findley. Virginia Frederick. Dwight Friedrich. Griffin. Grossi. Hallock. Hallstrom. Hastert. Hoffman. Hoxsey. Hudson. Huskey. Karpiel. Jim Kelley. Klemm. Kociolko. Koehler. Kosinski. Kustra. Leinenweber. Macdonald. Martire. Mautino. McAuliffe. McBroom. McCormick. McMaster. Roland Meyer. Miller. Neff. Nelson. Oblinger. Ozella. Peters. Piel. Polk. Pullen. Reed. Reilly. Rigney. Ropp. Sandquist..."
"One moment, Mr. Clerk. Representative Zwick, has asked leave to be verified. Mr. Leverenz, Miss Zwick has asked leave to be verified. Does she have leave? Okay. Proceed, Mr. Clerk."
"Sandquist. Schuneman. Irv Smith. Stanley. E.G. Steele. C.M. Stiehl. Swanstrom. Tate. Telcser. Topinka. Tuerk. Vinson. Watson. Wikoff. Winchester. J.J. Wolf. Woodyard. Zwick. And Mr. Speaker."
"Questions of the affirmative. Mr. Leverenz."
"Sorry, just clearing my throat. Bianco."
"Is Mr. Bianco in the chamber? How is the Gentleman recorded?"
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'aye'."
"Remove him from the Roll Call."
"Conti."
"Is Representative Conti in the chamber? Representative Conti, how...For what purpose do you arise, 66 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Mr. Huskey?"
"There is an agreement with the Minority Leader that Representative Conti, as long as we know that he has been here, that he doesn't have to come out from his sick bed every time there is a verification."
"Mr. Leverenz."
"To try to accommodate that request we will leave him on the Roll at this particular point in time and could the Clerk give us a beginning count and we have removed Bianco."
"Further questions of the affirmative."
"I guess that I don't get a count."
"Beginning count?"
"Yes."
"It was 84 'aye' and 80 'no', was the starting count."
"Thank you. Daniels."
"Mr. Conti is here by the way. Mr. Daniels?"
"You didn't have to do it, Elmer."
"Representative Daniels in the chamber? How is the Gentleman recorded?"
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'aye'."
"Remove him."
"Kosinski."
"Representative Kosinski, is the Gentleman in the chamber? How is he recorded, Mr. Clerk?"
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'aye'."
"Remove him from the Roll."
"Polk."
"Representative Polk. Is Mr. Polk in the chamber? How is the Gentleman recorded, Mr. Clerk? Oh, he is here. He is over on the side. Mr. Hudson, for what purpose do you arise, please?" 67 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Could I have leave to be verified?"
"Does Mr. Hudson have leave to be verified?"
"Why of course."
"Leave is granted. Continue with the affirmative."
"Leinenweber."
"Leinenweber? Is the Gentleman in the chamber? How is he recorded?"
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'aye'."
"Remove him from the Roll Call. Mr. Daniels is back. Put him back on."
"Okay, Ropp. Gordon Ropp."
"Ropp, is Mr. Ropp in the chamber? How is the Gentleman recorded?"
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'aye'."
"Remove him."
"Boucek."
"Representative Boucek in the chamber? Mr. Boucek. How is the Gentleman recorded?"
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'aye'."
"Remove him from the Roll."
"Did I ask Polk?"
"Yes and he is here. He is over on the side... by the mushroom curtain."
"McBroom."
"Representative McBroom. Is the Gentleman in the chamber? How is Mr. McBroom recorded?"
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'aye'."
"Remove him and restore Mr. Leinenweber to the Roll."
"Representative Roland Meyer."
"Roland Meyer? Is the Gentleman in the chamber? He is in his seat and I think that Mr. Bluthardt seeks recognition. Do you wish to be verified, Mr. Bluthardt?" 68 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"No. How am I recorded?"
"How is Mr. Bluthardt recorded?"
"The Gentleman is not recorded as voting."
"Record me as 'aye', please."
"Record Mr. Bluthardt as 'aye'. Mr. Tate."
"I would like leave for verification."
"Does Mr. Tate have leave to be verified?"
"No."
"He does not have leave."
"Irv Smith."
"Irv Smith is in his seat."
"Representative Sandquist."
"Mr. Sandquist? Is Mr. Sandquist in the chamber? How is the Gentleman recorded?"
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'aye'."
"Remove Mr. Sandquist from the Roll."
"Everett Steele."
"Representative 'Ev' Steele? How is the Gentleman recorded?"
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'aye'."
"Remove him from the Roll."
"Representative Pullen."
"Who was the last one?"
"Pullen."
"Pullen? I can't see. There she is in the back of the chamber. She's here."
"Thank you. C.L. McCormick."
"What was that one, Mr..."
"McCormick."
"McCormick. Mr. C.L. McCormick. Is the Gentleman in the chamber? How is he recorded? Where is he? Boucek is back. Put Mr. Boucek back on. How is McCormick recorded? " 69 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'aye'."
"McCormick is in the rear of the chamber. If we could kind of get the people at the rear of the chamber to be a little quiet so that we can get this done as quickly as possible. Continue, Mr. Leverenz."
"The Speaker."
"The Speaker is on the podium."
"I think that I am looking for the real Speaker."
"Well, Mr. Leverenz, I would say the courtesy has always been afforded the Speaker in their office regardless of the...and the Minority Leader are never questioned. If you persist we'll bring him out here if you want to."
"Well let's try to accommodate that request as we did with Representative Conti at this point."
"Thank you very much for your courtesy, Sir."
"Epton..."
"Mr. McBroom has returned to the chamber. Put him back on the Roll."
"Epton."
"Mr. Epton. Is the Gentleman recorded? How is he recorded, Mr. Clerk?"
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'aye'."
"Remove him."
"Swanstrom."
"Who is that?"
"Swanstrom."
"Swanstrom? Is Representative Swanstrom in the chambers? How is the Gentleman recorded?"
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'aye'."
"Remove him from the Roll Call."
"Bower."
"Representative Bower. Representative Glen Bower. He is over here right in his seat." 70 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Thank you. Representative Findley?"
"Representative Findley. Is Mr. Findley in the chamber? In the rear tight to your right."
"Klemm."
"Representative Klemm? He is in his seat."
"Representative...Let me just...Did we have Sandquist?"
"We have removed Mr. Sandquist from the Roll Call."
"I believe that is it at this point. What is the count, Speaker?"
"Are there any further now, Mr. Leverenz? Have you completed? Are there any further questions of the affirmative, Mr. Leverenz?"
"We will have to renew our request on the real Speaker."
"If you have any requests, let's hear them."
"The Speaker, the real Speaker, Speaker Ryan."
"Speaker Ryan. How is Speaker Ryan recorded?"
"The Speaker is recorded as voting 'aye'."
"Remove Mr. Ryan temporarily from the Roll Call."
"Count?"
"Do you have any further, Mr. Leverenz?"
"May I have the count?"
"Do you have any further?"
"No further questions at this time. May I have the count?"
"I asked you if you had any further questions of the Roll Call?"
"And I answered you, I have no further questions at this time."
"Alright, thank you. And Speaker Ryan has returned to the chamber. Kindly record him as voting 'aye'. Mr. Vinson, for what purpose do you arise, Sir?"
"Mr. Speaker, I've gotten conflicting reports. Was I or 71 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 was I not removed?"
"How is Mr. Vinson recorded, Mr. Clerk?"
"Mr. Vinson is recorded as voting 'aye'."
"The Lady from LaSalle, Representative Hoxsey."
"Yes, what is the count, Mr. Speaker?"
"What's the count, Mr. Clerk?"
"If we still have a problem I would..."
"Seventy-eight 'aye', eighty 'no'. And the Lady requests a verification of the Negative Roll. Read the negative, Mr. Clerk."
"Poll of the negative: Alexander. Balanoff. Beatty. Bowman. Bradley. Braun. Brunner. Bullock. Capparelli. Carey. Chapman. Christensen. Cullerton. Currie. Darrow. Domico. Donovan. Doyle. John Dunn. Ewell. Farley. Flinn. Getty. Giglio. Giorgi. Greiman..."
"One moment, Mr. Clerk. For what purpose does the Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Capparelli, arise? How is Mr. Capparelli recorded?"
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'no'."
"Change me to 'aye', please."
"Change Mr. Capparelli to 'aye'. Mr. Terzich, for what purpose do you arise? Vote Mr. Terzich as 'aye'. Mr. Swanstrom is back. Restore him to the Roll. Mr. Ropp?"
"How am I recorded, please?"
"How is Mr. Ropp recorded?"
"The Gentleman has been removed from the Roll."
"I would like to be recorded as 'no'."
"Record Mr. Ropp as 'no'. Continue, Mr. Clerk. Mr. Bartulis, for what purpose do you arise? Vote Mr. Bartulis as 'aye'."
"The Gentleman is recorded as 'aye'."
"What is the count, Mr. Clerk? The are 81 'ayes', 72 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 79 'nos' and the Amendment is adopted. Further Amendments?"
"No further Amendments."
"Third Reading. For what purpose does the Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Leverenz, arise?"
"Just an inquiry of the Chair. Do you normally move Bills to Third when there are impact statements requested while the Bill was on Second Reading? Perhaps that was an oversight and I would ask that it would be..."
"Mr. Clerk. Yes, all right. There is a request from..."
"...Be recalled..."
"Request from Mr. Leverenz pursuant to Rule 32. He requests that a debt impact note be filed for Senate Bill 1028. Has a Fiscal Note been filed, Mr. Clerk?"
"Fiscal Note for Amendment #2 on Senate Bill 1028 has been filed."
"Third Reading. For what purpose does the Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Bowman, arise?"
"A debt impact note is different from a Fiscal Impact Note. I believe that Representative Leverenz requested a debt impact note and those are specifically provided for in the Statute and I do not believe that that impact note is on file. The Clerk did not give us any indication."
"Mr. Bowman the Parliamentarian is looking through the rules and he can't seem to find any rule pertaining to that. Could you care to point that out, Mr. Bowman?"
"Well, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the problem is that we are still operating with temporary rules. The Debt Impact Note Act was passed by the previous General Assembly in the first year of the biennium and it was not put into the rules. It is in the Statutes, however."
"The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Leverenz." 73 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I did file a Fiscal Impact Note and that is filed. I also filed the Debt Impact Statement. As the Lady explained, she is having monies locked in for ten years. And I think we should know exactly what we are facing and I would ask that the Bill be recalled to the Order of Second Reading and held there until that question of Debt Impact is filed."
"The Lady from LaSalle, Representative Hoxsey."
"Well, Mr. Speaker, I would object to this process. There is no debt involved in this. It is a straight 2 1/2 million dollars for a sixty bed facility and that's it. And the Fiscal Note is filed."
"Alright, a Fiscal Note has been filed and by application there is no debt involved and that is the ruling of the Chair. Third Reading. For the purpose of introduction Representative DiPrima has some guests he wishes to bring up to the podium right now. Mr. DiPrima, would you bring your guests up, please?"
"All right now. Let's be quiet. Shut up, Leverenz. You've been shooting your mouth off all morning, now shut up. All right, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, we have some young Ladies here that are presently working on their Girls State Program for the American Legion Auxiliary and we have some women here that are members of the American Legion Auxiliary and an address was given to them the other night by Gale Findley, Craig Findley and Peggy Breslin. Peggy is very well versed in all this stuff and I'm going to let her take over the microphone and introduce these people and then those Legislators from whence these girls come from your areas, you can come and say hello after this is over. Thank you. Peggy Breslin."
"Thank you, Representative. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, 74 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I have had the privilege of addressing Girls State on many other occasions and on all of those occasions I had the honor of doing it with the late Representative and then Senator, Mary Lou Kent. I have the privilege this year of doing it with her daughter, Senator Laura Kent, and we addressed this group of women who come to MacMurray College to discuss...to take a week's lesson in civics. We discuss the area of women's rights, abortion, capital punishment and political life in general. They have their own elections and they take their own stands on the issues. The person who has already been elected Speaker of the House is Julie Diker from Champaign. Julie. Their President of the Senate is JoAnn DiMosse from Calumet City. JoAnn. They have yet to elect their Governor. The candidates are from the Nationalist Party for Governor, Lena Morelli from Glen Ellyn. Their candidate on the Federalist Party from Magnolia, Illinois is Natalie Miller. They will have their elections tomorrow. The Director is Dorthy Henson from Madison, Mary Keefe, Mary Keefe, Dean of Education from Anna and Marge Dorin from Mundelein. Thank you very much."
"For what purpose does the Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Bowman, arise?"
"To instruct the Parliamentarian as to the Illinois Statutes. I would like to call his attention to Public Act 81-615 which is codified and printed in the Illinois Revised Statutes 1979, and I would just like to call to his attention if he should be able to find a copy. I hope he would have one handy. On page 719 of volume 2, where that Act, the State Debt Impact Note, is printed. It says, whenever, with respect to amended Bills, '...Whenever any Member of either House is of the opinion that a State Debt Impact Note should be prepared on any Bill and such Note 75 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 has not been requested, the Member may at any time before the Bill is moved to Third Reading request such a Note be obtained in which case the Bill shall be submitted to the Economic and Fiscal Commission for preparation of the Note..'. Now here is where I would like to call the Parliamentarian's attention. '...If the Sponsor is of the opinion that a long term Debt Impact Note is not required, the matter shall be decided by the Majority vote of those present and voting in the House of which he is a Member..'."
"We appreciate the remarks, Mr. Bowman. And the Parliamentarian will certainly study up on it. Senate Bill 1037, Representative Polk. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 1037, a Bill for an Act to amend the Illinois Police Training Act. Second Reading of the Bill. No Committee Amendments."
"Are there any Motions filed, Mr. Clerk?"
"No Motions filed. Floor Amendment #1, Polk, amends Senate Bill 1037...."
"Representative Polk, Amendment #1."
"Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen, we prepared this Amendment for the Committee and it was accepted ...agreed upon by the Committee, but unfortunately, it was incorrectly drafted when we presented it in the Committee so we unfortunately had to do it here on the floor. Simply takes out 'Superintendent of State Police' out of line 25 and the word 'Illinois' out of 26. There's no opposition. I've discussed it with the Chairman and the ranking Minority and I would move 'do pass'."
"Any discussion on the Amendment? If not, the Gentleman moves the adoption of Amendment #1 to Senate Bill 1037. All those in favor will signify by saying 'aye', the opposed 'nay'. The 'ayes' have it. The Amendment is 76 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 adopted. Further Amendments?"
"No further Amendments."
"Third Reading. Senate Bill 1049, Representative Ebbesen. Is the Representative on the floor? Out of the record. Senate Bill 1051. Telcser-Jones, 1051, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 1051, a Bill for an Act to create the crime of use of firearms in the commission of any criminal offense. Second Reading of the Bill. No Committee Amendments."
"The Gentleman from Cook, Representative Telcser. Wait a minute. Are there any Motions filed?"
"No Motions filed. Floor Amendment #1, Cullerton, amends Senate Bill 1051 on page one and so forth."
"Representative Cullerton, was that? The Gentleman from Cook, Representative Cullerton on Amendment #1."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to withdraw Amendment #1, please. Mr. Speaker, I wish to withdraw Amendment #1 please?"
"Amendment #1 is withdrawn. Are there further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #2, Stearney, amends Senate Bill 1051 on page one, line ..."
"The Gentleman from Cook, Representative Stearney."
"Okay, Mr. Speaker..."
"One moment, Mr. Stearney. Could we get that center aisle cleared now please? Let's get the House back down in order. Would you clear the center aisle please? And would those not entitled to the floor kindly leave? Mr. Stearney, proceed, Sir."
"Well, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, this Amendment to this Bill would put some possible sense into it because it would make probationable (sic, 77 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 probationary) certain offenses. Now, I think everybody should listen because this here Bill is advocated by the gun control people, people that would totally abolish the use of weapons or the possession of or the sale of weapons and what they hope to do by this is to say that any potential crime committed in which a firearm is used would be a class 1 felony which is four to fifteen years in the penitentiary. And I think all of you should realize that these offenses now in which a weapon is used are already class x felonies. So what we're doing here is merely going on a step further and they're saying now that any time a weapon is used, even though it's not a felony, it is now a class 1. And I think I should give you an example because it affects everybody in the state be it a farmer, a homeowner that has a pistol or even a tavern owner."
"The Gentleman from Cook, Representative Peters."
"Mr. Speaker, this is going to be an important issue to some people who are going to be running again. They ought to pay attention to what the Gentleman is saying."
"Give the Gentleman some order please."
"Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, we're going a step further and what we're doing here is we're taking what are misdemeanors, such an aggravated assault in which a weapon is used in a threatening fashion, which is now six months to one year in a county jail and now converting that into a class 1 felony. And I should give you an example. Assuming some farmer sees some fellow that's poaching on his property all the time and he comes out..."
"For what purpose does the Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Jones, arise?"
"Are we on the Amendment or the Bill?"
"We are on Amendment #2."
"Well, will the Sponsor of the Amendment address himself 78 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 to the Amendment?"
"Mr. Stearney on Amendment #2. Continue, Sir."
"Well, it's interrelated, but I assume that the Gentleman, Mr. Jones, doesn't know or understand what we're doing. But that's to be expected. But let me go on. What we have here is you take a farmer who sees somebody on his property poaching, probably trapping and he has a shotgun and he says to this individual, 'Well you shouldn't be here. Get off my property.'. That individual now files a complaint which would be aggravated assault. Now it's a class 1 felony. And I've spoken to people here, local prosecutors and they say they would have tremendous problems..you take a...problems with this Bill. Because you could take an individual of impecable reputation character, be it a tavern owner, a farm owner or someone that raises his gun and now you're saying you must go to the penitentiary for four years. Now a prosecutor has no discretion, no leeway. So what I'm saying...you have a Bill here advocated by the gun control enthusiasts trying to make the penalty so onerous that they will drive out of existence the use of any firearms. And I say this is just not pistols; These are rifles and shotguns. And I've stood here and I'm against gun control, but I'm saying we're going so far on the other direction to make it so onerous, so punitive to even have a weapon that you're just going to knock them out of existence. Because if an individual home owner raises a gun and uses that gun to force someone off his property, he goes to jail. And now I take the other tact and I say, well...Some of you said, well it's justifiable use of force. I ask you to look at the Section on justifiable use of force in defense of dwelling or property. And that is that an individual would have to come onto your property in a violent and tumultuous fashion 79 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 and threaten your own well being before you could even have a pistol in your hand. So I'm saying if you vote...if you fail to vote for my Amendment at least you know what you're doing. You're saying that anybody, a lawful home owner, a farmer, or a tavern owner that chases someone out of his place of business by using a gun, but never having the intention to use it, will nevertheless go to the penitentiary for four to fifteen years. If you believe that should be the case, then you should vote against my Amendment. Because I'm saying you're going to still...by my Amendment the prosecutor would still have some discretion in saying, well, Mr. Jones, you're sixty years old. You've never been in trouble in your life. You did something maybe you shouldn't have done in raising that pistol against that person that trespassed on your property, but at least we'll give you some probation. We're not going to send you to the penitentiary for four to fifteen years. And I think you should consider this because some of you in 'Donnely' will have some constituents at sometime in the future that might be or in 'Donnely' will be held in violation of this Act. And I say we're not really accomplishing anything more by this Bill. We have armed violence which includes any offense, any felony in which a weapon is used and it not need to be used to facilitate the offense, but only if you're in possession of it if you have it in your pocket. It's still class X. It's armed violence. But now this Bill goes a step further and goes into what have always been considered misdemeanors. and saying that those people now are guilty of felonies and must go to the penitentiary for four to fifteen years. If you believe in total gun control, you're going in that direction by this Bill. I'm saying, give the prosecutors some discretion in making the determination whether a 80 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 person who has impecable...is a person of impecable reputation, that discretion as to whether he should put him in the penitentiary or not. I ask for an 'aye' vote. If you vote 'no' you vote for this total gun control. You vote for no discretion in the prosecutor. You vote for people who are simply interested in getting a public acclaim, getting a little good publicity. Thank you. I'd be glad to answer any questions on this Amendment."
"Discussion on the Amendment? The Gentleman from Peoria, Mr. Schraeder. The Gentleman from Jackson, Representative Richmond."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the Gentleman yield to a question?"
"Yes."
"He indicates he will."
"I'm a little confused, Representative. You say that the anti-gun people are in favor of this Bill and understand that the National Rifle Association also is in favor of it. Which would be accurate?"
"Well, I don't know what the National Riflemen's Association position is. I'm not a member. However, I have voted against gun control. But I think that this Bill is a definite attempt to circumvent what we have been doing and that is defeating gun control."
"Thank you."
"The Gentleman from Henderson, Representative Neff."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Amendment #2 on this Bill would just weaken it to where it doesn't mean anything and we're going right back to the present law we have. I think we should make this legislation just as strong as we can and as the Bill in its present form does. And I would hate to see this Amendment 81 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 adopted. I hope we'll vote 'no' on it if we believe that a person caught with a gun should be deserving of the worst crime that we could give them and that's what this Bill in its present form does."
"The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Jones."
"Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also rise in opposition to this Amendment. As the Sponsor of the Amendment indicated, I don't know what I'm talking about on this issue. But a person, a criminal out here threatening people with a gun should be incarcerated in prison. Now if you want to stay on this House floor and defend criminals, that's your right. But I think the law abiding citizens of the State of Illinois are sick and tired of this here. This is a very good Bill as it is and this Amendment should be defeated because it guts the intent of the Bill. The Bill is intended to put those persons behind bars who are using guns to go out to kill and maim the decent law abiding citizens of the State of Illinois. And I'm not going to stand on the floor and defend them. You have your right as a Legislator if you so desire to defend the criminals. I think they should be placed behind bars and this is what this Bill does and this Amendment should be defeated."
"The Gentleman from Winnebago, Mr. Kelley."
"Mr. Speaker, will the Sponsor yield?"
"He indicates he will."
"Mr. Sponsor, I noticed in our book it says, '...Provides that whoever uses a firearm in or doing the commission of any criminal offense is guilty..'. Now if a farmer or a home owner...he wouldn't be in the commission of a offense, is that true?"
"Under the aggravated assault is anyone who uses a deadly weapon and places another in apprehension for safety 82 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 is guilty of aggravated assault and that would include a farmer who chases someone off of his property and use...and has a shotgun or a rifle, doesn't use it, doesn't fire it, but merely has it in his hand. And it's already an offense of six months to one year. Now, mind you, let me straighten something out. What Mr. Jones is talking about, those who are committing murder, mayhem and so forth, is already covered under the Statute. You know, maybe we have an armed robbery or burglary or an armed violence. It's six years to thirty years. What they're doing is going a step further and trying to take what had been commonly misdemeanors which are six months to one year and now saying those are mandatory felonies of four to fifteen years. And the only type of offense I can see is in that situation in which someone, a bartender or an owner of a tavern or a farmer or even a home owner uses a gun in threaten...in chasing someone off of his property. Remember, you can't chase someone off of your property unless he came armed to it in a violent, tumultuous fashion and he threatened you. And your personal safety is in jeopardy."
"But isn't that at the discretion of the local State's Attorney whether he would charge that farmer or not?"
"Well, once you create such an Act, then the State's Attorney is under the obligation to charge that defendant with this. You see. And I think we've just gone just too far since we have everything covered under the felony aspect of it, you know to take this and now convert it into a felony, make it a mandatory four to fifteen years, I think is just going a bit too far."
"The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Terzich."
"I move the previous question."
"The Gentleman has moved the previous question. 83 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 All those in favor will signify by saying 'aye', opposed? The 'ayes' have it. The previous question has been moved. Mr. Telcser....or the Amendment."
"Stearney."
"Representative Stearney to close."
"Well, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, as I said, if you believe that every type of offense, any misdemeanor in which no one is hurt and no one's life has been placed in jeopardy, that nevertheless the individual who is in possession of the firearm should go to the penitentiary for four to fifteen years, that it's mandatory, then you vote against this Amendment. If, on the other hand, you believe that a prosecutor should have the discretion to decid whether that individual should go to the penitentiary or he should merit probation considering his background, then you vote for this Amendment. I say everything is already covered under the present Criminal Code to put murderers in jail, armed robbers in jail, burglars in jail, anyone else in jail who commits a felony with a weapon. That is already armed violence. That is the law, has been the law. This here is...just goes another additional two or three steps further and there's really no need for it. I would say that in the interests of expediting justice, allowing the prosecutor to make a determination as to who the good guy is and who the bad guy is, that you would adopt this Amendment. If not, so be it. I ask for an 'aye' vote."
"All right. The Gentleman has moved the adoption of Amendment #2 and a Roll Call has been requested. All those in favor of adoption of the Amendment will signify by voting 'aye' and the opposed by voting 'no'. Mr. Clerk? The Board is open. The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Telcser."
"Well, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, in 84 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 explaining my vote let me simply state that the National Rifle Association did appear in the Senate Committee in favor of the Bill. I see the way the vote is going. I simply rise to explain my 'no' vote and I hope that the Members do reject the Gentleman's Amendment."
"Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question there are 30 'aye', 99 'nays' and the Amendment fails. Are there further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #3, Cullerton, amends Senate Bill 1051 on page one and so forth."
"The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Cullerton."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. This is a technical Amendment that has been agreed to by the House and the Senate Sponsor. When they adopted a Senate Amendment #1 they forgot to change other Sections of the Bill. It strikes superfluous language on line 22 and 23 on page one and on page two it changes 'three' to 'two' in conformity with the belief that the minimum offense should be a class 1 felony for which the sentence shall be four year minimum. And I would ask for its adoption."
"Discussion on the Amendment? If not, the Gentleman moves the adoption of Amendment #3. All those in favor will signify by saying 'aye', the opposed 'nay'. The 'ayes' have it. Amendment #3 is adopted. Are there further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #4, Huff-Jones, amends Senate Bill 1051 on page one and so forth."
"The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Huff, are you going to handle this one? Mr. Jones, are you going to handle it? Withdraw? Amendment #4 is withdrawn. Are there further Amendments?" 85 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Floor Amendment #5, Huff-Henry, amends Senate Bill 1051 on page one and so forth."
"The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Huff. Amendment #5 is withdrawn. Further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #6, Huff-Jones, amends Senate Bill 1051 on page one and so forth."
"Amendment #6 is withdrawn. Are there further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #7, Huff-Jones, amends Senate Bill 1051 on page one and so forth."
"Amendment #7 is withdrawn. Are there further Amendments?"
"No further Amendments."
"Third Reading. Senate Bill 1049. Out of the record? Out of the record. Senate Bill 1052, Representative Yourell. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 1052, a Bill for an Act to amend the Criminal Code. Second Reading of the Bill. No Committee Amendments."
"Are there any Amendments from the floor?"
"Floor Amendment #1, Getty, amends Senate Bill 1052 on page two line seven and so forth."
"Which Amendment was that?"
"The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Getty."
"Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, Amendment #1 is a clarifying Amendment which puts into the language and cleans up an ambiguity making it clear that the offense would be knowing and intentional and if the property is taking out, borrowed, with the intent to deceive, he borrows in order to get into the class of withholding the book and finally that he would willfully without good cause fail to return. All of these things were agreed to by the Sponsor and the proponents of the Bill in Committee and 86 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 that clarifies the language. I would ask for adoption of the Amendment."
"Mr. Yourell, could we take this Bill out of the record temporarily? We'll come back to it. Out of the record, Mr. Clerk. Stand at ease, would you, Ladies and Gentlemen, for a second? For what purpose does the Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Kulas, arise?"
"Yes, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of an introduction. We have here today from Representative Ebbesen's and Schuneman's District, Representative Mautino in the gallery with his wife, JoAnn, and his mother and some other people from Spring Valley."
"Welcome to Springfield. Also, we have another introduction. Representative Kane has some people here he'd like to bring to the podium. And Mr. Smith and Mrs. Oblinger."
"Representative Oblinger and Representative Smith and myself would like to introduce to the House Miss Wyvette Morrison, who was selected as one of the ten finalists in the Miss High School Cover Girl of 1981. There were some 10,000 contestants. She was one of the ten finalists that went to New York and Wyvette, would you say hello to everybody?"
"Hello, I'd like to thank all of you for awarding me with this high honor from the State of Illinois. Thank you."
"And we do have a Resolution, House Resolution 435, commending Wyvette and if the Speaker would allow, I would ask for the House to adopt House Resolution 435."
"With leave of the House we'll go to the Order of Resolutions so the Clerk can read the Resolution. I believe Representative Smith has some words he wishes to say." 87 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Yes, thank you. I would like to point out that this family has been friends of mine since before this young Lady was born. Her father began his teaching career when I was principal at Isles School and of course, her mother has been a long time friend. I would like to say that the rest of the family is back up here in the gallery and I'm very happy that she inherited her mother's looks and not her father's."
"I just want to say hello to her father now. Jake, how are you? You've got a gorgeous daughter. Yes, I know Micky's up there, but I thought maybe Jake was too."
"Read the Resolution, Mr. Clerk."
"House Resolution 435, Representative Kane, Oblinger and Irv Smith; Whereas, Wyvette Morrison, daughter of Ferris Morrison and Carolyn Tony, was selected as one of the ten finalists in the Miss High School Cover Girl 1981 contest sponsored by Coed magazine and Cover Girl cosmetics. And whereas, her selection as a finalist was based on an essay submitted by her entitled, Nothing Ventured, Nothing Gained. And whereas, her achievements since entering Springfield High School included three years as a cheerleader, sophomore class treasurer, student council member, homecoming court member and an honor student with a 3.6 grade average. And whereas, these accomplishments plus photographs lead to her selection as a finalist from 10,000 entrants and whereas she was a recipient of an all expense trip to New York City and therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Eighty-Second General Assembly of the State of Illinois that we congratulate Wyvette Morrison upon being a finalist in a High School Cover Girl 1981 contest and commend her for achievements and wish her success in reaching her personal goals and be it further Resolved that 88 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 suitable copies of this Preamble and Resolution be presented to Wyvette Morrison."
"The Clerk has read the Motion and the Resolution has been offered. All those in favor of the adoption of the Resolution signify with a loud 'aye', opposed 'nay'. The 'ayes' have it. And the Resolution is adopted. For what purpose does the Gentleman from Marion, Representative Friedrich, arise?"
"Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask for a thirty minute recess for the purpose of a Republican conference in room 114 immediately. If the Members will all be on time, we need to get there and get back."
"All right. Room 114, Mr. Friedrich?"
"Please."
"Republican conference in room 114. Do the Democrats have a....Is that a half an hour, Mr. Friedrich?"
"Yes, Sir."
"The Democrats do not require one. All right, Republicans conference in room 114. The House will stand in recess until the hour of 1:15...The House will come to Order. The Members will be in their seats. Messages from the Senate."
"A message from the Senate by Mr. Wright, Secretary: Mr. Speaker, I'm directed to inform the House of Representatives that the Senate has concurred with the House of Representatives in the passage of House Bills of the following titles; House Bills 239, 242, 252, 337, 385, 386, 393, 415, 419, 547, 559, 623, 654, 694, 696, 723, 725, 744, 754, 760, 782, 787, 808, 813, 817, 821, 835, 857, 858, 871, 874, 893, 894, 940, 963, 975, 985, 998, 1016, 1020, 1049, 1080, 1118, 1136, 1150, 1172, 1234, 1288, 1291, 1354, 1367, 1399, 1536, 1674, 1797, 1807, 1838, together with attached Amendments hereto and the adoption of which 89 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 I'm instructed to ask concurrence of the House to wit: passed the Senate as amended, June 24, 1981, Kenneth Wright, Secretary. A message from the Senate by Mr. Wright, Secretary: Mr. Speaker, I'm directed to inform the House of Representatives that the Senate has concurred with the House in the passage of Bills of the following title to wit: House Bill 1830, passed the Senate June 24th, 1981. Kenneth Wright, Secretary. A message from the Senate by Mr. Wright, Secretary: Mr. Speaker, I'm directed to inform the House of Representatives that the Senate has concurred with the House in the passage of Bills of the following titles to wit: House Bill 364, passed the Senate June 24th, 1981, Kenneth Wright, Secretary. A message from the Senate by Mr. Wright, Secretary: Mr. Speaker, I'm directed to inform the House of Representatives that the Senate has concurred with the House in the passage of Bills the following titles to wit: House Bills 847, 927, 961, 974, 988, 996, passed the Senate as amended June 24th, 1981. Kenneth Wright, Secretary. A message from the Senate by Mr. Wright, Secretary: Mr. Speaker, I'm directed to inform the House of Representatives that the Senate has concurred with the House in the passage of Bills of the following title to wit: House Bill 655, 681, 682, 698, 701, 706, 732, 751, 781, 786, 799. Passed by the Senate June 24th, 1981. Kenneth Wright, Secretary. A message from the Senate by Mr. Wright, Secretary: Mr. Speaker, I'm directed to inform the House of Representatives that the Senate has concurred with the House in the passage of Bills of the following titles to wit: House Bills 1294, 1314, 1339, 1394, 1407, 1440, 1445, 1496, 1652, 1672, 1813, 1814, 1817. Passed the Senate June 24th, 1981. Kenneth Wright, Secretary. A message from the Senate by Mr. Wright, Secretary: Mr. Speaker, I'm directed to inform the House of 90 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Representatives the Senate has concurred with the House in the passage of the Bills of the following titles to wit: House Bills 824, 870, 872, 882, 930, 948, 978, 995, 999, 1043, 1051, 1052, 1065, 1073, 1075, 1098, 1103, 1141, 1153, 1166, 1235, 1237, 1257. Passed the Senate June 24th, 1981. Kenneth Wright, Secretary. A message from the Senate by Mr. Wright, Secretary: Mr. Speaker, I'm directed to inform the House of Representatives that the Senate has concurred with the House in the passage of Bills of the following titles to wit: House Bills 22, 245, 378, 379, 380, 381, 390, 440, 448, 471, 472, 502, 513, 544, 606, 622, 626, 639, 645, 646, 676, 695, 709, 757, 803 and 812. Passed by the Senate June 24th, 1981. Kenneth Wright, Secretary. Representative Daniels in the Chair."
"The House will come to Order. Senate Bill 1052. Representative Yourell. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 1052, a Bill for an Act to amend the Criminal Code. Second Reading of the Bill. No Committee Amendments."
"Representative Yourell? Or, excuse me. Any Amendments from the floor?"
"Floor Amendment #1, Getty, amends Senate Bill 1052..."
"Representative Getty, Amendment #1."
"Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I previously explained this before the Bill was taken out of the record. This is a clean up Amendment to express the mental states of knowingly and intentionally, to clear up that the borrowing would be done with the intent to deceive, that the failure to return would be willfully and without good cause. These were Amendments that were agreeable to the Sponsors and the proponents of the Bill in Committee. I would ask for adoption of the Amendment." 91 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"The Gentleman, Representative Getty, moves for the adoption of Amendment #1. Is there any discussion? Being none, the question is, 'Shall Amendment #1 be adopted?'. All those in favor will signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The 'ayes' have it and Amendment #1 is adopted. Further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #2, Yourell, amends Senate Bill..."
"Representative Yourell, Amendment #2."
"Yes, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, Amendment #2 and 3 I would like to withdraw. They're incorporated in Amendment #4."
"Numbers 2 and 3 are withdrawn. Further Amendments?"
"Amendment #4, Yourell, amends Senate Bill..."
"Representative Yourell, on Amendment #4."
"Yes, Amendment #4 was suggested in the Judiciary II Committee. It corrects the inconsistency in the Bills...in the Bill and I move the adoption of Amendment #4 to House..Senate Bill 1052."
"The Gentleman's moved the adoption of Amendment #4. Is there any discussion? Being none, the question is, 'Shall Amendment #4 be adopted?'. All those in favor will signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. Amendment #4 is adopted. Further Amendments?"
"No further Amendments."
"Third Reading. Senate Bill 1081, Representative Schuneman? Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 1081, a Bill for an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. Second Reading of the Bill. No Committee Amendments."
"Any Amendments from the floor?"
"Floor Amendment #1, Bullock-McPike, amends Senate Bill 1081 as amended." 92 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Representative Bullock? Representative McPike, Amendment #1?"
"Withdraw Amendment #1."
"Withdrawn. Further Amendments?"
"Amendment #2, Schuneman- et al, amends Senate Bill..."
"Representative Schuneman on Amendment #2."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Amendment #2 embodies what was the agreement that was reached between the..."
"Excuse me, Representative Schuneman. Representative Bullock, for what purpose do you arise, Sir?"
"Mr. Speaker, I was detained at the door by a constituent when this Bill was called. I had filed an Amendment to the Bill.."
"Yes, Sir. That Amendment was withdrawn by your Chief Cosponsor, Representative McPike."
"Well, since he's the real leader, I guess he's correct."
"All right. Representative Schuneman."
"Mr. Speaker, on that point, Representative Bullock, we agreed to accept your Amendment #1 and that is embodied in Amendment #2 now. Oh, okay. Yes, Sir. Mr. Speaker, this Amendment embodies the agreement that was reached by representatives of the labor community and the business community in the meeting which was convened at the Governor's Mansion last week. And, I think most of the Members of the House have the..either the Democrat analysis of these changes or the Republican analysis, and I've looked at them both and I think they're accurate in their portrayal of what this Amendment would do. But, just very briefly on the benefit side, what this Amendment seeks to 93 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 do is freeze the unemployment...the increases in the unemployment compensation benefit levels after the July 1981 increase has taken affect and that freeze will remain in effect until January of 1983 with one exception. And that is, that in July of 1982, only one-half of the usual increase would be allowed. The Bill also provides for annual escalation of benefits after January of 1983. The Bill would restore the waiting week which was formerly in the Unemployment Compensation Act in Illinois and is, in fact, in most unemployment compensation systems throughout the country. It would disqualify and eliminate from benefits those people who voluntarily quit their jobs. It would eliminate benefits for people who are fired for misconduct. It would eliminate benefits for those who refuse to accept suitable work. It provides for a three year recoupment of benefits improperly collected. And, the total benefit reduction in the Bill amounts to about $256,000,000.00. On the revenue side, the Bill would increase the minimum tax rate from 1/10th of one percent to 2/10ths of one percent. It would also increase the state surcharge on all employers from the present 3/10ths of one percent to 4/10ths of one percent. It would increase the taxable wage base on all employers from $6500.00 to $7,000.00. And it would increase the maximum tax rate for those employers who have had the worst record of unemployment from 5% to 5.3%. It retains the proposal that some of the Democrats have offered as far as the maximum tax rate for small business. And it pegs that at 2.7% for those employers whose quarterly taxable ...whose quarterly wages, rather, are $50,000.00 or less. It also increases the penalty on employers who fail to pay their taxes on time. That penalty is increased from 1% to 2%. This is a total package, Mr. Speaker, in which the employers of 94 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Illinois next year are going to be paying an additional tax load of about $241,000,000.00. On the benefit side, there have been about $256,000,000.00 eliminated from benefits. So what we're talking about here is a total tax package..or a total impact on the Trust Fund of some four to five hundred million dollars. And I would urge the adoption of Amendment #2."
"The Gentleman's moved for the adoption of Amendment #2. On that question, Representative Kane."
"Would the Sponsor yield to a question?"
"Indicates he will."
"On the increase on the payback for the federal loan, how was that allocated among the different kinds of employers?"
"How was it allocated how, Doug?"
"Among the different kinds of employers. I remember that when we passed a Bill -was it two years ago or three years ago?- for the initial payback. There was some discussion on how those costs were going to be allocated."
"Are you referring, Doug, to the federal penalty?"
"Yes, I believe so."
"The federal penalty is across the board to all employers. In other words, every employer pays the same percentage of penalty. Was that your question?"
"You mean each of them is increased a certain number of points?"
"Right. Right. It's presently 3/10ths of one percent. Next year it will go up to 6/10ths of one percent."
"Which means that those with the best employment..the employers with the best employment record would have the largest percentage increases?"
"No. It does not mean that."
"Yes." 95 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"No, because the rate is the same whether the employee ...the employer has a good employment record or a bad record. But, I would hesitate to point out to you, we have no control over that. That's a federal matter and it's imposed by the Federal Government."
"Discussion? Representative Giorgi?"
"Representative Schuneman, why was it necessary to change the base here?"
"Why was it necessary to do what? The base..."
"The base, yes, the year that your unemployment insurance benefits are based on."
"I don't think I understand what you mean."
"You know what a base year is? It's the year that the base your unemployment insurance payment's on. Here, you're changing the base here and I'm wondering what the reason is for changing the base year."
"Are you talking about the reduction in the quarterly..in the number of quarters that are considered, Representative?"
"That's part of it. What's your answer to that, your own question?"
"Well, I'll try to respond to your question, Zeke, but I honestly don't understand what your question is."
"Okay. It's on page six, lines 19 through 29. My question is based on that. '..Benefit period shall mean the six consecutive calendar months period beginning on the first day of the first calendar month immediately following the preceding December the 1st...'. Why was that change made?"
"Where are you again please?"
"Page six, lines 19 through 29."
"Representative Schuneman."
"Representative, that is a change that I mentioned in 96 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 explaining the Bill which...or at least I intended to mention it, which will take affect after January of 1983 under which the increase in the maximum benefit will be determined once a year instead of twice a year, as it is now. And, that has..that has a significant saving on the Trust Fund, to do that. Also..also..."
"You're talking about a different Section altogether. You're talking about page seven where you've based the unemployment insurance maximums on the state average wage. I'm not talking about page seven. I'm talking about why you chose..."
"...We're looking at the Amendment. We're looking at the Amendment. Maybe we've got different...."
"I've got the Amendment that says Schuneman-Ryan-Tuerk and Lechowicz. Well, anyway, do you do anything about lifting the lid on the Trust Fund? In the event, let's say that your President turns the economy around and finally we have full employment and money flowing into the Trust Fund. Are you lifting the lid on the Trust Fund so that it could reach any level? Because now you have it so that if you reach a certain maximum, you don't collect any taxes any longer. Are you doing anything with the maximum in the Trust Fund?"
"Well, first of all, Representative, I want to point out to you that this isn't my idea. This is an idea that's been agreed upon..."
"...Well you sound very half-hearted, I agree..."
"..That has been agreed upon between the labor leaders in this state and the business leaders in this state. The answer to your question, to the best of my ability, is that the escalation of benefits will go back to the present level, once the Federal Trust Fund here reaches a $100,000,000.00 balance..." 97 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Yes, but.."
"...So that..so that if we turn the economy around, if we quit this drain on the Unemployment Trust Fund, that ultimately these escalation of benefits could begin every six months again, as they have been."
"Well, then for the record, repeat for me again. How much of a tax increase is this to the employers of Illinois?"
"The tax increase to the State Trust Fund.."
"It's the employers of Illinois that pay this, isn't it?"
"..For next year...to the State Trust Fund next year is estimated to be 165 plus six or eight million dollars. The increase in federal contribution taxes next year on Illinois employers is estimated to be 75 million dollars for a total package of 240 million dollars in increased taxes on Illinois business."
"Do you think this is going to help the plight of the unemployed in the DeKalb area? I just saw in the newspaper yesterday where there were some jobs avail..eight jobs available in the DeKalb area on some farms and there were a few hundred people that showed up for it. Do you think this will help get these people back to work?"
"I hope so."
"Representative Bradley."
"A question of the Sponsor."
"Indicates he will yield."
"I see that one of the changes will be that a rate from 0.1% to 0.2% will be the minimum rate for employers. How does a person and why do you get such a low rate as a 0.1?"
"Because you haven't had any unemployment."
"So then, this is 100% increase on people who have nobody filing against them with a good experience rate, right?" 98 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"It could be characterized that way, yes."
"Okay. I just wanted to point that out to the Body that we're increasing 100% on people who have a good experience and do not have unemployment to help make up the deficit for those who have a high unemployment rate, even though those people, I realize, are going to get an increase also, but not a 100% increase. And I know this isn't your Bill; you're just handling it. But, I would just point that out to the Body that the guy hears so many times people getting up talking about the small businessman and if you want to ever put it to them, you're putting it to them with this Bill."
"Well, okay. But Representative, I'd like to point out to you that that..that that 1/10th of one percent that you point to produces a cost of $6.50. To raise it to 2/10ths of one percent creates a cost of $14.00. So this 100% that you're talking about is really six and a half dollars is what it is."
"Representative Schuneman to close."
"Well, Mr. Speaker, I think everyone understands this Bill. They know where it came from. They know what we're trying to do. The..I'd simply stress the importance of what we're doing here. If we don't do this or something like this, the Illinois Trust Fund will continue to have a deficit. We're faced with all kinds of penalties here in Illinois which I'm sure would be much worse than what will be brought about by the result of this tax increase that I think is a reasonable approach to this Bill and I would simply urge the adoption of the Amendment."
"The Gentleman's moved the adoption of Amendment #2. All those in favor will signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. And the Amendment is adopted. Further Amendments?" 99 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"No further Amendments."
"Third Reading. 1095, Representative Reilly? Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 1095, a Bill for an Act to amend the Illinois Public Aid Code. Second Reading of the Bill. Amendment #3 was adopted in Committee."
"Any Motions filed?"
"No Motions filed."
"Amendments from the floor?"
"Floor Amendment #4, Currie, amends Senate Bill 1095..."
"Representative Currie, Amendment #4."
"Leave to withdraw Amendment #4."
"Withdrawn. Further Amendments?"
"Amendment #5, Satterthwaite, amends Senate Bill..."
"Representative Satterthwaite? Amendment #5."
"Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, in Committee Amendment #3 was adopted and inadvertently we had picked up the wrong language from the Reference Bureau in that Amendment. And Amendment #5 simply seeks to correct the language that was inappropriately adopted in Amendment #3. I move for its passage."
"The Lady's moved for the adoption of Amendment #5. All those in favor will signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. Amendment #5 is adopted. Further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #6, Currie, amends Senate Bill 1095..."
"Representative Currie, Amendment #6."
"Leave to withdraw Amendment #6."
"Withdrawn. Further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #7, Currie, amends...."
"Representative Currie, Amendment #7." 100 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. Amendment #7 to Senate Bill 1095 cleans up and clarifies language in an Amendment to that Bill that was adopted in the Senate. I urge its adoption here."
"Any discussion? Being none, the Lady moves the adoption of Amendment #7. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. Amendment #7 is adopted. Further Amendments?"
"No further Amendments."
"Third Reading. Senate Bill 1104. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 1104, a Bill for an Act amending certain Acts in relationship to township and multi-township assessors. Second Reading of the Bill. No Committee Amendments."
"Any Amendments from the floor?"
"Floor Amendment #1, Keane, amends Senate Bill 1104..."
"Representative Keane, Amendment #1?"
"Leave to withdraw Amendment #1."
"Withdrawn. Further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #2, Getty, amends Senate Bill 1104..."
"Representative Getty, Amendment #2."
"Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, the Amendment merely clarifies that the provisions of the Section do not apply to any township located in a home rule county. The effect of this is to take the County of Cook out."
"The Gentleman's moved the adoption of Amendment #2. Is there any discussion? Oops, excuse me. Representative Barr?"
"Yes, Mr. Speaker, would the Gentleman yield for a question?" 101 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Indicates he will."
"Yes, Representative Getty, I wonder if you could give us a little more full explanation of this Amendment? You say it takes Cook County out? I wonder if you could explain what it takes Cook County out of?"
"The Bill."
"All right. Very good. Now, what would the Bill do if..to Cook County if Cook County were not taken out?"
"The Bill amends the Revenue Act, township organization law in the Election Code to make technical changes and corrective changes relating to township and multi-township assessors."
"Well, I gather that was the title of the Bill. What, in fact, is the effect on the thirty townships in Cook County of taking Cook County out of the Bill?"
"They assess in a different manner in Cook County than in downstate. I don't think this was intended originally for Cook County. But the way it's drawn, it puts Cook County into it."
"Well, would your Amendment have any effect on the powers or duties of township assessors in Cook County?"
"No, it would leave them as they are now."
"It would have no effect on the present operation of the township assessors offices in Cook County. Is that correct?"
"That's correct. That's correct. It would take Cook County out of any changes that this Act would make regarding them. But it wouldn't change the status quo. No, Sir."
"Thank you."
"Representative Miller."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. In the interests of time and the Sponsor of this 102 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Bill, I would acknowledge that I am not in opposition to it and would welcome the Amendment. I think that the purpose of the Amendment is simply to make the provisions of Section 1.3 of the Bill and of the Act as it presently is going to be going into law, not applicable to those townships in Cook County. It will not change anything that's now being done by those townships and I think that it is probably a good Amendment."
"Representative Conti."
"Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I wonder if the Sponsor of the Amendment will yield? I'm looking at my analysis here. It does make technical changes in regard to filling vacancies and the date on which an assessor's term begins."
"You must have the wrong analysis. All my Amendment does is take Cook County out of the Bill. That's all. I think you're talking about #3, not my Amendment at all. Elmer, this would not..."
"...The effect of your Amendment, if you take Cook County out, would actually affect the filling of vacancies of which an assessor's term begins. So if Cook County is out of that, then that wouldn't change the effect with the Sponsor, either Walsh or Miller, had in mind when he introduced the Bill. And there are some problems now in Cook County in the north part of Cook County about filling vacancies. And, I know it's a different Amendment. That would be under Amendment #3, but if you're taking Cook County out with Amendment #2, then Amendment #3 would be null and void."
"Well, I would suggest that that...My intent had nothing to do with changing existing law. My intent in proposing Amendment #2, and the Sponsor of the Bill indicated support for that, was to take Cook County out. That's all." 103 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"All right. And then when your Amendment is adopted, when your Amendment is adopted, then Amendment #3 would become mute."
"But the levy that's to be made is the only thing that my Amendment is going to affect. Otherwise Cook County would be included in this levy procedure. Just wouldn't work out in Cook County."
"Mike, I understand your Amendment. It's very clear. It's very plain. But I still say that if your Amendment's adopted, Amendment #3 would automatically become mute as far as filling the vacancies are concerned. And that's the one that I'm interested in."
"Well, of course ...I think that's a separate issue and maybe you ought to find another vehicle for ..for that Amendment #3 if that's something you're interested in. I wasn't trying to address myself to that at all. But I do want you to know that there would be a very serious problem here if we did not put this Amendment on. Now, I'm not taking a position on what you want to do with Amendment #3 at all."
"All right. All right, Mike. Your Amendment is certainly harmless as far as I can see. But pertaining to Amendment #3, it's going to make that Amendment almost mute."
"Well, I would just respectfully suggest maybe you could find another vehicle then that would be appropriate to put that Amendment #3 on."
"Representative McMaster."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We haven't acted on this yet?"
"No, Sir. It's still open for discussion."
"All right. May I ...Will the Sponsor yield?"
"Indicates he'll yield, Sir."
"Mike, my understanding of your Amendment is that if 104 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 affects only one Section of the Bill, that in regard to levies. Is that not right?"
"That's what I'm advised."
"And it does not affect the rest of the Bill, so it will not have any effect on Amendment #3, which is the..in regard to a point of powers."
"I believe you are correct, Representative McMaster."
"Thank you. And that should ease Mr. Conti's questions then and problems."
"The Gentleman, Representative Getty, to close."
"Well, I think we've answered all the questions. The effect of Amendment #2 would be to remove Cook County from a very difficult situation that they'd be put in if this became law regarding the levy. I would ask for your support."
"The Gentleman has moved for the adoption of Amendment #2. All those in favor will signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The 'ayes'...The 'ayes' have it. Amendment #2 is adopted. Further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #3, McMaster, amends Senate Bill 1104 on page eight and so forth."
"Excuse me. Can we have some order? Can we have some order please? Representative McMaster, Amendment #3."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Amendment #3 is more or less technical. It is in regard to appointments made after January 1st, 1980 and it does say that those people appointed after January 1st to the office of assessor or ..of a tax assessor could not be a multi-township assessor at that time...will remain in office and I would imagine receive his pay until that term expires the end of December of 1981, at which time the newly elected assessor or multi-township assessor would take office. In my mind 105 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 there is no reason that someone appointed under the old law of assessors should have to qualify for the same office as the multi-township assessor, who was qualified under the old law and I think that he should be allowed to remain in the office to which he was appointed and should be entitled to the pay that that office should receive. And I think the Amendment is good and I would move for its adoption."
"Representative Leverenz."
"Will the Sponsor yield?"
"Indicates he will."
"This has a provision for making it retroactive back to January of 1981 or 1980?"
"Representative McMaster."
"Ted, what it says is..."
"Okay, Tommy..."
"Any appointment made by a township or multi-township Board of Trustees between January 1, 1980 and the effective date of this amendatory Act of 1981 to fill a vacancy in the office of a township or a multi-township assessor shall be valid and the appointed..the person appointed to fill such vacancy shall have the same powers and shall be subject to the same duties and penalties as if such a person had been duly elected or appointed to a full term of office and such person shall serve until December 31st, '81, which is the expiration date for that township assessor who was elected to a term."
"Could you cite where this Amendment came from? Did you bring this up or did someone come to you and ask for this to be done?"
"Teddy, someone came to me and asked for me to do it because I have normally handled a lot of work for township law in this Body."
"It just appears here that we are making legitimate 106 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 something perhaps that is not available to a board currently."
"Teddy, I think that anyone appointed under the due process and appointive powers of a township Board of Trustees is legitimate. You understand that. And that's all that this Amendment says and whether it is necessary or whether it isn't, I suppose if you had a court case without this Amendment, I think that it would still be held to be a legitimate appointment."
"Well, I just...I just don't understand why we're making it then retroactive and that's my biggest objection to the thing. If you would make this into a new Amendment and say from the time the Bill was signed into law, I would have perhaps had no problems with it at all. I just don't understand why we're going back and making something that has ....Speaker, to the Bill..er..the Amendment?"
"Proceed, Sir."
"It just appears in my mind that something was done someplace that is questioned or could be questioned and we are trying by legislation to go back and make something legal by making it retroactive back to January of 1980. And I would encourage a 'no' vote on the Amendment so that the Amendment could be drafted from a point of view not having the retroactivity and taking effect from the time the Bill was signed into law. I'd solicit your 'no' vote."
"Representative Conti."
"Well, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I'm aware of what the Amendment is going to do. I'm not necessarily ...I'm going to vote against it. I'm not necessarily going to urge the defeat of this Amendment. But I want you all to know that this addresses a multiple political problem or a fight in several townships in Cook County. And I certainly don't want to become involved in 107 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 their political back yard fights, but I've always been against Bills that would adjudicate pending litigation or pending problems in any municipality by just passing a law and wiping out their problems that they are having up there on an interparty squabble."
"Representative Keane."
"Thank you. A couple of questions of the Sponsor of the Amendment?"
"Indicates he'll yield."
"Sponsor, in the township..the original multi-township assessing Bill, was there a method put in there as to how to fill vacancies?"
"Representative McMaster."
"In the original Bill, Mike (sic), there was not, if I remember it correctly. But, this legislation does clear that up to give the appointive power, not with this Amendment. But with the legislation...with or without this Amendment. It does set up the appointive power."
"All right. One other question. In..When does this...When does the multi-township assessor legislation go into effect?"
"Well, Jim, the multi-township assessors, it is my understanding, have been elected at the April township election. They will not take office until January 1st of '81, but they were elected and this is the way the assessors differ from other township officers. They are elected at the April election and they take office the first of January of the following year."
"Okay, thank you. To the Bill..."
"Proceed, Sir."
"Thank you. I will...I would support this Amendment. I think it clarifies....the Bill itself upon rereading has a number of problems, as I see it. And I worked on the 108 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 original Bill, so I'm partly to blame for that. But, I think that this Amendment does, as the previous Amendments have..the previous Amendment has, it clarifies what was intended two years when we passed this. It does allow for a uniform method of replacing vacancies and I would ask for your support."
"Representative Miller."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. As a partial follow-up to Mr. Keane's inquiry, the original Act only dealt with vacancies which occurred after the effective date of the new Act which would be after January 1 of '81. This Amendment simply addresses the issue of vacancies that occur before the effective date of it and I think that it's needed because of some confusion that occurred because of people who had to have certain qualifications to be on the ballot and whether they also had to have certain...the same qualifications to accept the filling of a vacancy that occurred in a previous term. So I think they are two separate issues and that it is a good Amendment that cleans up the present law as suggested by Representative Keane. I regard it as a good Amendment."
"Representative Brummer."
"Yes, will the Sponsor yield?"
"He indicates he will."
"Yes."
"Despite all the comments that have been made I still fail to understand. It seems to me that we're trying to make apparently legal something that was illegal at the time that it was done. In the downstate areas, the assessors or multi-township assessors are elected, are they not elected across the State of Illinois?"
"Would you repeat that last part?"
"Are the assessors and multi-township assessors elected 109 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 across the State of Illinois?"
"Yes."
"So, how could there...when does ...the appointment arises...the appointment process only arises when there is a vacancy as a result of a death in office or resignation or something of this nature?"
"Yes. Well, I think there's a possible under.."
"Well, when did the multi-township assessors take office?"
"They don't take office until January 1st of '82."
"Well, then why..why do we need to provide ...to fill the vacancies of some people that haven't even taken office yet? This Bill, itself, as I understands sets up an appointment mechanism..."
"Rich, it's their predecessors, not the one..."
"Could I finish the question please? If the multi-township assessors do not take office until January of 1982, how could there be a vacancy with regard to that office when there are no occupants of that office that are yet scheduled to even be there?"
"Rich, you are confused. The Amendment says, '..assessor or multitownship assessor..'. So you have then..."
"So it deals..."
"Now listen, Rich. You have had vacancies of assessors who have died or resigned or moved or whatever the reason a vacancy would occur. Then, they must be appointed. And we..."
"...vote for yours."
"Pardon?"
"We have had vacancies in the assessors office for as long as we've had assessors, I suppose, under the township assessors. And, we've always had a mechanism to fill 110 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 them."
"Yes. I agree. But there is a confusion on account of the multi-township assessors law that made the people..some people think that an appointed person would have to have the same qualifications prior to the seating of the multi-township assessors. And that's what this is supposed to do, clear up confusion..."
"So..."
"...confusion, Rich..."
"Well, the concern was then that the...the people that..."
"...Let me finish what I am saying please..."
"...have been appointed were not qualified under the law?"
"Let me finish what I'm saying then I'll take your next question. Part of the confusion arises because we say after January 1st, 1980. Let me explain to you that if the vacancy had occurred prior to that time, they would have been running for an election at the April election. But since it was after January 1st, 1980, that meant that they would then fill an unexpired term. You follow what I'm saying, Rich? That's the reason we go back to 1980. If they had...the vacancy had occurred prior to that time, they could have been running the successor in for a two year term to fill out that office."
"Do you know of a single instance in the State of Illinois where this has occurred and if so, where?"
"I think there are several, something like three cases, three instances."
"And where were are they?"
"I believe in Cook County. I don't know of any question and there may be other cases where people have been appointed, but there has been no question or problem 111 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 in regard to those appointees."
"To the Amendment, Mr. Speaker?"
"Proceed, Sir."
"It seems to me what we're trying to do is validate retroactively some people who have been appointed to office who are not qualified under the provisions of the law in existence at the time they were appointed. The Bill itself appears to give prospective authority to the board to fill a vacancy by appointment, so if this Amendment fails, the future is still covered okay. The appointing people can go in and appoint qualified people in accordance with the provisions of the law. And I simply don't think we ought to retroactively put our im primatur on..on some appointments that were made at a time that there was no authority to make those appointments and the appointments were made of people who were not qualified under the law in existence at that time. It seems to me that that's bad policy. This Bill without the Amendment will take care of those situations where vacancies occur so that we can appoint qualified people to the assessing positions."
"Representative McMaster to close."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry about all the confusion of some of the Members of this House in regard to township law. Quite frankly, the statement has been made that people were appointed to fill an office without having the proper qualifications. Prior to the multi-township assessors law and the seating of those, there were no qualifications for a township tax assessor. And please understand that, Rich. There weren't any qualifications. And a lot of appointments have been made over the years and have not been questioned. But, because of the confusion arising over the multi-township assessors law that does require qualifications, that is why we are putting this 112 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Amendment in to settle that confusion and to say in effect that there were no qualifications prior to the assessors running for office in 1981. And those people were qualified who were appointed and they should be left in their office and entitled to all of the duties and requirements of the office at that time. There's no problem really, Rich...or any of you. And I think the Amendment should be adopted. I think it's a good Amendment."
"The Gentleman's moved for the adoption of Amendment #3. All those in favor will signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. Desire a Roll Call? The 'ayes' have it? Roll Call. All right. All those in favor will signify by voting 'aye', opposed by voting 'no'. The voting is open. Have all those voted who wish? Have all those voted who wish? Take the record, Mr. Clerk. On Amendment #3 there are 94 'aye', 43 'nay', none voting 'present'. Amendment #3 is adopted. Further Amendments?"
"No further Amendments."
"Third Reading. Senate Bill 892, Representative Stiehl. The machine has jammed so it will just take a second. We're going to Representative Stiehl's Senate Bill 892. Representative Alexander?"
"I was just asking to be placed on that Roll Call with an 'aye'. I was not at my desk."
"Is that on Amendment #3 you wanted to be?"
"That is correct."
"Record Representative Alexander as 'aye' on Amendment #3, Mr. Clerk. Senate Bill 892. Representative Stiehl. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 892, a Bill for an Act to authorize the Department of Transportation to convey certain parcels of land. Second Reading of the Bill. Amendments #1, 2 and 3 113 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 were adopted in Committee."
"Representative Getty?"
"Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker."
"Absolutely, Sir. What's your inquiry? I just wanted to have it appear in the record how we got back to Senate Bill 892."
"Pursuant to the agreement yesterday when we removed the Bill from the record. We had agreed that we would return to it at the earliest possible opportunity which we are now doing, Sir."
"That's very good and I appreciate that and that was the agreement and I think that there may be one other Bill. Representative Barr had brought to my attention where that similar sort of agreement had been made and I hope that while we're on the order of returning to Bills where an agreement had been made to go back to it, that after we dispose of this matter we would go back to that other matter."
"Representative Getty, you are indeed and truly one of the real Gentleman of the House. We thank you for reminding us of that. We'll give it every consideration at the appropriate time, Sir. Thank you."
"I would just hope that that appropriate time would be on the order of business immediately following 892."
"Thank you, Sir."
"Thank you."
"Mr. Clerk, are there any Motions filed on the Amendments adopted in Committee?"
"No Motions filed to Amendment #1, adopted in Committee or Amendments #2 and 3, adopted on the floor previously."
"And, what Amendment are we on now, Mr. Clerk?"
"Amendment #4, C.M. Stiehl, amends Senate Bill..." 114 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Representative Stiehl on Amendment #4."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Amendment #4 would give the state the authority to sell the Chicago Avenue Armory. An appraisal has been filed. The appraisal was made by Mid-America Appraisal and Research Corporation and it values the property between eleven and fourteen million dollars. Now the Governor has assured us and he has assured this House that he will consult with all interested parties and all interested groups before any attempt is made to sell this property. The property will be offered first of all, to the city of Chicago, the County of Cook, or any other interested governmental entity. They will have sixty days to decided whether or not they would care, if they are interested in the property and would pay fair..the appraised fair market value. If the property is not purchased by the city, it will then be auctioned within 180 days. In no instance may they pay...may the person interested in purchasing the property pay less than the appraised market value. The reason the state would like to sell this property is merely, and I shouldn't say merely, I should say importantly, a cost containment measure. They do not use this armory. They have no use for it. It costs the money to keep it in repair and to keep it in good condition. There are presently eight other..eight armories in the city of Chicago. The Governor has asked that he be given the authority to sell this armory to the highest bidder. And I would ask for approval of this Amendment."
"Representative Getty."
"Well, Mr. Speaker, last evening when this was taken out of the record, I believe I was in the middle of an address to the Chair where I described you as being a very fair individual. And, I would ask you now, even though I 115 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 understand from Representative Stiehl's statement, that the appraisal has been filed, I believe it is still appropriate for the Chair to rule as the Chair specifically said the Chair had not ruled on the question of the need for the appraisal. I believe there was a suggestion by the Parliamentarian which because of the lateness of the hour was not on point, and I would ask that the Chair rule that the appraisal is indeed required under the applicable provisions."
"Representative Getty, we have appraisals filed with the Clerk's Office which we have up here at the well which thereby makes your question mute and the ruling unnecessary, Sir. And if it comes up again, we'll be happy to give you our ruling at that time, to paraphrase former Speaker Redmond's terminology, 'You never meet the...'..Ah, forget it. Let's go on. No, we have nothing further to offer, Sir, on that. Representative Getty."
"Well, I would just note then that obviously, since the Sponsor wisely has complied with the law and the Parliamentarian has wisely suggested that the Sponsor comply with the law and the Speaker has indicated that compliance with the law was appropriate, that the Chair has in fact seen that justice was done and I thank you, Sir, for that."
"And we thank you for your constant participation in the process, Sir. Representative Stiehl has moved for the adoption of Amendment #4 and is there discussion? Representative Leverenz, first."
"Will the Sponsor yield?"
"Indicates she will."
"Last evening, Representative, there was question whether they would have to replace, should we sell this armory, they would have to build another one as a 116 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 replacement. Can we confirm whether that is contemplated or even possible?"
"Representative, to the best of my knowledge, in fact, no. The reason they want to sell this armory is because it's no longer used for that purpose. As I said before, there are presently eight armories in the city of Chicago. There is another large armory being built outside the city that will house the National Guard and their training facilities in poor midwestern states."
"The Bill provides for an order of availability. In the first...Could you name the...Is it a local government that has access and then, it will go to the private sector? How does that go again?"
"Sixty days for any unit of local government followed by 180 days before it goes to auction."
"And, a local government has the first option to go after it?"
"Yes."
"Or to purchase the property? And that would have to comply with at least meeting a certain financial level in terms of the appraisal? Is that correct?"
"Yes, the appraisal."
"And the appraisal value was how much?"
"Eleven to fourteen million."
"Even if it were eleven million, as a floor for example, could you name any local unit of government that would have eleven million dollars to purchase the armory?"
"Maybe the village of Maywood."
"Yes, maybe so. Would..Does the Amendment provide any limitation to any one private developer?"
"No."
"Has anyone to anyone's knowledge expressed a specific interest in the property?" 117 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"The only limitation would be that it would have to be in accordance with the zoning ordinance."
"It would have to be what?"
"In accordance with the zoning ordinance."
"Well, then prior to the Bill being signed into law, a unit of local government would have to change the zoning ordinance. Is that correct?"
"No. The purpose of the...After it is sold, it would have to be..they would..whoever bought the property would have to...what they were going to do with the property would have to be in compliance with the present ordinance, zoning ordinance, in the city of Chicago."
"Do the veterans or would Representative DiPrima indicate how he feels about the state selling an armory in Chicago? Have the veterans taken a position on this?"
"Representative Leverenz, I understand that this armory is not used for that purpose. There's a polo team that uses it."
"Well, that doesn't answer the question. I just wondered if the veterans or Representative DiPrima had any....Has he said anything in terms of the sale of the property? Apparently, they have not? Apparently they have not. Thank you."
"Representative Kulas."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, here we go again. I guess it's that time of the week again where we're going to stick it to Chicago. I'm just curious...I'm just curious how the Sponsor of this Amendment would like it if somebody from the Governor's Office came into her area and said, 'Well, this building isn't really necessary. We're going to sell this'. Or, 'This armory isn't necessary. We're going to sell this', without consulting anybody in the local government, without 118 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 getting input from the community. She'd be screaming to high Heaven. But because this is for Chicago, and we're going to stick it to Chicago, she's going to put this Amendment on the floor. Well, Ladies and Gentlemen, before you vote on this Amendment, think carefully because you're going to be setting a dangerous precedent. And I would urge a 'no' vote."
"Representative Fawell."
"I call for (sic, move) the previous question."
"Representative Fawell, would you hold that please? Thank you. Representative Currie."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. I'd like to ..to report for the records some remarks and some concerns expressed by Representative Jesse White. He'd hoped to have an opportunity to speak on this issue yesterday, but the Bill was taken out of the record before he had an opportunity to do so. And he since has been called to an emergency business matter in the city of Chicago. Representative White served in the National Guard in the Chicago Avenue Armory and he phoned the General of that National Guard..."
"Excuse me. May the Lady please have some attention? Thank you."
"And, Representative White now represents the district that includes the Chicago Avenue Armory. He has spoken to General 'Phipps', who was surprised to discover that the Governor is planning to sell out from under him the armory that is the subject of Amendment #4 to Senate Bill 892 and Representative White, himself, is very distressed to discover that his National Guard unit was not even consulted before this Amendment was brought to the Illinois House floor. There have been some questions as to exactly whether and how the armory is presently used. 119 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Representative White would like us to note that the Chicago Polo Club, the National Soccer League, kids' sports activities, Friends of the Handicapped, a therapy riding program for disabled youngsters, Soccer Associates, the Streaterville Association, the Near North Association, a dietetic group, the British Tourist Authority, Columbia College, which has no access to gym equipment or activities of its own and the Drum and Bugle Corps which practices and is housed in that armory, as well as the Lake Michigan Federation all use the Chicago Avenue Armory. There was a suggestion that there are other places available for ...to suit the purposes of the armory as it is presently used. Yesterday there was some talk of the possibility of using the Naval Armory. But the Naval Armory has already been authorized for sale by this General Assembly and the long talked about construction on the outer drive near the Naval Armory to straighten up the 's' curve, is going to mean that that armory is not going to be available. Even were it available, it would be far too small. Representative White wants the record to show, and I share his concern, that from the point of view of that district, and from the point of view of the groups which right now use the Chicago Avenue Armory, this proposal to sell..to authorize for sale is indeed premature. I understand that the appraisal that has been filed with respect to this Amendment suggests that the best use of the land would be for high-rise construction. I would raise some serious questions as to whether that is the best use. The area is already densely populated and in the minds of many of those who live near and about there, it could not afford, in terms of the problems of traffic and people congestion, another high-rise project. That proposal has not been checked, not even been talked about with the Greater North 120 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Avenue...North Michigan Avenue Council, nor the city of Chicago. The Chicago Plan Commission should, I would hope, surely have to approve any final disposition of this property and because of where it sits, with respect to the lake, the Lakefront Protection Act should also apply. Yet, there is nothing in the Amendment before us to insure that either the Chicago Plan Commission or the purposes of the Lakefront Protection Act would in fact be protected. I think that for us to go ahead with Amendment #4 at this time, without consultation on the part between the Governor and, either General 'Phipps', the city of Chicago, the North Michigan Avenue Council or the Representatives from the affected area, would be premature. Perhaps, if the Amendment were returned to us after those kinds of consultations had taken place, and perhaps if the Amendment would insist upon the protections that the people of the city need, with respect both to the Plan Commission and the purposes of the Lakefront Protection Act, perhaps we could look at this Amendment with a greater degree of optimism and support. Right now, I would strongly urge, and I know Representative White wants me to urge on his behalf, that people on the floor of this House vote 'no' on Amendment #4."
"Representative Sandquist."
"Yes, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I won't repeat the speech that I made here last night when this was first up. This is in my district and I have worked over the years with the people in the area who are concerned. And I am concerned about some of the things Representative Currie just said about there are no provisions in this Amendment to set up a specific way to get the people involved because the important thing is the use of this property and what's going to be built there. I 121 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 can't say that the armory is being used now because it really isn't, all these other things. But what I am concerned about is what's going in there. And I know that the Streatorville organization who have worked very hard on this is vitally concerned. And I wish we had time to put on this Amendment those kinds of things which would preserve the proper use of this property. Because we do not need another high-rise there and for that reason, I'm going to have to vote 'no' and if, by some chance, this passes I'm certainly going to see that the Senate does put on the provisions that should be in there to protect the city and the people in the community. Thank you."
"Representative Tuerk."
"Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I not only rise in support of the Amendment, but I rise to clear up some misgivings about the Gentleman from Chicago, who mentioned that this was establishing a dangerous precedent. I could remind that Gentleman that precedent has already been established. There was a Governor that preceded the present Governor and I..I can't recall his name at the moment, but I think he was from the other political persuasion, who made some calculated judgments that some of the property throughout the state was not needed. It affected one of the facilities in the Peoria area. It wasn't needed at the time. We did sell it. And it doesn't establish any dangerous precedent and I just wanted to clear the record on that."
"Representative Brummer."
"Yes, very briefly. I just examined the appraisal that was filed. It seems rather curious that the appraiser, at least, indicates that this property cannot be sold unless it is approved by the Chicago Planning Commission. Those people who usually speak with regard to City Government of 122 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Chicago have indicated the city of Chicago knew nothing about it. So it seems to me that we are simply putting the gavel, it you will, or the sole decision-making authorization by passing this Bill with the Chicago Planning Commission. If they don't approve it, there isn't going to be any sale. That puts them in an interesting negotiating position. The appraiser also indicated that the highest and best use of this property was high-rise apartments or condominiums and be used, with regard to all six comparable sales, other sales that have been sold for residential development, as apartment buildings or condominiums. Those people from that area of the city indicated that this was probably not the desired or beneficial use of that property. Finally I find it rather curious in response to the Representative from Peoria, who just spoke, that Governor Thompson is trying to emulate his predecessor. I didn't know that was one of his goals. I would urge a 'no' vote."
"Representative Watson."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to move the previous question."
"The Gentleman has moved the previous question. The question is, 'Shall the main question be put?'. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. The main question is put. Representative Stiehl to close."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Everyone of us were told by our voters, act in a prudent, fiscally responsible manner. And I think, to the best of our ability, everyone of us have tried to achieve this goal. And we have had to cut back on programs that we really didn't want to cut back on. We have not been able to fund many programs that we would have liked to have 123 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 funded. We have had to cut back on programs for the poor and programs for the aged. We have had to cut back on programs for the mentally disabled and for programs for the veterans and for programs for our schools. And we have had to do this because of the desperate financial condition the state is in. Now, here is an Amendment that is fiscally responsible. It allows the state to sell some property that it is not using. Certainly it is valuable property. But through the sale of this property the state will acquire some eleven to fourteen million dollars in its General Revenue Fund. Now, I would like to reiterate that the Governor has assured this Legislature that he will consult with every interested group, that he will consult with the officials of the city of Chicago and that the city of Chicago, in being so interested in this land, will have the first opportunity to buy it. Now, it has also been brought out that the Governor has not consulted with the Adjutant General. But the fact is that representatives of the Governor's Office consulted for over two months with the Adjutant General and his staff. And it has also been brought out that before any sale is contemplated, the Governor will have to consult with the Chicago Planning Commission. Well, this is good because this indicates that the Governor does want to consult with the state..with the city of Chicago. He does want to consult with all interested groups. And no Governor is going to allow anything to go on that property that is going to be to the detriment of one of the finest areas in the city. This is just good business practice. It's fiscally responsible. Why should the state have to keep property that they no longer use, that they have no use for, particularly at a time like this when they so badly need the money? I would ask for a favorable vote." 124 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"The Lady moves for the adoption of Amendment #4. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The 'ayes' have it....Who's the loudest over there? Greiman is the loudest. He wins again. All those in favor will signify by voting 'aye', opposed by voting 'no'. The voting is open. The Gentleman from Cook, Representative Pechous to explain his vote. The timer is on, Sir."
"Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, in furtherance of my 'no' vote, let me indicate that just shortly, a few days past, we approved the passage of Senate Bill 134 which would create an Illinois National Guard Study Commission. I believe that this purported sale or proposed sale would be premature at this time. I am told reliably that the Illinois National Guard military hierarchy would be opposed to it on grounds that this property is most needed for the security of Chicago and Cook County and to the National Guard. I would ask for a 'no' vote. Thank you."
"Representative Bower."
"Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I'm rather surprised by the comments of the last speaker. I served on the Special Joint Committee of the Illinois General Assembly in the last Session concerning the National Guard. It was very clear in the testimony that was presented by the National Guard that the Chicago Avenue Armory is obsolete. It was built near the turn of the century at a time when very large battalions of men were needed. Now they want small armories. The sale... The armory is in very poor repair. The sale of this armory would give the State of Illinois enough money to match with federal funds to build all of the armories that we need throughout the State of Illinois. I would urge an 'aye' vote." 125 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Representative Lechowicz."
"Well, Mr. Speaker, if this receives the necessary votes, I ask for a verification."
"Representative Everett Steele."
"Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to just point out that we're just about 12 votes short of bringing into the State Treasury another fourteen million dollars. And that means for every additional vote up there, it's going to bring another million dollars into our State Treasury. And certainly we're desperately in need of each possible dollar. We're in a fiscal crisis and a fiscal crunch and here we have a building that's not being used for its original purpose. I know much of the time that proper safeguards are built into this legislation to protect and provide for all the legal appraisals and whatever. And so, there's not many opportunities we have to acquire in our State Treasury, so desperately needing additional funds, another fourteen million dollars. And I would just urge each additional vote up there is going to bring another million or two in and I would urge each and every person that feels that need in our Treasury for additional money to vote green on this Bill. This is a rare opportunity and one that we shouldn't pass..(Timer)"
"Representative Bowman."
"In response to the last speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, I would point out that the armory is a fixed asset and it is inappropriate from a fiscal perspective to sell a fixed asset to meet current operating expenses. It would be very much analogous to a family selling the family automobile in order to balance their checkbook. I think that despite the temptation of some quick cash, we should not use this grossly irresponsible way to balance the budget in the short term. What are we going to do next year? I think we 126 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 should defeat this Amendment until we know exactly what the money is going to be used for."
"Representative J.J. Wolf."
"Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I am really surprised that many of our downstate colleagues who aren't voting for this excellent Bill, just because some of the fat cats on Michigan Avenue are worried about or some rich people in the high-rises on Lake Michigan on Lake Shore Drive might. This is no shock and it's certainly not a shock to General 'Phipps'. This has been on the drawing board for at least two years that I know of. That is a large facility that uses a lot of heat and it's too large. They want to create smaller newer facilities such as Riverside and other areas which would accommodate the troops that are there, more efficient to operate. Here's a chance to put some money in the till so you liberals can have some more money to spend on some of your liberal programs and you're not voting for it. I'm shocked and chagrined."
"Representative John Dunn from Macon."
"Yes, Mr. Speaker. All downstaters should support this Amendment. When the trains stop running in Chicago, people are going to have to have someplace to stay overnight. They're going to need this armory. Vote red."
"Representative Polk."
"Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to ask Representative Currie to get off the phone, if she's still there. I want this ..I want her statement. I would appreciate you saying once again, Representative Currie, what General 'Phipps' said. Now, rarely, very rarely, the media does not always interpret correctly. And I want it read in the record so everyone absolutely hears what you said General 'Phipps' said. Number one, he was totally unaware?"
"Representative Currie." 127 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Thank you, Representative Polk. I was speaking for Representative White who was unable to be here this afternoon and who asked me to report for the record his concerns about his issue. When he spoke....(cut off)"...informed me that when he spoke to General 'Phipps'..."
"When was this then?"
"I believe..."
"Yesterday?"
"Yes, I believe yesterday, Representative Polk."
"Okay."
"He told me that General 'Phipps' had not been advised by the Governor that the Governor planned to sell the armory out from under him."
"And his second statement was what? That he was opposed to it?"
"And that..yes. As I understand it...."
"General 'Phipps' was quoted as saying he was opposed.."
"..As I understand...As I understand, in the conversation that Representative White reported to me and asked me to report for the record, General 'Phipps' was not pleased at the prospect of that armory's being sold."
"...'Phipps' will enjoy that."
"Representative Robbins."
"Well, I don't know. I was just wondering if, since the RTA was brought up, is this building being used now by 'Rico' for its staging area to invade downstate Illinois? If it is, I urge an 'aye' vote, not only to destroy his staging area, but to give Chicago a plus. That way that money would help run the RTA for another week and we must keep it running."
"Representative Pechous, didn't you speak already, Sir?" 128 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"I did and just very briefly to amplify the comment and the question asked of Representative Currie. I just did speak with General 'Phipps'. And in fact I brought a note over to Representative Bower so he, too, could call General 'Phipps' and find out exactly his position with regard to it. And it was, and I can pretty well quote. He indicated he did speak with the Governor's Office. He indicated he does not concur in the sale of that property for certain strategic purposes. And that is what I said earlier on the floor and I did go over to Representative Bower and tell him exactly that point of view. Thank you."
"Representative Pechous, do you have General 'Phipps'' phone number?"
"Yes. Initially it's Lieutenant Colonel Karl Johnson, 785-3569. And they will connect you with General John 'Phipps'."
"The number is 785-3569, if you wish to have your question satisfied, 785-3569. All right. Representative Terzich."
"Yes, Mr. Speaker. What order of business are we on? I mean, are we on explanation...Let's take a Roll Call and get this thing over with."
"Representative Hoxsey."
"Ladies and Gentlemen of the House and Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether the people on the other side of the aisle are aware of the fine National Guard installation that is presently being built in LaSalle County, 75 miles southwest of Chicago right off of Route 80, a couple of thousand acres, an armory, a training camp and right next to Common Wealth Edison's big 2,000 acre lake where you'll be able to fish and it'll be a great installation. That is a new armory."
"Representative DiPrima." 129 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Yes, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, boy that really elated me when Representative Horsey says they've got a brand new armory down there. Well, we haven't got a new one. We're..We'd be happy to keep the old one. Now, Jesse White was supposed to speak on this today, but he had to go to Chicago and consequently he isn't here. Well, he's from that area there. It's right about a mile from 'Cabrini Green', where I was born when it was really a slum. And I remember the old armory over there right next to the old water tower. I sold papers along that area there and had many happy memories going by the Oak Street Beach. I'd always pass the armory by. But Jesse White told me there are activities galore over there. There's no other place within a three mile radius where the kids can go and play and what have you. And you know the kids that are over at that 'Cabrini Green' and they really need this place. But in addition to that, there's polo games over there played and a multitude of different sporting events taking place there daily. And, Chicago really needs this armory in an emergency. As I've always said with the National Guard, that's our first line of defense. And if you're in your right mind you'll really kill this legislation. Thank you."
"Representative Bluthardt."
"Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I recall the Chicago Armory. I played semi-pro football in that armory about 45 years ago. It stunk to high Heaven then and it stinks to high Heaven now, mainly because of the polo being played in there and the results of those horses running up and down the field. You know the armory was a barn 45 years ago. It's still a barn. It ought to be torn down, especially inasmuch as I recall, we lost that football game. You ought to tear it down." 130 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Representative Cullerton."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. It's obviously a very well constructed barn, if Representative Bluthardt played a football game there 45 years ago and it's still standing. Mr. Speaker, I think the record should reflect that the building was conveyed in 1915 from the Lincoln Park Commission to the Illinois Armory Board and the language in that deed indicated that it should be used for an armory site. And that, I believe, that the sale would violate that particular deed. And I just thought I'd mention that for the record."
"Representative Cissy Stiehl?"
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At the appropriate time I'd like to ask for a poll of the absentees and a verification of the Negative vote."
"Representative Jim Kelley."
"Yes, Mr. Speaker. I just heard a late news report. General 'Phipps' is now Private 'Phipps'."
"Representative Laurino. Representative Laurino, your light is on, Sir. Okay. Representative Bullock."
"It's been on for half an hour."
"Okay. Like all of the Members of the House, we're ready, Sir."
"Well, all right. I have an optomistrist you can see also. Dr. Woody Bowman just cited economical reasons why this armory should not be sold. I want to cite a social reason that perhaps it shouldn't be sold. As you know, during the riots of 1968, that armory served a great purpose. And I think Representative White had some ideas in mind when he wanted to keep this armory because he understands that if Reagan keeps cutting the budget and sending block grants to Illinois, that armory will probably 131 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 be packed to the walls. So, for no other reason than national defense, I think we ought to keep the armory for the impending disturbance with the Reagan budget cuts."
"Representative Irv Smith. You can hit your switch, Sir. The voting is still open..."
"...Recorded?"
"The voting is still open, Representative Smith."
"Okay. I'm sorry."
"You're recorded as 'aye'. All right. Any further discussion? All those voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record. On this question there are 82 'aye', 87 'no', 2 'present'. And the Lady, Representative Cissy Stiehl, requests a Poll of the Absentees."
"Poll of the Absentees: Garmisa. Jackson. Margalus. Redmond. Schneider. And, White."
"Representative Stiehl? All right. On this question there are 82 'aye', 87 'no', 2 voting 'present'. Amendment #4...Representative Stiehl."
"Mr. Speaker, I'd like a verification of the Negative vote."
"The Lady requests a verification of the Negative Roll. Will all Members please be in their seats? And all those not entitled to the floor please remove yourself to the gallery. All right, proceed with a Poll of the Negative Roll."
"Alexander. Balanoff. Barr. Beatty. Bowman. Bradley. Braun. Breslin. Brummer. Bullock. Capparelli. Carey. Catania. Chapman. Christensen. Cullerton. Currie. Darrow. DiPrima. Domico. Donovan. Doyle. John Dunn. Ewell. Farley. Flinn. Getty. Giglio. Giorgi. Greiman. Hanahan. Hannig. Henry. Huff. Jaffe. Jones. 132 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Kane. Katz. Keane. Dick Kelly. Kornowicz. Kosinski. Krska. Kulas. Laurino. Lechowicz. Leon. Leverenz. Levin. Madigan. Matijevich. Mautino. McClain. McGrew. McPike. Ted Meyer. Mulcahey. Murphy. O'Brien. O'Connell. Ozella. Pechous. Pierce. Pouncey. Preston. Rea. Rhem. Richmond. Ronan. Saltsman. Sandquist. Satterthwaite. Schraeder. Slape. Margaret Smith. Steczo. Stewart. Stuffle. Telcser. Terzich. Turner. Van Duyne. Vitek. Sam Wolf. Younge. Yourell. And, Zito."
"Representative Stiehl on questions of the Negative Roll."
"Representative Alexander."
"Representative Alexander is in the back."
"Representative Balanoff."
"Representative Balanoff? Representative Balanoff in the chambers? How is the Lady recorded?"
"The Lady is recorded as voting 'no'."
"Remove her."
"Representative Beatty."
"Representative Beatty is in the aisle. Representative Stiehl, Representative Bowman requests leave to be verified."
"Leave."
"He's up here in front. And Representative Balanoff has returned. Return her to the Negative Roll. Proceed."
"Representative Catania."
"Catania, Representative Catania. The Lady is back by Representative Stanley."
"Representative Domico."
"Representative Domico? Representative Domico? Is the Gentleman in the chambers? He's in the rear." 133 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Representative John Dunn."
"Representative John Dunn is in the aisle."
"Representative Farley."
"Representative Farley is up here by the well."
"Representative Giorgi."
"Representative Giorgi is in the front."
"Representative Hanahan."
"Representative Hanahan? Is the Gentleman in the chambers? Representative Hanahan? How is he recorded?"
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'no'."
"Remove him."
"Representative Jaffe."
"Representative Jaffe is in his seat."
"Representative Katz."
"Representative Katz? Is the Gentleman in the chambers? How is the Gentleman recorded?"
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'no'."
"Remove him."
"Representative Krska."
"Representative Krska is in his seat, as usual."
"Representative Kulas."
"Representative Kulas is in the aisle."
"Representative Lechowicz."
"Representative Lechowicz is in his chair."
"Representative Leon."
"Representative Leon? Representative Leon? Is the Gentleman in the chambers? How is he recorded?"
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'no'."
"Remove him."
"Representative Mautino."
"Representative Mautino. Representative Mautino. Is the Gentleman in the chambers? How is he 134 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 recorded?"
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'no'."
"Remove him."
"Representative McGrew."
"Representative McGrew? The Gentleman is in his seat."
"Representative McPike."
"Representative McPike is in the rear."
"Representative Mulcahey."
"Representative Mulcahey is in the center aisle."
"Representative O'Brien."
"Representative O'Brien. How is the Gentleman recorded?"
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'no'."
"Remove him."
"Representative Ozella."
"Representative Ozella is in the rear."
"Representative Ronan."
"Representative Ronan. Representative Ronan. Is the Gentleman in the chambers? How is the Gentleman recorded?"
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'no'."
"Remove him."
"Representative Schraeder."
"Representative Schraeder? Is the Gentleman in the chambers? How is the Gentleman recorded?"
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'no'."
"Remove him. Representative Katz has returned. Return Representative Katz to the Negative Roll."
"Representative Slape."
"Representative Slape. Representative Slape is in the back." 135 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Representative Steczo."
"Representative Steczo is in his chair."
"Representative Stuffle."
"Representative Stuffle? Representative Stuffle in the chambers? How is he recorded?"
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'no'."
"Remove him."
"Representative Van Duyne."
"Representative Van Duyne? Representative Van Duyne? Is the Gentleman in the chambers? How is the Gentleman recorded?"
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'no'."
"Remove him. And return Representative Leon to the Negative Roll. Further questions?"
"Representative Capparelli."
"Representative Capparelli is in his seat."
"Representative Carey."
"Representative Carey is in his seat."
"Representative Ted Meyer?"
"Representative Ted Meyer? Representative Ted Meyer? Is the Gentleman in the chambers? How is the Gentleman recorded?"
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'no'."
"Remove him."
"Representative Zito."
"Representative Zito is in the center aisle."
"What's the count, Mr. Speaker?"
"Return Representative Ronan to the Negative Roll. Okay. There are 82 'ayes' and 80 'nos'."
"Representative Telcser."
"Representative Telcser? Is the Gentleman in the chambers? Representative Telcser? How is the Gentleman recorded?" 136 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'no'."
"Remove him. Any further questions?"
"No further questions, Mr. Speaker."
"Representative Bartulis, for what purpose do you arise, Sir?"
"I want to change my vote from 'present' to 'aye'."
"Change Representative Bartulis from 'present' to 'aye'. Representative O'Brien has returned. Return him to the Negative Roll Call. Representative Braun?"
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I be verified?"
"Representative Braun, yes, leave is granted. Further questions? Changes? Deletions, additions? Okay. Jack, what's the count? Representative Lechowicz...There are 83 'ayes', 80 'nos'. And you request a Poll of the Affirmative Roll, Sir?"
"I want to verify the Affirmative vote, yes, I do, Sir."
"Verification of the Affirmative Vote requested by Representative Lechowicz. All right, proceed with a verification of the Affirmative. I'm sorry. Representative Oblinger requests leave to be verified. Does she have leave? Leave is granted. Representative Jack Davis requests leave. Leave is granted. And, Representative Wikoff. Leave is granted. Representative Jack Dunn, leave is granted. Okay. Representative Piel, for what purpose do you arise, Sir? Representative Piel requests leave. All right. Okay. Representative Oblinger, Davis, Wikoff, Jack Dunn, and Piel. Proceed with a verification of the Affirmative."
"Abramson. Ackerman. Alstat. Barkhausen. Barnes. Bartulis. Bell. Birkinbine. Bluthardt. Boucek...."
"Representative Lechowicz?" 137 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, but unfortunately with the people in the aisles I can't see if Mr. Bluthardt's back to his...Yes, he is. Okay. Please continue."
"Would you please ..All Members please retire to the chairs and those not entitled to the floor, would you please retire to the rear of the chambers, those not entitled to the floor? All right. Proceed, Sir."
"Bower. Collins. Conti. Daniels. Davis. Deuchler. Deuster. Jack Dunn. Ralph Dunn. Ebbesen. Epton. Ewing. Fawell. Findley. Virginia Frederick. Dwight Friedrich. Griffin. Grossi. Hallock. Hallstrom. Hastert. Hoffman. Hoxsey. Hudson. Huskey. Johnson. Karpiel. Jim Kelley. Klemm. Kociolko. Koehler. Kucharski. Kustra. Leinenweber. Macdonald. Martire. Mays. McAuliffe. McBroom. McCormick. McMaster. R.J.Meyer. Miller. Neff. Nelson. Oblinger. Peters. Piel. Polk. Pullen. Reed. Reilly. Rigney. Robbins. Ropp. Schuneman. Irv Smith. Stanley. Stearney. E.G. Steele. C.M. Stiehl. Swanstrom. Tate. Topinka. Tuerk. Vinson. Watson. Wikoff. Winchester. J.J. Wolf. Woodyard. Zwick. And, Mr. Speaker."
"Questions of the Affirmative Roll, Representative Lechowicz?"
"Yes, Mr. Speaker. Is Representative Abramson here?"
"Representative Abramson is in his chair."
"Representative Ackerman."
"Representative Ackerman is in his chair."
"Bell."
"Representative Bell is in his chair."
"Bower."
"Bower is in his chair."
"Collins."
"Collins. Representative Collins? How is the 138 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Gentleman recorded?"
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'aye'."
"Remove him."
"Ralph Dunn?"
"Representative Ralph Dunn is in his chair."
"Mrs. Fawell? There she is."
"She's in her chair."
"Representative Findley?"
"Representative Findley? Representative Findley? Is the Gentleman in the chambers? In the back."
"Representative Griffin?"
"Representative Griffin is in his chair."
"Hoffman?"
"Hoffman? Representative Hoffman? Is the Gentleman in the chambers? How is the Gentleman recorded?"
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'aye'."
"Remove Representative Hoffman."
"Okay. Karpiel?"
"Excuse me. I'm sorry. Record Representative Jesse White as 'no' and return Representative Van Duyne to the Negative Roll. Okay. Further...Excuse me."
"Martire?"
"Now, just a second, Sir."
"All right."
"Return Representative Collins to the Affirmative Roll. Further questions, Sir?"
"Martire?"
"Representative Martire is in the back."
"R.J. Meyer?"
"Roland Meyer is in his seat."
"Ted Meyer?"
"Ted Meyer is in his seat."
"How is he recorded? I thought he was...I'm not 139 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 sure."
"How is the Gentleman recorded?"
"The Gentleman has been removed from the Roll Call."
"Representative Meyer, how do you wish to be voted if you want to be, Sir? Record Representative Meyer..er..return Representative Meyer to the Negative Roll."
"Peters?"
"Representative Peters? Representative Peters? Is the Gentleman in the chamber? How is he recorded?"
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'aye'."
"Remove him. Representative Hoxsey, for what reason do you arise, Ma'am?"
"Could I be verified, Mr. Speaker? Thank you."
"Leave for Representative Hoxsey to be verified. All right."
"Objection to Clyde, though."
"And Representative Robbins of Robbins' Delicatessen. All right. Hoxsey and Robbins are verified."
"Ms. Pullen?"
"Penny Pullen?"
"Yes."
"Is standing by Chairman Barr."
"Jim Reilly. He's back. Irv Smith?"
"He's in his chair, Sir."
"Representative Tate?"
"Representative Tate, is the Gentleman in the chambers? He's in the rear."
"He's in the back. And did Sam Vinson get back? Vinson? Vinson."
"Representative Vinson? Is the Gentleman in the 140 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 chambers? Representative Vinson, how is he recorded?"
"The Gentleman is recorded as voting 'aye'."
"Remove him."
"Representative Conti."
"Representative Lechowicz, Representative Conti is in his office, Sir."
"Okay."
"Would you like us to bring him out?"
"No."
"Okay. All right. Representative Vinson has returned. Return him to the Affirmative Roll. All right. Further questions, Sir?"
"What's the count?"
"Return Representative Hoffman to the Affirmative Roll. Do you have further questions, Sir?"
"What's the count?"
"Count is 82 'aye', 83 'no'. Do you have any further questions?"
"No, Sir."
"All right."
"And the Amendment is lost, right? Mr. Speaker, what's holding up the count? You gave me the count. Would you please declare it lost?"
"Representative Huskey?"
"Just got back, Mr. Speaker. Was I removed from the Roll Call?"
"Representative Huskey, you're recorded as 'aye'. On this issue there are 82 'aye'...Representative Barr. Eighty-two 'aye', 83 'no'. The Amendment fails. Further Amendments? Representative White."
"No further Amendments."
"Mr. Speaker, in my absence..in my absence there was a question where we got...Could you move it to Third and then 141 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 let me make my statement?"
"On this Bill, Sir?"
"Yes, Sir."
"We'd like to hear your statement. Okay. All right. Senate Bill 892, Third Reading."
"Okay, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. When I was off the floor..."
"State your point, Sir."
"When I was off the floor Barbara Currie read a statement to this Body. And in the statement I think she said that General 'Phipps' was unaware of the fact that the armory was being moved. He was aware of the fact that the armory, the Naval Armory, was in the process of being purchased by the city of Chicago. I stand on that. I had a conversation this morning with General 'Phipps' and he, again as I said earlier, was shocked to know that the Chicago Avenue Armory was up for sale and he was surprised that this Body was unaware of the fact that the Naval Armory was being purchased by the city of Chicago, which would have left that area without an armory. Thank you."
"Representative White, we have resolved that matter by giving the following numbers: 785-3569. All those that have questions regarding this matter can call General 'Phipps' at that number. Senate Bill 1107. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 1107, a Bill for an Act to amend the Revenue Act. Second Reading of the Bill. No Committee Amendments."
"Any Amendments from the floor?"
"Floor Amendment #1, Ewing, amends..."
"Representative Ewing, Amendment #1."
"I'd like to withdraw Amendment #1."
"Withdrawn. Further Amendments?" 142 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Floor Amendment #2, Bowman..."
"Representative Bowman, Amendment #2."
"Is the Gentleman on the floor? Representative Ewing, your pleasure, Sir?"
"It's Representative Tim Bell's Bill."
"Representative Bell? Your pleasure, Sir?"
"I move to table Amendment #2."
"The Gentleman moves to table Amendment #2. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. Amendment #2 is tabled. Further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #3, Ewing..."
"Representative Ewing, Amendment #3."
"Yes, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, Amendment #3 is a restatement of a Bill which we earlier considered in this House and did overwhelmingly pass out. We would like to see it attached to this legislation just to assure all of our taxpayers at home that we do get a truth in taxation Act and that's exactly what I'm asking to attach to this Bill. It is an Amendment which incorporates the truth in taxation Act, provides for notice by local districts if they are going to increase their tax levies, notice, public hearing to the people who will be paying this tax. And I would ask for your favorable consideration."
"The Gentleman has moved for the adoption of Amendment #3. On that question the Gentleman, Representative McPike."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield?"
"Indicates he will."
"Tom, you said it requires notice and public hearings? Is that correct or did I misunderstand?"
"No, that's correct. If the body, the taxing body, intends to increase their extensions, the taxes extended 143 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 over the previous year, then they must give notice at least seven days and hold a public hearing for the purpose of explaining why they're increasing the taxes."
"This would apply to every taxing district in the state?"
"It would attend...Yes, it would apply to all the taxing districts in the state."
"So that, you know, in a given area you could have a public hearing by the township, by the Park District, by the School District, by fifteen...by the Community College District and the Library Board? Anyone that increases taxes by a half percent or one percent from the year before has to hold a public hearing to do so?"
"Only those...all of those bodies, the ones that make up the bases for our property real estate taxes, which we all know are sky-rocketing, and I think that the one sure way to be sure that we're going to have some tax limitation is to allow the local taxpayer to know who's raising his taxes. The answer is yes."
"Okay. I just want to make sure that is your intent, to require every single taxing district to hold a public hearing every year if they intend to increase their extensions by any amount on a yearly basis..."
"This would.."
"..That means that."
"This would require those taxing districts who increase their extensions over the previous year to publish that, publish the amount, the rate of increase and the last year's taxes and to hold a public hearing. This isn't going to cause a lot of difference. They have requirements now to hold hearings on their budgets. This could all be worked right in with their regular procedure. It's just going to allow people, all taxpayers, the right to come to that hearing and to express themselves." 144 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"So it's not an additional hearing? It's simply their annual...their normal budget meeting?"
"They have to publish it. It can be at the normal budget meeting. They don't have to hold a separate hearing, but they do have to hold a public hearing and announce when it is."
"Do you have any idea what cost you are mandating on all these local units by the cost of publishing this?"
"That's the only estimated cost, would be for a small publication."
"You have no estimation of the cost?"
"It's no...No, I don't. And it's not like you're publishing the budget, Representative. It's only about three different figures you've got to publish. It can be just a small ad, which I'm sure would be quite reasonable."
"A real small ad or is there no requirement in size?"
"I imagine thumb-taxing districts will try and do it in a very small ad, yes."
"Thank you very much."
"Representative Keane."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Sponsor."
"Indicates he'll yield."
"What is you publish, hold your hearing and the hearing results in a higher or the local taxing body later decides it needs a higher rate? Would there have to be another hearing?"
"If they...It says here in the Bill, '...The taxing district after the public hearing has been held in accordance with the above procedure may adopt a Resolution or ordinance levying an amount in excess of the tax extended for the proceeding year, but not to exceed the amount stated in the notice'."
"So what you're saying is that once a taxing body 145 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 publishes before they actually get into their budget, past their budget, once they..once they publish for this hearing an increase, that they are locked into that increase and cannot increase their levy after that."
"That's correct, Representative. You know, it would be very easy for a taxing district, if they wanted to play games, to say they were raising it by half a percent, have the public hearing, determine they need a 25% raise and then go ahead and do it. Nobody would show up for the small raise. This is, you know..It's just like the name says, truth in taxation. We shouldn't be afraid of it."
"Okay. Can I speak to the Bill, Mr. Speaker? To the Bill."
"Proceed, Sir."
"I agree that we do need a truth in taxation..we do need truth in taxation legislation. However, I disagree with this approach. If you want to really bind the hands of local government there's no better way to bind them than to have those local governments give a 'guess-estimate', which is really what you're asking for here. Prior to their actual budget hearing, prior to, in some cases the way the process works, the taxing bodies would not have their levies in. It would have to be a 'guess-estimate' as to how much they would raise their levy. In doing that, they lock themselves into it. If, if there's a major crisis, if in that interim, that 30 day period, some new cost comes up, if there is new spending that has to be incurred, they can't do it because they have locked themselves in by this law to that as a maximum. What I think will happen if this becomes law will be that local governments will see that. if they anticipate that they're going to need a 10% raise, they will ask for a 15%. They will ask for a cushion because if they don't 'guess-estimate' right the first time 146 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 and new..some new expenses come up in the 30 day period between the announcement of their increase and the hearings, they're out of luck. What I would prefer and there has been another truth in taxation Amendment around here, is that you not lock them in. The concept of truth in taxation is that...is to publish and bring light upon the actions of public officials. I don't think we want to bind their hands. I think that the newspapers, the media and adequate publications is all we are looking for in truth in taxation. And for that reason, I would oppose the Amendment. Thank you."
"Representative Cullerton."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Speaker, the Bill, Senate Bill 1107, amends the Revenue Act. Now the Amendment adds ..purports to add an entire new Article called the 'Truth in Taxation Act' and I would question whether or not this Amendment is germane, Sir."
"We will look at the Amendment and the Bill, Sir. It's the opinion of the Parliamentarian that the Amendment is germane. Representative Cullerton."
"Mr. Speaker, am I correct that the Amendment does amend the title of the Bill?"
"Yes it does."
"Therefore it should go back to First Legislative Day, Second Reading if it's adopted."
"We'll deal with that..If you'll raise that question at the time that the Amendment is adopted, Representative Cullerton, we'll answer it at that time. Okay?"
"Thank you."
"Okay, Sir. It's fun up here. Further discussion? Representative Brummer." 147 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Yes. Will the Sponsor yield?"
"Indicates he will."
"Yes. I certainly support truth in taxation as I support political honesty. I wonder if that great group, the Coalition for Political Honesty, supports this truth in taxation Bill?"
"Would the questioner please repeat that?"
"Could you repeat the question please?"
"I was wondering if the Coalition for Political Honesty supported the truth in taxation proposal here?"
"I really don't know. I'm not a member of that organization, nor have I spoken to its Executive recently. I think maybe he's pushing for something like legislation by popular mandate. So, I wouldn't know what his feelings on this are."
"Well, since this Bill and that organization both deal with truth and honesty, I thought they had something in common and would have a position with regard to this."
"Well, most of my legislation has something to do with truth and honesty."
"Representative Ewing to close."
"Ladies and Gentlemen of the House...I'm.."
"I'm sorry, Representative Bluthardt. Representative Ewing, can you hold that? Representative Bluthardt? Excuse me, Sir."
"Yes, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, this Bill would purport to require a second public hearing before a tax levy ordinance could be adopted that would involve or entail a tax increase. About five or six years ago the General Assembly passed a Bill that is now law that requires public hearings for all budget and appropriations ordinances before the ordinance can be adopted. And so we are holding those public hearings in the first quarter of 148 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 the fiscal year. It's been my experience in my little town that in those five years or thereabouts, not one soul has appeared in response to the notice at those appropriation hearings. The tax levy ordinance is adopted in the second quarter of the fiscal year so that if we...and we don't know at the time we adopt an appropriation ordinance what extent, if any, it will have on tax increases, whether there will be a tax increase or not. We don't know that until we adopt a tax levy ordinance a month and a half or two months later. So in that event, we would have to have a second hearing if we anticipate that there would be a tax increase. You know, I think that's being a little unreasonable. You talk about truth in taxation, you ought to start thinking about letting local government govern. You ought to get off their backs and let them govern and let them answer to the electorate. I think that's the way government works. That's how it ought to work and I think we ought to quit harassing local government with this type of Bill. I urge you to vote against it."
"Representative Ewing to close."
"Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, we overwhelmingly supported truth in taxation before. I think everyone of us should be on this Roll Call as supporting our taxpayers, as being willing to put up front those things which we expect them to pay for. We have nothing to fear here. Those who have questioned this you would think that the taxpayers haven't the right to know why their taxes, why their local real estate taxes are going up. Everyone of the objections to this Bill are based on the fact that local governments would never do anything wrong. But we know that local governments didn't rebate most of the tax money on the personal property replacement tax. We know that if you don't make them come to the people with the increases that 149 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 they're trying to put across, that they won't do so. I think this is good legislation. I think we ought to be for it. And I would ask for a favorable Roll Call."
"The Gentleman has moved for the adoption of Amendment #3. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. All right. Roll Call requested. All those in favor will signify by voting 'aye', opposed by voting 'no'. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Representative Conti to explain his vote, Sir."
"Well, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, for the sake of not being repetitious again, as I said, this is the worst Session that I've ever witnessed against local government. And this is just a complete harassment, another Bill harassing all governmental agencies whether it's School Districts or Park Districts or whatever it may be."
"Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Representative Ewing to explain his vote. Timer's on, Sir."
"Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, maybe I haven't explained this Bill very well, but I wouldn't think that you would want to go home and not be in favor of truth in taxation. We passed this out of here with over 100 votes before the Senate got to messing with the Bill. If you don't pass this out you may have nothing in the truth in taxation area. We know what the people said when they talked...when they responded to the Governor's tax limitation thing. They said they wanted tax limitation. This might be the most reasonable, the most workable type of tax limitation because when the taxpayers know where their money is being spent, I think they can put the influence where it should be, on the local elected official who's been raising the property taxes. And I think we 150 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 ought to have a lot more 'aye' votes up there and not be hoodwinked into being..."
"Have all voted who wish? Representative Miller to explain his vote. Timer's on, Sir."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I've served in local government as I know many of you have. And I don't think any of us would want to unduly restrict the authority or the discretion of local government. We're not saying here that they can't raise their taxes. We're simply saying that the public ought to have a right to participate in that process and that they should hear from the taxpayers before they unilaterally take their action that they feel is necessary. A lot of hard feelings and I'm sure it could be avoided by the public's prior knowledge of the tax increases. And I don't see it as being that controversial. I think that we should support this and that the public expects to have the information and if we're straightforward with the public and go to them with it ahead of time, they're much more apt to receive with the right attitude the necessary increases that many times are necessary. I would urge an 'aye' vote."
"Representative Karpiel. Timer's on."
"Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I just looked at the vote. I just wanted to say substantially what Representative Miller just said. I come from local government and as a township supervisor, ex-township supervisor, I don't really see that there's any problem with this Bill. When you're working out your levies for the following year you always estimate the amount of money that you're going to be needing for the following year's budget. You always estimate or get an estimate from your township assessor of what the assessed 151 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 valuation for the next year is going to be. And, you work out your levies and what your extension is going to be you always try to work that out, too. I don't see that there's any problem that if you're going to be going over last year's extension that you have a public hearing. And just go over that with the people there and publish a notice. I just don't see that there's any problem with this. It is not hamstringing local government. And I think it's certainly one of the most moderate..."
"All voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record. There are 92 'ayes', 70 'no'. Amendment #3 is adopted. Further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #4, Ewing, amends Senate Bill 1107 on page one and line one and so forth."
"Representative Ewing."
"I would move to withdraw Amendment #4."
"Withdrawn."
"Floor Amendment #5, Bowman..."
"Representative Bowman, Amendment #5. Bowman."
"Leave to withdraw Amendment #5."
"Withdrawn. Further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #6, McPike.."
"Representative McPike? Withdraw. Further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #7, Keane.."
"Representative Keane? Withdrawn."
"Floor Amendment #8, Currie..."
"Representative Currie, Amendment #8? Withdrawn."
"Floor Amendment #9, Currie..."
"Representative Currie? Withdrawn."
"Floor Amendment #10, Bowman.."
"Representative Bowman, Amendment #10?" 152 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think I will like to go with this one. Basically those of you who have fond memories of Cal Skinner will love this particular Amendment. What it does is simply require that the Department of Revenue publish annually in local newspapers the assessment error and the assessment error is defined to be the ratio of actual sales to assessed valuation to show, you know, what the range of discrepancy is between sales and assessments. It is the ratio which is used to calculate the multiplier and I think there's a lot of misunderstanding around the state about the multiplier, what it is, what it means and this kind of information, I think, would be very useful to the citizens in understanding precisely why their multipliers are the way they are. And so I would move adoption of Amendment #10."
"Representative Bowman has offered Amendment #10. Any discussion? Representative McMaster."
"Yes. Will the Sponsor yield to a question?"
"Indicates he will."
"Representative Bowman, who asked for this Amendment to be put in? Was this a newspaper Amendment? Were they the ones that wanted it?"
"Oh, absolutely not. No. I was inspired by the former Representative, Cal Skinner. He didn't ask me. But I've been a great admirer of his work for many years."
"This would require the publishing in the newspaper of various lists as far as the amount of error of taxing ...tax assessor?"
"Yes, that's correct."
"You having trouble with your tax assessor up there in Cook County?"
"No. He does a fine job. But the problem is that the state issues these multipliers, you know, every year and 153 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 people whenever, you know, they see the multipliers raise..you know, go nuts about them and I think people ought to understand you know what really the source of the problem is and why multipliers are necessary. And I think this would be helpful."
"What would be your estimate of the cost of all of this publishing? You know there's a lot of errors I would imagine and Cook County are going to do it by individual pieces of property or by class, I guess you say in Cook County, don't you, class of property?"
"Oh, definitely by class. By the way, at the present time, you know, the assessments of each individual parcel of property have to be published. Now that's a lot of publishing. All I'm recommending here is publishing just maybe half a dozen numbers. I carefully did not specify in the Bill exactly what this held...elaborate disfrequency distribution could be..would be rather. It could be as small as three numbers. So if the Department wanted it could put it in the personals column of the newspaper and save a lot of dough. There...it only requires publishing in each of the counties. That's 102 items in the personals column maybe."
"Do you think that people are going to find it in the personal column or just...you're doing this as a nit-picking thing, Woody? It's not that somebody is going to read it, but you just want to have it done. Is that it?"
"No. Representative McMaster, from the distance across the room you probably can't see my tongue in my cheek. But the point of this is that..."
"I think I can, Woody."
"The point is that it is not an overwhelming publishing requirement in terms of the amount of cost. And yet I 154 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 think that it's the kind of information that the average citizen would be interested in knowing. Wouldn't you be interested in knowing how accurately your property is assessed? Or at least, you know, on the average, how accurately property is assessed in your area?"
"That looks like a good idea, Woody.."
"...I would hope so."
"..But I hesitate to think that anyone is going to even find these notices in the newspapers, much less read them. And if they do read them, I doubt very much they're even going to understand them. I think, as you said, you have your tongue in your cheek and if you aren't careful why the Cook County Assessor might make you bite it off."
"Well, I have nothing but the greatest respect for the Cook County Assessor, but you know, the problem we have in Cook County..."
"......."
"..Has nothing to do with the assessor. It's the fact that we have 'quadrain' assessments and that's not his problem..er..."
"What if they don't comply with this publishing notice? What kind of a penalty do you have? What class of misdemeanor is it?"
"Representative McMaster, check the Amendment. It requires the Department of Revenue to do it, not the local assessors and the burden is on the state to do it. You know, if a department of State Government doesn't do what the Legislature asks it to do, then we give a little trouble when appropriation time rolls around."
"Who decides what paper it's going to be published in? You know, there's some of our counties that have maybe half a dozen little newspapers in them."
"Well now, Representative McMaster, you wouldn't be 155 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 nit-picking would you?"
"I'm trying to nit-pick your nit-picking."
"Well, I'm perfectly happy to leave that to the judgment of the Department of Revenue. I mean, they make some good decisions. In fact, it's a pretty good department so I have no problem leaving that to their judgment."
"Well, I think this is probably an Amendment that is merely.. one of those merely nit-picking Amendments and I would recommend a 'no' vote on it."
"Representative Friedrich."
"Mr. Speaker, I've read this Amendment and I think this is a bad solution to a problem that doesn't even exist. Why we're spending our time on Thursday afternoon, the day before we adjourn, on a nit-picking thing like this when all the big problems we have to solve, I don't understand. I don't know what good this would do if we passed it and I know it would cost the state some money and probably require half a dozen more employees. If there's anything we can get along without, it's this Amendment."
"Representative McGrew."
"In behalf of Representative Friedrich, who never speaks on the floor, I move the previous question."
"The Gentleman has moved the previous question. The question is, 'Shall the main question be put?'. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. The main question is put. Representative Bowman to close."
"Well I would just point out that I didn't ask the Gentleman from Centralia to take our time with further debate. I simply urge an affirmative vote."
"The Gentleman's moved for the adoption of Amendment #10. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The 'nos' have it. Amendment's lost. 156 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Representative Bowman?"
"Yes. I think that I should at least have as ignominious a defeat as Representative Skinner used to have. Could I have a Roll Call on it?"
"No. Okay. Further Amendments?"
"No further Amendments."
"All right. Now, Representative Cullerton has inquired whether or not the Bill amended the title, which it does. He's requested this be placed back on Second Reading, First Legislative Day and on that, Representative Ewing."
"Mr. Speaker, I would like to move that we suspend Rule 34-D and advance this to Third Reading to alleviate the problem which Representative Cullerton has pointed out to us."
"On that Motion, Representative McPike."
"Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is that Motion in writing?"
"Yes, it is, Sir."
"Thank you."
"Representative Ewing has moved to suspend Rule 34-D and to advance Senate Bill 1107 to the Order of Third Reading . It takes 89 votes. All those in favor will signify by voting 'aye', opposed voting 'no'. The voting is open. Representative Kane on the question."
"Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, this is the second time in two days that this Motion has been made to suspend this particular Rule. And I voted 'no' on both occasions. I think that we have rules here to be followed and it seems to be our practice that when things get to be...when a rule is timely, that we always seem to suspend it. And I think that if we're going to have rules, we ought to routinely abide by them and only an emergency 157 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 situation should we even consider suspending the rules. And I think that this is a good rule. It does protect the Membership and I think that we ought to vote 'no' and vote 'no' consistently."
"Representative McPike."
"Mr. Speaker, has a Fiscal Note been filed on this?"
"Yes."
"As amended?"
"Yes. Further questions? All right. Representative Ewing?"
"Yes, in answer to the query about whether we should follow the rules, there are times and places for the rules. We all know that if you want truth in taxation to die, we don't advance it to Third. Normally this Bill, after all the Amendment were heard would be moved to Third. There is no legitimate reason for keeping it on Second Reading. Everybody in this House knows that if you don't move it to Third today, you won't get back to Second Readings and the Bill will die. So if you want the Bill to die, you're not for truth in taxation, then vote red and that's..you'll get your wish. I would encourage some more green votes. Mr. Speaker, 90 people voted for the Amendment. I would think there would be 89 votes to put it on to Third Reading so it can be voted up or down."
"Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Representative...Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record. Representative Ewing requests a poll of the absentees. Representative McPike, if your question is on the Fiscal Note, after we conclude this then you may ask your question. Poll the absentees."
"Bradley. Breslin. Brummer. Conti. Donovan. John Dunn. Flinn. Garmisa. Giorgi...."
"Record Giorgi as 'no'." 158 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Hanahan. Huff. Jackson. Leverenz. Margalus. Martire. Matijevich. McGrew. O'Brien. Rea. Redmond. Reed. Richmond. Stearney. Steczo. And, Sam Wolf."
"Representative Matijevich, 'no'. Representative Bower? Any further additions or changes? On the Gentleman's Motion there are 85 'aye', 67 'nay' and the Gentleman's Motion is lost. This matter will be placed on Second Reading, First Legislative Day. Representative McPike? Okay. Fiscal Note has been filed. Senate Bill 1016. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 1016, a Bill for an Act to amend an Act to authorize counties to issue bonds for the construction, reconstruction and remodeling of court houses. Second Reading of the Bill. No Committee Amendments."
"Any Amendments from the floor?"
"Floor Amendment #1, Daniels..."
"Representative Hudson, Amendment #1? Representative Hudson, Amendment #1."
"Yes, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Yes, I do offer Amendment #1 to Senate Bill 1016. And what this Amendment does is simply to provide a front door rather than a back door referendum for bond levies in principally I guess DuPage and Will County. And it also corrects a few punctuation and grammatical errors. That's all it does. And I would request a favorable vote."
"The Gentleman moves the adoption of Amendment #1. On that question, Representative Currie."
"Mine is a point of parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Exactly how do we find ourselves on Senate Bill 1016?"
"There's an agreement to go back with part of your Leadership." 159 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"There are other Bills that were pulled from the record yesterday..."
"That's correct. But the Speaker has been in the Chair and we're doing this to put one Amendment on the Bill and we're going to move the Bill. All right. Now, on that question, if all those in favor will signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. Amendment #1 is adopted. Further Amendments?"
"No further Amendments."
"Third Reading. Senate Bill 376. A Fiscal Note was requested. And the Fiscal Note has been filed. Is that correct, Mr. Clerk?"
"A Fiscal Note is filed."
"Third Reading. Senate Bill 376. To inform the Membership the plans this evening are work late until sometime around eleven or twelve. So, you may adjust your schedule accordingly. Tomorrow night is Friday night midnight deadline night. The Speaker has announced that he will serve chicken dinner in his office at approximately 7:30. Mr. Minority Leader, Representative Madigan, are you going to have steak? Representative Madigan is going to have steak in his office. Mushrooms at 7:30, all right. All right. We thank the Membership for your continued indulgence. Representative Vitek."
"Mr. Speaker, in the interest of clearing up our Calendar, I would hope you would use the timer on...where ever is necessary so we can cut down the explanation of all these votes."
"Thank you, Sir. And, we'll do our best to do that. Thank you very much. Representative Terzich?"
"I'm in a holding pattern now. Are we still going on? You know, the next order of business, I think, was my Bill." 160 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"In a moment, Sir. We'll let you know. Senate Bill 1127. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 1127, a Bill for an Act to amend the Illinois Pension Code. Second Reading of the Bill. Amendment #1 was adopted in Committee."
"Any Amendments...Any Motions filed?"
"Motion to table Amendment #1 by Representative Terzich."
"Representative Terzich, Motion to table."
"Yes, Mr. Speaker. I make a Motion to table Amendment #1 so that we may adopt Amendment #2. When the Amendment was adopted there was a provision that the 30% maximum based upon one and a half percent increase would be over a period of 20 years and no Amendment simply takes out the 20 years because it would only be 15 rather than 20.."
"The Gentleman moves to table Amendment #1. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. Amendment #1 is tabled. Further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #2, Terzich..."
"Representative Terzich, Amendment #2."
"Yes, Mr. Speaker. Well Amendment #2 is the same as Amendment #1. However is does exclude the...just the statement, 'over a period of 30 years', but still leaves the maximum of 30%..."
"The Gentleman moves for the adoption of Amendment #2. Is there any discussion? Being none, the question is, 'Shall Amendment #2 be adopted?'. All those in favor will signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The 'ayes' have it and Amendment #2 is adopted. Further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #3, Terzich, amends Senate Bill 1127..." 161 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Amendment #3, Representative Terzich."
"Amendment #3 is the hold harmless clause on the state mandate program. And I would move for its adoption."
"The Gentleman moves the adoption of Amendment #3. On that question, the Gentleman from Winnebago, Representative Hallock."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wondered if the Sponsor would let us know what these Amendments might cost?"
"Representative Terzich."
"Sure. Nothing."
"Representative Hallock."
"Amendment #2 would have no cost to the state?"
"That's correct. All Amendment #2 (does) is simply change the word, 'over a period of 30 years'. That's all it eliminated."
"Thank you."
"Further discussion? Being none, the Gentleman, Representative Terzich, moves the adoption of Amendment #3. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. Amendment #3 is adopted. Further Amendments?"
"No further Amendment."
"Third Reading. Senate Bill 1157. Representative Matijevich. Out of the record. That's an appropriations Bill. Senate Bill 1160. Representative McClain? Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 1160, a Bill for an Act to amend Sections of the School Code. Second Reading of the Bill. No Committee Amendments."
"Any Amendments from the floor?"
"Floor Amendment #1, Hallstrom...."
"Representative Hallstrom, Amendment #1."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of 162 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 the House. Amendment #1 says that the state shall reimburse 100% of the additional cost to local School District resulting from this amendatory Act of 1981. I would appreciate your 'yes' vote."
"Representative Schneider."
"Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, this is an unnecessary Amendment to begin with because the mandates law which we passed and adopted now some time which is undergoing the experience of that language in all levels has a requirement that state expenses be dealt with in the fashion under the mandates law. Now, a second characteristic of my concern is that the appropriation for this Bill is contained in the appropriation in the Senate or the State Board of Education so that we are meeting the mandate requirement and we are appropriating the money for that mandate ..makes this Amendment superfluous. So, the Mandate Act, in order for it to function, has got to be not reinforced by duplicative language but rather just to allow us to fund it for purposes of that particular issue and that fund..that funding is available and is in the line items, I believe, in the State Board of Education's budget, as it came out of Committee and as it now, I believe, sits on the floor of the Senate. So the Amendment is unnecessary. It adds language that, again, as we say here in the parlance, clutters up the Statutes and I would ask that you oppose the adoption of Amendment #1 to 1160."
"Representative Hallstrom?"
"Yes. May I respond, please?"
"Proceed."
"I respectfully disagree with my esteemed colleague from the other side of the aisle. First of all, there are escalating costs in this Bill. Secondly, there has been so much confusion in regard...excuse me..in regard to the 163 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 State's Mandate Act. There are so many different opinions that the Illinois Association of School Boards has requested that this Amendment be put on this Bill. If there is not any problem, as the Representative suggests, this does not hurt. It only ensures that local School Districts are not going to pay for the escalating costs that have been put on them by House Bill 1160, Senate Bill, excuse me."
"Representative Hoffman, the Gentleman from DuPage."
"Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I rise in support of this Amendment. The Mandates Act that was passed by this Legislature was intended to address this very kind of an issue and that was, if we passed additional cost on to local units of government then we also accepted the responsibility to pay for it. Representative Hallstrom's Amendment says exactly that. No more, no less. Whatever this legislation cost the local School District then we have agreed to pay the cost. To the best of my knowledge, this is not incorporated in a line item specifically in any budget. I may be wrong, but even if it is, even if it is, to put the language that is suggested into this legislation makes absolute good sense. If we meant what we said when we passed the Mandates Act, then we support this Amendment. If we don't support what we passed in the Mandates Act, then we'd better get rid of it. But every attempt to do that has failed. So we have a very simple responsibility and an obvious obligation and that is to put this Amendment in this particular piece of legislation. And I would encourage you to do so."
"Further discussion? The Gentleman from Peoria, Representative Schraeder."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House. I 164 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 think it's rather essential that we do put this Amendment on because the Digest clearly states that the reference to the Mandates (Act) may require reimbursement to local governments and I think we ought to spell it out to make sure that that is a school requirement, not may or may not be. And I think it's very obvious that this Amendment is needed and I would echo the sentiments of the Sponsor and the previous speaker with a 'do pass' Amendment."
"Representative Hallstrom to close."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Just to remind everyone that the appropriation that the Representative is speaking about is only the appropriation for this year. And as I mentioned there are escalating costs in this legislation. And I would urge you please to vote 'yes'. We owe this to our School Districts; We owe it to ourselves for having said that we believe when we mandate something to local governments or School Districts, that we should pay the costs. Thank you."
"The Lady has moved for the adoption of Amendment #1. All those in favor will signify by voting 'aye', opposed by voting 'no'. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record. On Amendment #1 there are 114 'aye', 12 'nay'. Amendment #1 is adopted. Further Amendments?"
"No further Amendments."
"Third Reading. Senate Bill 1168, Representative Terzich. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 1168, a Bill for an Act to amend Sections of an Act relating to the State Fire Marshall. Second Reading of the Bill. Amendment #1 was adopted in Committee."
"Any Motions filed?"
"No Motions filed." 165 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Any Amendments from the floor?"
"Floor Amendment #2, O'Brien.."
"Representative O'Brien, Amendment #2....Representative O'Brien. Representative Terzich?"
"I will only adopt this Amendment if Representative O'Brien can pronounce Terzich."
"Representative O'Brien?"
"Thank you, Representative 'Terjitz'. Mr. Speaker and Members, Amendment #2 to House Bill 1168 is a Bill that recreates a Bill that we earlier passed by a rather handsome majority out of the House. It was House Bill 765 and through a lack of communication House Bill 765 was not passed out of the Senate Committee and since that time we have cleared it with some of those Senate Members. What the Amendment does is recreates House Bill 765, which was the High-Rise Fire Commission Bill that Representative Barr and Representative Preston and Representative...and myself have worked on. It is a rather short Commission. The appropriation is already passed and is over there in the Senate awaiting this Bill to be adopted..er..this Amendment to be adopted on this Bill so that we can put them together."
"The Gentleman has moved for the adoption of Amendment #2. Is there any discussion? Representative Leinenweber?"
"I tried to hear the Gentleman, but the din prevented it. Could he repeat what this Amendment does?"
"Yes, Representative Leinenweber, once again. This Bill (sic, Amendment) is a copy of House Bill 765 which we voted on earlier and passed out of the House and sent over to the Senate. It got killed in the confusing Committee process. We straightened that out in the Senate. This Bill (sic, Amendment) creates the High-Rise Fire Commission that we 166 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 voted on and passed out of here earlier."
"Well, if you straightened it out in the Senate, then we don't need this Amendment..."
"Well, I think we do need this Amendment. The appropriation is presently in the Senate awaiting this Bill to come...er..this Amendment to be adopted to this Bill so that it can go back there."
"In other words, this does create the high-rise..."
"That's correct. You voted on it and all the Members of the House have voted on it. I don't know how you specifically voted, but it just creates the High-Rise Fire Commission.."
"I don't think it was favorable and Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, if we made a mistake once there's no reason to repeat it. There is a Bill in the Senate, if they can resurrect it which they probably can, if there is support for it in the Senate. I would urge that this Bill probably ..I don't know if it's necessary or not without this Amendment. But it certainly won't be necessary if you put the Amendment on so I would not support the Gentleman's Motion."
"Representative Preston."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and Gentlemen, I rise in support of this Amendment. The High-Rise Fire Commission is needed badly. What ...It would be a shame if we had to wait for the kind of tragedies that they experienced in Las Vegas to take place in areas of this state before we realize that it's necessary to study safety procedures and problems that occur in high-rise buildings concerning fire safety. This Commission is timely. We, in Illinois, and in the urban areas of Illinois, have been indeed fortunate in that we have not experienced the tragedies that other areas in the country have experienced. 167 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 And we don't want to experience those tragedies. This Bill (sic, Amendment) does nothing more than create...than to create a Commission that will study the safety procedures to avoid a tragic end, should fire break out in high-rises in urban areas. And I think it's needed. Its time is now and I think not to adopt this Amendment is craziness. The problems in the Senate have been worked out. If we adopt this Amendment it will go through the Senate and the time is now. So please vote 'yes' on this Amendment."
"Chairman Barr."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I would just like to add my comments in urging a favorable vote on this Amendment. This Bill was adopted earlier by the House by an overwhelming margin. The House also adopted an appropriation Bill appropriating $10,000.00 for the operation of this Commission. It's a short-term Commission which will expire by the terms of the Statute itself within the year. It will finish its work by January 1 of 1982, some six months from now. We have supported this overwhelmingly before when it's come before us. And I would urge a favorable vote."
"The Gentleman has moved for the adoption of Amendment #2. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The 'ayes' have it and Amendment #2 is adopted. Further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #3, Deuchler, amends Senate Bill 1168..."
"Representative Deuchler, Amendment #3."
"Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, Amendment #3 is essentially my House Bill 659 which passed the House on...providing egress from high-rise buildings, in effect, unlocking stairwell doors. This Bill was sent to the Senate and was on a tie vote left in Committee. So 168 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 I urge an affirmative vote on Amendment #3."
"The Lady moves for the adoption of Amendment #3. Any discussion? Being none, all those in favor signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. Amendment #3 is adopted. Further Amendments?"
"No further Amendments."
"Third Reading. Senate Bills, Third Reading. Appropriations Bills. Page three, Senate Bill 230. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 230, a Bill for an Act making appropriations to the Board of Higher Education. Third Reading of the Bill."
"Senate Bill 230, Representative Peters? Out of the record. Senate Bill 231. Representative Wikoff? Out of the record. Senate Bill 235, Representative Woodyard? Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 235, a Bill for an Act making appropriations to the Illinois Community College Board and the Board of Trustees of the State Community College of East St. Louis for the Fiscal year 1982. Third Reading of the Bill."
"Representative Woodyard.
"Yes, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Assembly. This is the annual appropriation for the community colleges in the State of Illinois. It had 163 million 200 thousand and was reduced by a total of six hundred and eighty thousand....eight hundred and sixty dollars by the Amendment. This represents about a 7% increase. I would solicit an 'aye' vote."
"Any discussion? Being none, the Gentleman moves for the passage of Senate Bill 235. All those in favor will signify by voting 'aye', opposed by voting 'no'. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all 169 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record. There are 161 'aye', two 'nay', none 'present'. Senate Bill 235 having received a Constitutional Majority is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 236, Representative Woodyard. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 236..."
"That is a companion Bill...a companion Bill to 235. Read the Bill."
"Senate Bill 236, a Bill for an Act to amend the Public Community College Act, Third Reading of the Bill."
"Representative Woodyard."
"Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House. This is the annual rate setting Bill, the formula Bill for the appropriation for all the community college districts in the state."
"The Gentleman moves for the passage of Senate Bill 236. Representative McGrew."
"Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I rise to oppose Senate Bill 236. As the Sponsor of the Bill knows, I have attempted to talk with many people involved in the process and have had a great deal of difficulty trying to do anything. I think the Members of the House should realize a few things before they cast affirmative votes on Senate Bill 236. To begin with, the junior college system requested a grand total of $24,000,000 in the catagory credit hour grant. That represented an 80% increase of the new dollars to go to that catagory. The equalization part of the overall formula, they requested $5,000,000 which would have been a 17% of all new dollars to go to that catagory. After consideration going through the Board of Higher Education, through the Bureau of the Budget and others, for the time we washed it out to reduce it to what the Governor's level 170 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 was, we are now raising the percentage of new dollars from the equalization from the original request from 17% of the new dollars to a total of 43.9% of the new dollars. I would like to tell you what that translates to in terms of junior colleges in a moment. Let me also point out that the credit hours distribution percent goes from 80% of the new dollars down to 57%. So in essence, Senate Bill 236 is a great shift from the original request of the junior college system. That puts the money in the equalization grant. Now what happens, there are only a total of 14 junior colleges in the entire State of Illinois that receive the equalization part of the formula. Incidently, that is a reduction from last year when there were 16 that received it. So in essence, we are going to put the vast majority of the new dollars in catagories that will only affect 14 of the 39 community college districts. In case you're interested for the upstate-downstate fight, let me tell you that of all the new dollars going to the entire process of the junior college system of the State of Illinois, that city colleges of Chicago with 30...31% of the students are going to be receiving nearly 54% of the new dollars. That is what the formula change that you're going to be voting for right now. I suggest that you contact the community colleges back home and try to find out what in the world is going on. Why are they allowing this to happen? If you think that that much is ridiculous, let me tell you another part. The Governor in trying to come forth with trying to help people in the State of Illinois and to try to get business on his side again, said, 'Well, I'll tell you what guys, maybe business has been getting a short stick in Illinois. I am going to put $500,000 additional in the business occupations for the junior college appropriation.' You know what that did? 171 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 The increase of the $500,000 that the Governor requested go to the business occupation rate actually ended up in a net reduction. A net reduction of what we will pay community colleges to perform the business occupation courses. Now I think that in itself is absolutely ridiculous. That is what the formula that you're going to be voting for does. It seems to me that if we're going to try to come up be voting for does. It seems to me that if we're going to try to come up with a junior college formula system that will indeed affect the 39 community colleges in the state, then we should go about doing so. The formula rate that you have before you calls for a reduction in five of the seven catagories, five of the seven courses that were offered in the community college system in the State of Illinois will be receiving fewer dollars than they did last year less per quarter. Only two areas are increased. I think that is a ridiculous system. I think that the formula needs a great deal of work, and I'd ask for a 'no' vote."
"Further discussion? Representative Woodyard to close. I'm sorry, Representative Keane."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this Bill. It is always a very nice time for Legislators when those who are involved in the process have what comes close to an agreed Bill. The junior college communities have accepted this formula. They've accepted the funding constraints that the state is under. It is their agreed Bill, and I would urge your support of it. Thank you."
"Representative Wikoff."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would rise in support of the Bill as it is. We worked very closely in all of the units of higher education. While many of them would like to have more money, they are in agreement with that we have provided, and I think that they're all considering that 172 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 under the circumstances, with the amount of monies that are available, that they are satisfied with that they have, and I think it is a good Bill, and I think it should be adopted."
"Representative Woodyard to close."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What the previous two speakers have said is exactly true. After many, many long hours of compromise and discussion, this has been agreed upon by certainly all of the member schools and the Community College Board. It passed out of the Senate 55 to nothing, which I think it is a very good indication that there was agreement, and I solicit an 'aye' vote."
"The Gentleman moves for the passage of Senate Bill 236. All those in favor will signify by voting 'aye', opposed by voting 'no'. The voting is open. Representative Hoxsey. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record. On this Bill there are 154 'aye', six 'no', one 'present'. Senate Bill 236 having received a Constitutional Majority is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 230, Representative Peters. REad the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 230, a Bill for an Act to make an appropriation to the Board of Higher Education, Third Reading of the Bill."
"Representative Peters."
"Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, Senate Bill 230 is the ordinary and contingent expenses of the Board of Higher Education for the coming fiscal year. The appropriation as introduced called for an expenditure in round figures of $35,400,000. That was reduced by the Senate to approximately $31,900,000. The House concurred totally and completely in the action taken by the Senate. There is no change at all in this legislation as introduced 173 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 or as coming out of the Senate. It is for a decrease of $3,500,000 from what was introduced, and a decrease of 2.8% from the appropriation for the previous year. I would request the approval of the assembly for this appropriation."
"Representative McGrew."
"Thank you, Mr...thank you, Mr. Speaker. I though maybe I would do Pete a favor and say that I am against this one too if he can get 154 again."
"Thank you, Sir."
"Further discussion? Representative Peters to close."
"Just to ask the consideration of the Assembly for this appropriation."
"The Gentleman moves the passage of Senate Bill 230. All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', opposed by voting 'no'. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record. 153 'aye', no 'nay', none voting 'present'. Senate Bill 230 having received the Constitutional Majority is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 231, Representative Wikoff. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 231, a Bill for an Act making certain appropriations to the Board of Trustees to the University of Illinois, Third Reading of the Bill."
"Representative Wikoff."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Bill as introduced originally was $403,582,112. It was amended in the Senate which reduced the appropriation by 13.4 million in GRF to reflect the Governor's recommended level, and there were two Floor Amendments which reduced the GRF for utilities and also reduced it by $114,000 revenue appropriation. 174 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 The total appropriation as it came out of the Senate was $389,774,000 was also reduced in the House a total of $1,956,350 which basically represented the IBA lease rental agreements which are not necessary this year. And it is...has...is an agreement with both sides of the aisle as far as Appropriations Committee is concerned, and the Senate, and the University as it now stands."
"The Gentleman has moved for the passage of Senate Bill 231. On that question, the Gentleman from Winnebago, Representative Giorgi."
"Representative Wikoff, is this the Bill that has a special lottery game in it for some facit or needs for the University of Illinois?"
"Well, that is a separate one. I'll let you know when that one come up. That is 1108."
"Alright, thank you."
"Further discussion? Being none, Representative Wikoff moves for the passage of Senate Bill 231. All those in favor will signify by voting 'aye', opposed by voting 'no'. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record. On this Bill there are 146 'aye', three 'nay', none 'present'. Senate Bill 231 having received a Constitutional Majority is hereby declared passed. Virginia Frederick."
"Mr. Speaker, could I please be recorded as an 'aye' vote?"
"Record the Lady as 'aye'. Record the Speaker 'aye'. Senate Bill 310, Representative J.J. Wolf. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 310, a Bill for an Act making appropriations to the ordinary and contingent expense of the Prisoner Review Board, Third Reading of the Bill." 175 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Representative J.J. Wolf."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the Assembly. Senate Bill 310 as introduced in the Senate was $633,700 in general revenue funds. That amount was reduced in the Senate to $612,300. There was a House Amendment which reduced contractual services by $10,000 for legal services and added $13,870 in personal services for a part-time attorney. The total now is $616,200. Their head count has been diminished by one from 26 to 25 employees, and I would ask for the approval of the House and affirmative votes on the passage of Senate Bill 310."
"The Gentleman has moved for the passage of Senate Bill 310. Any discussion? Being none, the question is 'Shall Senate Bill 310 pass?' All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', opposed by voting 'no'. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record. On this Bill there are 154 'aye', four 'nay', none 'present'. Senate Bill 310 having received the Constitutional Majority is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 313, Representative J.J. Wolf. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 313, a Bill for an Act making an appropriation to the ordinary and contingent expense of the Department of Corrections, Third Reading of the Bill."
"Representative J.J. Wolf."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. Senate Bill 313 is the ordinary and contingent expenses for the Department of Corrections. The Bill was introduced at $259,773,700. The Senate...there was no change in that in the Senate. The House changed that figure to $260,670,700, an increase of 3/10ths of one percent. Most of that is in general revenue fund dollars. The increase over the previous year is approximately 5.3%. And I would ask for 176 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 the approval and the Members of the House and their affirmative votes. This Bill passed out of the Appropriations Committee by a vote of 20 to one."
"Representative Matijevich. Representative Peters in the Chair."
"Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I rise so that some here. I have no intentions to hold this budget at all. I am going to oppose it, and I would hope that some also would oppose the Bill so that this Bill passed this House, but with a bare minimum of votes because I think that we, as a House, ought to tell the Department of Corrections that we're not totally satisfied with the Department of Corrections, and it's lack of policy and directions in the whole area of corrections. I alluded to that on Second Reading when I talked about the planning or lack of planning with regards to new facilities in the future and going ahead even though the Legislature has not been a part of that planning process. With regards to corrections now days, we don't even talk about rehabilitation. The fact of the matter is, I think in the Committee and Representative Bowman made mention of the fact that when the Director of Corrections was in the Committee that all he is concerned about is warehousing. And I guess in this law and order type of day, it is easy for someone to say that all we ought to be with regards to corrections is warehousing. But I think as a humane civil society, we ought to stand for more than that. We ought to stand for rehabilitation, because let's face it, when people get out of prison, and nobody...not nobody, but the vast majority of people are not in prison forever. And they are going to be out in society. And we have a job to do, I think, with regard to...to rehabilitation, with regards to the fact that the Director in his comments to 177 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 the Committee really made me believe that he has not looked at alternatives. I asked him with regards to the Minnesota experience where they have passed a Community Corrections Act where it has been...where the state has made it appealing for counties to place certain numbers of persons, not those offenders who are the serious offenders, in community correction facilities. And that has been an alternative that has worked. I think in this day and age that we ought to be...we ought to start looking at alternatives. And I am not satisfied that the Department of Corrections has done that at all. So I think as a House, I think we ought to put the bare minimum of votes on that Board to show our dissatisfaction. You know, I don't think it's right, for example, on the early release program. There is a lot to be desired about that. I don't think it is right that one day, that you wake somebody up and say, 'Here's $50 and a suit of clothes. You're on your own.' That is not good for that person nor is it good for society. That is not a program of rehabilitation at all. All you're telling me is that you're making it worse for society, and we found out that may of those in 'Cabrini' Green not too long ago. And that wasn't good for 'Cabrini' Green nor was it good for that offender, that person that was released. There is no direction at all in the Department of Corrections. And I think as a Legislature we ought to tell the Director, we ought to tell the Department, and in a non-partisan way we ought to tell the Governor, too, that they have failed. And we want action. We want a program. We want a definitive plan. And we can show that by withholding enough votes, pass it out, but we ought to withhold some votes on this issue."
"Let me out."
"Further discussion? Representative Darrow." 178 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield? Would you indicate the changes made by the House Appropriations Committee and by the House in increasing this budget? What were these items that were increased?"
"Amendment #2 adopted was sponsored by Mr. Matijevich. It increased the amount by $897,000 to the Unified Delinquency Intervention Service. Amendment #3 sponsored by Representative Kosinski was withdrawn. Okay, that was the only one. An increase of $897,000 offered by the previous speaker, Mr. Matijevich."
"Was Amendment #5 adopted?"
"Well, that was a Floor Amendment, I think."
"Yes."
"That was sponsored by Mr. Matijevich and myself which appropriated $25,000 for expenses related to the study and review of alternatives to traditional incarceration."
"Now Amendment #2 restored funds deleted by the Senate. Since we're going in the opposite direction of the Senate, could you indicate the reason the Senate removed those funds and the justification we have for increasing them?"
"Sorry, it is a little difficult to hear you."
"Well, on Amendment #2 we re...we put the funds back in for the Unified Delinquency Intervention Service. This was removed by the Senate. What I am wondering is why the Senate removed those funds and what our justification was in restoring them."
"Yeah, well, I would suggest that you might pose that question to Mr. Matijevich since he was the Sponsor of the Amendment that put the money back in. And apparently the Committee concurred, because the Committee, as I recall, by a voice vote did adopt it unanimously. I stand corrected."
"Well, let me point out that we used to have two Appropriations Committees. More Members could be on those 179 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Committees, and we knew what was happening. Now we're more at the mercy of the Appropriations Committee, and I don't think it is unreasonable to ask these questions if we just had some justification. I don't care who answers it on the Committee, but I would like to know why we're putting money back in that the Senate took out."
"I didn't mean to question your integrity, Sir. I just suggested that the question might better be deferred to Mr. Matijevich since he was the Sponsor of the Amendment."
"And you're Chairman of the Committee. I won't pose a question. I'll just vote 'no' against the Bill."
"Representative Stearney."
"Would the Gentleman yield?"
"He indicates he will."
"Is there any provision, any amount in this Bill for the construction of a new medium security prison in the State of Illinois?"
"Would you say that a little louder? I didn't hear you. Not to my knowledge."
"Well, Mr. Matijevich just said on the other side as to the Capital development Board. Is there any provision anywhere in any appropriation for the construction of a new prison in the State of Illinois?"
"There is 6.7 million dollars for planning in CDB, not in this Bill."
"By planning, you mean that is for the actual construction of a prison in the State of Illinois?"
"Yes, planning and first stages, site acquistition, I would assume."
"Okay, thank you, Mr. Wolf."
"Representative Schraeder."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Sponsor would yield?" 180 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"He indicates he will."
"Representative Wolf, can you give me any idea if there is any money for leasing of property belonging to someone other than the state?"
"I understand they will continue their lease. I might defer to Mr. Vinson who has our staff analyst at hand if I am correct at that. I believe they will be continuing their lease."
"On what property or properties?"
"At the site of the former Concordia Seminary."
"Okay, since you specifically direct your answer to that question, I would like to answer a question. What have we paid so far in lease dollars?"
"Let me defer that to Mr. Vinson. Our staff analyst is at his side. I think he might have that information. Mr. Speaker."
"Representative Vinson."
"Yes, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, and in response to the Gentleman's question, the schedule would indicate that as of June 30, 1981, we will have paid 5.6 million dollars. Excuse me, excuse me, I am sorry. That is what the option to purchase is as of June 30, 1981. Rent only is $984,000 which is what we paid."
"I don't believe the Gentleman heard that, Representative."
"I indicated that the option to purchase as of June 30, '81 is 5.6 million. Rent only is $984,000."
"Would that be 9.9...or $990,000 for each of the last two to three years, or what?"
"The rent is $82,000 a month. That calculates to $984,000, I am advised, for the fiscal year. I don't remember when we closed the lease, the precise date, but those are the magnitudes we're dealing with."
"Alright, assuming around roughly a million dollars a 181 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 year. When is the option to purchase going to be picked up? Or what are the plans in the Governor's office to pick up the option to buy?"
"To the best of my knowledge there is no current plan. And I would assume that a final decision to pick up the option will be made at the point it is economically rational to do that and at a point where the state is not in the fiscal crisis that it is in right now."
"What is the lease arrangement as far as the earliest time that the lease can be picked up as far as purchase?"
"We can pick it up at any point. There is a schedule..."
"Okay, well..."
"There is a schedule of prices over a period of time by which the...if we exercise the option to purchase, the prices change."
"Okay, then, let me ask the next question. If we pick up an option next year to purchase, is there a penalty on the state? And if so, what...to what degree?"
"Well, if we were to pick it up in fiscal year 1982, the cost of...the purchase price under the option would be $5.5 million dollars. In the current fiscal year it is $5.6 million dollars, so I would assume the penalty would be a positive penalty. The cost would be lowered next year."
"Well, is there some kind of a violation penalty then spelled out in the terms of the agreement?"
"Not to the best of my knowledge. I do not have a copy of the agreement here, but to the best of my knowledge there is not."
"Well, Mr. Speaker, on the Bill itself. It seems to me, and I brought this out last year, and I am going to keep bringing it up as long as the state has the option to purchase this facility and continues to pay a million dollars, give or take a little bit each year, when the 182 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 purchase price is not at all terribly high. But here was a situation when the state got into this arrangement originally where the state could have purchased it for a reasonable amount of money. Instead, the state directed someone else, or the wisdom was tht somebody ought to purchase it, and then the state lease it from tha individual concerned. It seems to me that we ought to pick up that option immediately rather than wait and pick up an additional cost of five, six, seven, or eight million dollars whenever the time has lapsed. It seems to me that this is a very bad situation and shouldn't...allow to continue from year to year because of political expediency. It seems to me this is poor policy, and I would like to record my oposition again this year with another 'no' vote."
"Representative White. Alright, Representative Henry."
"Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield?"
"He indicates he will."
"Yes, the question I have...I would like answered, are there any funds in this Bill for a feasibility study to construct any facilities near or around Chicago?"
"Representative, the money for the feasibility study planning and so forth for new prisons is in the Capital Development Board budget."
"The question I wanted answered because...some time ago, Representative, I understood that the Department of Corrections was planning...was investigating the possibility of erecting a center in Chicago. And I see........Bill, and I would like for you to point out to me any of those plans in the Bill and how they are going to be financed if any."
"Planning money, construction money, feasibility study 183 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 money for new prisons as with, I believe, all capital items, are in the Capital Development fund appropr...Capital Development Authority Appropriation Bill, not in this appropriation Bill."
"To the Bill, Mr. Speaker. To the Bill, Mr. Speaker."
"Proceed, Sir."
"Yes, it appears to me, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, that the Department have no idea, no really plans to deal with the huge majority of inmates that are placed in these institutions. It appears that the only time they want to deal with Chicagoans is to place them long distances from their homes in institutions where all the jobs and services that go along with the institutions being built. Some time ago...some time ago you probably read in newspapers that there was a lot of talk about building institutions near or inside of Chicago to alleviate the problem of people travelling long distances. This Department has continuously, continuously, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, overlooked the fact that a large majority of the people that are locked up in these institutions are from Chicago, and they constantly overlook Chicago. I would like for you to take a real good look at this Bill and a real good look at the Department."
"Representative Hallock."
"Thank you. Will the Sponsor yield?"
"He indicates he will."
"Representative, Illinois is one of only ten states in which license plates are not made in our prisons. I would like to have your indication for the record as to when the Department of Corrections will support my efforts financially to start making license plates in Illinois prisons."
"Representative Wolf." 184 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"My understanding is whenever there is money in the budget I think there is a start-up cost of some three to five million dollars projected to start up that particular program. And I know in the past we have had legislation for that...to that end. I know there was heavy opposition from organized labor at one time some Sessions back, I recall, when that legislation was introduced."
"Well, my concern is I am sure this is a program which is supported by about 99% ofthe people in our state. We passed a Bill this Session through the House that is now in the Senate and the only stalling block seemed to be the Governor's office and also the Department of Corrections themselves in terms of wanting to spend the money. I would like to have some indication from the Department as to when we can, in fact, try to implement that program and set the money aside for that."
"Well, whenever it is appropriated is what I have been informed. As I said, the estimates for a start-up program would be three to five million dollars, and whenever that money is appropriated for that purpose, they would be able to do that. In a year where dollars...we're scratching for dollars every place we can, apparently, it is not felt that this would be the time."
"Thank you."
"Representative Tuerk."
"I move the previous question."
"The question is 'Shall the previous question be put?' Those in favor will signify by saying 'aye', those opposed. In the opinion of the Chair, the 'ayes' have it. The question is...Senate Bill 313. Representative Wolf to close."
"Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, in closing I would just add that there are funds in here to fully staff the three 185 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 new prisons which was not in the Bill when it was introduced. That was added to it, and the total head count is 7,870 as opposed to...yeah, that is 250 more as introduced, so funds were put in there to provide the additional employees that would be necessary to do the kind of a job that the people have a right to expect. I would just ask for a favorable vote."
"The question is 'Shall Senate Bill 313 pass?' Those in favor will signify by voting 'aye', those opposed by voting 'nay'. Mr. Clerk, the voting is open. Representative Bowman. Representative Vinson, to explain your vote."
"Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. We are five days away from the close of a Session. It would seem to me that one of the most frigthening prospects would be to not fund this particular agency. I would urge green votes because of what the prospects might be if this agency is not funded prior to June 30. I think that the crisis that could ensue, the tragedy in terms of human life could be very substantial. And I would think that this is one particular agency that deserves to be funded. I see the votes are up there, and I would not say anything more."
"Representative Winchester to explain his vote."
"Well, on the similar lines of Representative Vinson and some comments that were made by Representative Matijevich, the Department of Corrections is trying to rehabilitate inmates. Many years ago we did have prison industries, but the General Assembly years ago said that the inmates were not receiving any type of training that when they were discharged that they could go into successful employment in the communities. And that is not true. We gave those inmates something to do with their 186 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 hands. They enjoyed it. To Representative Henry, there is...yeah, well other things too, I suppose. But to Representative Henry, there is an approp...there is 6. some odd million dollars in CDB that...that could possibly be designated for a couple of institutions. It is not in this Bill. So if you're voting for this Bill for that reason, I suggest that you address that to the Capital Development Board Bill will be coming up soon. And I would ask for a favorable Roll Call vote."
"Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record, Mr. Clerk. On this question there are 98 voting 'aye', 58 voting 'nay', nine voting 'present'. This Bill having received the Constitutional Majority is hereby declared passed. So just be at ease for a minute or two. We're having a problem with the print-out here. Senate Bill 315, Representative Wolf. Out of the record. Senate Bill 320, Representative Wikoff. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 320, a Bill for an Act making an appropriation for the ordinary and contingent expense of the State Universities Civil Service Merit Board, Third Reading of the Bill."
"Representative Wikoff."
"Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Bill appropriates $630,700 for the ordinary and contingent expense of the State Universities - and that is in plural - Civil Service Merit Board. This is as in same dollar as with the Governor's budget, and I would move for its adoption."
"Is there any discussion? There being none, the question is 'Shall Senate Bill 320 pass?' Those in favor will signify by voting 'aye', those opposed by voting 'nay'. Mr. Clerk, the voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record, Mr. 187 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Clerk. On this question there are 135 voting 'aye', 20 voting 'nay', none voting 'present'. This Bill having received the Constitutional Majority is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 326, Representative Wolf. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk. 326."
"Senate Bill 326, a Bill for an Act making an appropriation to the ordinary and contingent expense of the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs, Third Reading of the Bill."
"Representative Wolf."
"Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would ask leave of the House to return this Bill to the Order of Second Reading. I understand there is an Amendment that has been filed."
"The Gentleman asks leave to return Senate Bill 326 to the Order of Second Reading. Does he have leave? Leave is granted. Second Reading. Any Amendments, Mr. Clerk?"
"Amendment #14, Winchester, amends Senate Bill 326 as amended on page 24 and so forth."
"Representative Winchester on Amendment #14."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Amendment #14 would add $260,000 to Senate Bill 326 and would provide nine months funding for 15 regional manpower coordinators employed by the Regional Planning Commissions. This Amendment will provide enough money to phase out the positions on June 30, 1982. And by then, the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs should have an alternative to replacing those coordinators. Now the regional planning coordinators maintain a flow of information to balance a state CETA Program agents, and among some of the information provided is an annual assessment of each region's employment and training needs. I...like I said, we're asking for just nine months funding 188 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 to give an opportunity to close out the business that they are presently doing, working with local governments, vities, villages, counties, Manpower Committees, and with the understanding that these positions will be totally eliminated by June 30, 1982 at which time the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs will assume those responsibilities. I would ask for a favorable Roll Call."
"Representative Van Duyne, your light is on, Sir. Representative Matijevich."
"I support this, but I just wonder if what we're not doing here is in retaliation for the embarrassment that the Governor might have, because on the federal level, we're phasing out the CETA Program. Evidently, what you're doing is you're trying to emulsify those people who are so disturbed because the federal cuts and the Reagan administration are having such an impact on people in local governments, on people regarding jobs, and evidently what you're doing here is you're going to say, 'Well, up until next year's election, we're going to at least take care of that issue on a state level.' I wonder if you'd do this if the election wasn't coming up next year. You know damn well you wouldn't. So you're not fooling anybody. I support it. But I want to say here publically that many of those cuts on the federal level are going to rebound, are going to hurt, and you know they're going to hurt. Because when people wake up and find out what you're doing, what you're doing at the local level, what you're going to do with property taxes, I hope they all wake up. So I support it, but you didn't fool me."
"Representative Darrow."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield?"
"He indicates he will."
"How many individuals are we talking about?" 189 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Representative Winchester."
"We're talking about 15 regional manpower coordinators."
"And what is their average salary?"
"Roughly around $28,000 with all fringes included in that figure."
"And what are their duties? In plain English, not in bureaucratic jargon."
"Well, their duties are to coordinate regional planning and maintain a flow of information to balance a state Ceta Program agents."
"And is this necessary due to the cuts on the federal level?"
"Well, I think so because I think the cuts are probably going to be phased out...or the cuts in the CETA Program will be phased out by June 30, 1982, and we're trying to phase out the manpower coordinators at the same time. We want to keep the coordinators as long as we've still got the program. And the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs is not ready at this point to assume the responsibilities. They don't have the staff, and we have nothing in their appropriation Bill to give them additional dollars to, you know, to handle these, you know, to take people that is already in their staff and make them manpower coordinators to continue the program. So we might as well just continue funding those who are doing the job now and have been doing the job for the last four or five years."
"Is the Governor supporting this increase?"
"Well, I really don't have any idea. You know, sometimes we Legislators have to determine what we feel is best for the operation of state government. We don't always listen to what the Governor of the state says. You 190 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 know, we...I happen to feel that this is an important Amendment, you know, to provide the necessary services for the people. I didn't ask the Governor."
"To the Bill, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, in the next few days we will be asked to vote on legislation to roll back various tax benefits that we've given to business. We will be also asked to increase the sales tax by one percent in order to balance our state budget. When we vote against those items, if we do, people will say, 'Well, where's the money going to come from? What programs can be cut back?' And this is indeed one of those programs that can be cut back. What we are doing is picking up programs from the federal level, programs that the Reagan administration no longer is funding, and we're using state dollars to do that. In order to balance the budget, and in order to live within a balanced budget which all of you on the other side of the aisle campaigned on, I would suggest that we vote 'no' on this and all subsequent Amendments of a similar nature. It is essential that we balance the budget without increasing taxes, and I would hope that this Amendment goes down to defeat. Thank you."
"Representative Braun. Representative Leverenz."
"Would the Sponsor yield?"
"Yes."
"Would you name the Regional Planning Commissions that this would fund coordinators for?"
"Representative Winchester?"
"Okay, 'Embras', Greater Wabash, Southeastern Illinois, Two Rivers, West Central, Western Illinois, South Central, DeKalb County, Coles County, Vermillion County, Northwest Illinois, North Central Illinois, By-State, Southwest Metro, and Kankakee."
"You missed...Is there one in Kane?" 191 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"I said Kankakee."
"How many of those are in the six county area? Up in the northeast area there of the state."
"I am just guessing, but I would suppose just one, Northwest Illinois."
"Is that 'Nipsi'? Northwest Illinois is not up in the six county area."
"...You're right. I'm not familiar with that territory. I don't get up there very much."
"...Committee...You're talk...isn't one of the main questions you ask in the Appropriations Committee, or someone does from your side of the aisle about funding federal programs from general revenue fund to continue them? Haven't we always stood against that?"
"I don't recall making that statement. You may be talking about two different proposals, Representative. There was an Amendment offered that would allow funding until the end of the fiscal year '82 for Rural-Metropolitan Planning Commissions. That is a separate proposal."
"No, I'm just talking now about the basic philosophy that is encompassed in your Amendment. You're taking your federal programs and converting them to state general revenue fund programs, one-quarter of a million dollars here, that could probably well stay right in the pot where it is currently because we have a tremendous crunch on general revenue funds, and it...that is the philosophy that we talk about all the time, picking up federal programs."
"Well, I think this is a responsible proposal that I am doing because I am saying that we're going to phase this program out on June 30, 1982. They are funded until October 1, September 30, the end of the federal fiscal year. We give them nine months funding to wind down the programs that they're presently involved in working with 192 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 communities, so that it gives time for DECA to get in, look at their responsibilities, and on July 1, 1982, pick up the responsibilities for the regional manpower coordinators. And I don't see anything fiscally irresponsible about that. Those services had to be provided. There is still CETA money there. You just don't cut the program off. Somebody has got to, you know, see that this money is provided for coordinating and of planning...of regional planning areas."
"Then, well, another short question. If we did not fund these positions with general revenue funds, I understand your staff has been advised that he actual work would be picked up by other coordinators. Isn't that true?"
"I am told no."
"Speaker, to the Bill...or the Amendment."
"Proceed, Sir."
"Thank you. Certainly, I think the President's initiatives in this area should be followed through, that October 1 should be the wind-down date, and I am sure that the programs that are funded under this program will then further unwind by themselves. We must do everything we can to protect, at this point, the general revenue fund. As Representative Darrow so eloquently pointed out on the floor, I'd ask for your red votes."
"Representative McBroom."
"Well, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, would the Sponsor respond to a question?"
"He indicates he will."
"Well, Representative Darrow, or Representative Darrow. Representative Winchester, if I...I have not been a great fan of CETA like many of the other Members, but what you're trying to do, if I understand you correctly, is effect an orderly phase out. Is that right?" 193 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"That is correct."
"And the basic function of these people is to find jobs for the unemployed and unskilled. Is that correct?"
"That is absolutely correct."
"Well, I think that...I think that Representative Winchester's approach is the proper approach. I think we're...he is basically adhering to the results of last November, but is saying that we...not going to stop the program overnight. I would strongly urge a green vote on this. Thank you."
"Representative Abramson."
"Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question."
"The question is 'Shall the previous question be put?' Those in favor will signify by saying 'aye', those opposed. It appears the 'ayes' have it. Representative Winchester to close."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I think Representative McBroom, you know, was absolutely correct in his assessment of what I am trying to do, and I support what President Reagan is doing in the federal level, and I've never been a strong supporter of the CETA Program. However, we do have the CETA Program, and we do still have CETA funds being distributed throughout the State of Illinois. And it is the responsibility of regional manpower coordinators to see that that money is properly distributed, to see that there is no fraud with the money, to see that it is used to...for training programs, and to make sure that people in which this program was established to do get that type of money. All I'm saying is that I want to give them nine months funding so that this, you know, the program will phase out on June 30, 1982. I see nothing wrong with it. I would ask for a favorable vote on this Amendment." 194 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"The question is 'Shall Amendment #14 to Senate Bill 326 be adopted?' Those in favor will signify by voting 'aye', those opposed by voting 'nay'. Representative Ewell to explain his vote."
"Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, I've seen a lot of political slush programs, but this one tops them all. Not only do they totally neglect my district, cause I couldn't get to my district to ask how many of these workers were there. I couldn't find any in the City of Chicago, one for Northwest Illinois where two-thirds of the people live. They probably don't even have an equal opportunity provision in this slush fund. It is going to be part-time employment for paid political hikes and political workers, and I think that is an improper use of funds. I would like to point out that at least in the City of Chicago when we have bus drivers, they drive buses for a living. And the question I must ask is what buses do these coordinators drive? Moreover, what trees do they plant. As a matter of fact, what good do they do at all? And the answer in all three questions is none. And I think this program deserves to be soundly defeated by all reasonable and prudent people. And the next day or any day you see Winchester looking out for the poor, the downtrodden, and the oppressed, they've got problems. Thank you."
"Representative Rea to explain his vote."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House. In explaining my vote, the Planning Commissions have been a great asset to local government throughout rural America, and especially here in Illinois. In the CETA Program there has been good CETA Programs and there has been bad ones. But I can tell you that many of the CETA Programs have been very helpful to local government and is something that we do need to phase out in an orderly fashion because we need 195 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 to build the linkages there to bridge the gap that is going to be left as a result of this. So I would certainly ask for a favorable Roll Call on this."
"Representative Pullen to explain her vote."
"Well, Mr. Speaker, in response to the Gentleman who brought up bus drivers, I would like to note that these people are being paid considerably less than bus drivers in Chicago. But even so, I think it is too much, and I agree with him that the Amendment should be defeated."
"Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record, Mr. Clerk. On this question there are 60 voting 'aye', 99 voting 'nay', one voting 'present'. Amendment is lost. Any further Amendments?"
"No further Amendments."
"Third Reading. Representative Wolf."
"Yes, Mr. Speaker, I now move that we suspend the appropriate provisions of Rule 35C. The Bill has been read a third time, and so we can vote on it."
"The Gentleman asks leave so that the Bill may be heard now on Third Reading. The Gentleman has...the Gentleman has leave. Proceed, Sir. Everybody is part of the action that way. Proceed, Sir. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 326, a Bill for an Act to make an appropriation to the ordinary and contingent expense of the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs, Third Reading of the Bill."
"Representative Wolf."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. This budget for the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs was introduced at $251,526,100. Pardon me, that is the way it was last year. They had $251,526,100 in FY '81. 196 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 the Bill was introduced at $281,582,600. There were some dollars reduced in the Senate. And as it left the House Appropriation Committee it was at $226,727,300 which is about 19 1/2% less than it was introduced at...about $55,000,000 less, and approximately 10% less than the FY '81 budget. The head count is reduced by some 20% over the previous year. There were 661 employees last year on the head count. This year it is reduced to 552 employees."
"Discussion? Representative Matijevich."
"Mr. Speaker, I think on this budget both the Senate and the House did a very good job with regards to Amendments. But I do want to stand in regards to the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs. This is the Department that had so much promised in the reorganization. It was advocated by the State Chamber of Commerce. Since its inception, the State Chamber of Commerce has almost been silent because, I believe, that they've felt that the Department has not really performed as it originally intended to perform, at least in the eyes of the State Chamber. I think this Department is probably a case study in why we in the Legislature, no matter who is in power, Democrats or Republicans, ought to think better when we talk about reorganization. Because believe me, it is going to happen. For example, if the Democrats take over the second floor, and then a Democratic Governor is going to have all kinds of reorganization plans. It never fails. What has happened when this Department was reorganized there was all kinds of fractured authority. You know, you're dealing with human beings, and when you have human beings in level of authority, and then you change someone's authority in a supervisor capacity, what happens is so many in those levels become jealous of each other, and you really don't function as you should. And I have found in 197 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 our appropriation on...both last year and this year that so much of that jealousy still exists, so much of that level of authority where nobody knows who the boss is, nobody knows who the supervisor is still exists. And I think the State Chamber of Commerce, if you still ask them how they would rate the Department, I doubt if they would give it a high rating. I say that because I think that when we pass out an Appropriation Bill, we not only ought to vote the appropriations, but sometimes our vote reflects what we think of that Department in its performance. There are some Directors who don't like to get a...one 'no' vote on their Appropriation Bill. It gets them a little nervous. So I think we have an added function here in the House that we ought to be rating that Department on how we feel it is performing. If you think this Department is performing as it should have when it was reorganized, then go ahead and vote 'aye'. If not, I think you ought to show the Director, and the Governor, or whomever, State Chamber or whomever, that you have some doubt about how this...the direction of this Department is going. I still have my doubts frankly."
"Further discussion? Representative Darrow."
"Thank you, Mr...thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. In a way I feel like I should apologize to this House for making these comments on Third Reading. However, until last evening I was not aware of how precarious our financial condition is in the State of Illinois and how our budget will be down to perhaps $40,000,000 by next year at this time. Therefore, in looking over these budgets, what I have done is tried to pull out some of the Amendments that I consider fat and which we could reduce and eliminate if we worked on these a little harder and returned them to Second Reading. By that 198 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 I am referring to adding $90,000 for the purpose of advertising and promoting Illinois. Another Amendment to add $70,000 to promote fishing in Illinois lakes and streams, and $62,000 to fill five vacancies that have been vacant for a long period of time. Also, in looking over this budget, it appears that we again are slighting our brothers up in Chicago. There is $39,500 for non-metropolitan Planning Commissions, but I am sure some of the Chicago Legislators will pick up on that. Basically what I am saying is there is fat in this budget. There is fat that should be eliminated. We should take it back to Second, remove the fat so that we don't to re...do not have to increase the sales tax by one percent, so that we don't have to roll back the tax breaks that we've given to industry and to the farmers. We have to look over these budgets much more carefully than we have in the past and then vote on them. Not at this time. Thank you."
"Representative Henry."
"Yes, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield?"
"He indicates he will."
"Representative, I understand that in the...in the...in this Department there is a small business division to promote, and develop, and assist small businesses. Could you tell me how much of funding does this small business division receive?"
"Would you defer that to Mr. Winchester, Mr. Speaker? He is the Chairman of the Subcommittee."
"Representative Winchester."
"Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker..."
"Yes, Sir."
"I didn't understand your remark. What was your last remark? Was it directed toward me?"
"No, I recognized Representative Winchester." 199 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Well, Representative Henry, I am the Chairman of the Subcommittee, and my staff here is trying to find the answer to your question."
"Well, while he is looking for that, I have a note on my desk that says that this Department has a foreign office. If so, where is this office located?"
"Alright, to your question, $2,888,000."
"$2,000,888 (sic), how many employees are assigned to this division?"
"Alright, the small business is only a subsection of the division. Now do you want to know...I can tell you what the division is which small business is a subsection of. I don't know if I could tell you just small business."
"Well, maybe I should clarify my question. My question is directed to the ones that are responsible to develop, and promote, and assist small businesses. Now whatever title you want to use, I want to know how much funds go into that particular Department."
"I am sorry, Representative. We don't have it broken out that small."
"Well, then, could you tell me how many employees are assigned to this Department that is assigned to promote, develop, and assist small businesses?"
"One second. Alright, there is 79 in the division. And there is 10 that is assigned to small business."
"Representative Winchester, I have a figure that tells me that there are only two employees assigned to assist, promote, and develop small businesses throughout the state. So I think we're eight off there. My next question is the number of employees..."
"Those are vacancies."
"Those are vacan...you have eight vacancies in the...in that subsection that are supposed to assist small 200 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 businesses?"
"No, what I said was we have 79 people who are employed by that division, and small business is a subsection of that division, and we have about 10 employees in that subsection that handles stimulating business and the economy throughout the State of Illinois."
"I will reiterate my information, Representative."
"I understand. You said that your information says that there is only two in that Department."
"There is only two assigned there."
"I think you have incorrect information."
"Okay..."
"I would be glad to discuss it with you later."
"If that is the case, then I would like to go a little further. The number of employees in DECA...could you give me a round figure of the number of employees assigned...hired by this Department?"
"Okay, 552."
"552. Could you give me an estimation on the number of employees from Chicago or Cook County?"
"Well, that would be impossible for me to do at this time. I can get that information for you later, but I think it would be impossible right now."
"Thank you. One last question, Mr. Speaker. I..it is my understanding that DECA has a foreign office that is located in a foreign country. Could you tell me the amount of funding for that particular office if any?"
"Well, while they are looking up the number, we have three foreign offices, one in Hong Kong, one in Brussels, and one in Brazil. Now we're going to get you the total in just a second."
"Well, could you..."
"San Polo, Brazil is the third one." 201 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Okay, could you tell me after three offices in foreign countries, could you tell me how much funds or how much business have those three offices generated for the State of Illinois?"
"I can...I can give you a guesstimate. Will that be satisfactory, Representative Henry?"
"To the Bill, Mr. Speaker."
"About $500,000,000."
"Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the Bill."
"Proceed, Sir."
"Mr. Speaker, I'm constantly being told that we cannot help...I am constantly being told by press releases from the Governor's office that we cannot help and assist those who are in need. We can't assist the day care centers. I understand there is a 25% cut in day care centers. I understand there is a Medicare cut from the Governor's office. I understand that the Public Aid Department is reducing funds for the needy, and here we have three foreign offices outside of the State of Illinois, outside the continental districts of the United States, and the Sponsor of this legislation cannot tell me how much funds has been generated by this ambassador to a foreign country. I would like to know is this another...is this another political payoff for someone that helped the Republican Party? What is it? The Republican Party dealing with businesses? You see that the Sponsor has told all of us that there are eight people or ten people designed...assigned to a Department that are supposed to assist, develop businesses in these...in the State of Illinois. And yet we have no figures. Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I am sorry to say, but I think we better have another reorganization and reorganize DECA out of the budget." 202 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Representative Huskey."
"Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I move the previous question."
"The question is 'Shall the previous question by put?' Those in favor will signify by saying 'aye', those opposed. In the opinion of the Chair, the 'ayes' have it. Representative Wolf to close."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just, in closing, answer a few points that have been made. There were some question about the $90,000 for industrial advertising. I think as most people in this General Assembly realize, that sometimes you have to spend some money to attract money. There is an old adage to that effect, and that is exactly what this does. Other states spend much more than Illinois, for example, New York and other industrial states in order to lure industry to the State of Illinois. We have been very deficient in that effect. And the Committee, in its wisdom, restored $90,000 for industrial advertising to try to attract business and bring jobs for Illinoisans so they can be employed and not on the unemployment roles. I would like to point out that this appropriation is, in fact, $55,000,000 less than it was as introduced, and $35,000,000 less than the expenditures for fiscal year 1981. We think the Bill is in good shape and I think it deserves the support of this House."
"The question is 'Shall Senate Bill 326 pass?' Those in favor will signify by voting 'aye', those opposed by voting 'nay'. Mr. Clerk, the voting is open. Representative Alexander to explain her vote."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am attracted to one of the statements made by one of the former speakers that money spent is to attract money to the state. And I raise the question to this General Assembly, why are we spending 203 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 $25,000 in an economical crunch situation for a marching band to go to Pasadena, California for the Rose Bowl Game? This is money that could be well spent someplace else in some programs that are direly needed by this state."
"Have all voted who wish? Representative Leverenz to explain his vote."
"Thank you. In explanation of my vote, I tried to reach the Director this afternoon to ask him a question relative to a local problem. I was summarily told he was out of town, and I asked where was he, and they said he was attending a Board of Directors meeting at the bank in DeKalb. The Gentleman is extremely hard to find which is the way the whole agency operates. Probably the only thing that does the job in this agency is the film office to attract anything to the State of Illinois. The offices that are located in other countries are more for Illinois investing in those countries or out of the State of Illinois as a matter of fact. The local problem I discussed and explained to you, you will find in your own district it is just a short period of time. A red vote is the only vote for an unaccountable agency and Director."
"Representative Robbins to explain his vote."
"Illinois is the leading agriculture exporting state in the United States. Illinois is building an exporting terminal in Southern Illinois at the present time to export coal to ship around the world. You have to have someone to go ahead and sell these products. If you want to go ahead and try to bring on more depressed prices, then cut the exports from Illinois produce more. If you want to create jobs, the jobs in the coal mining industry, if you are interested in labor, then you will put a green vote up on the Board. There is no agency that I have found in Illinois that is perfect. But this one at least tries to 204 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 help move new..."
"Representative Bullock to explain. Representative Friedrich to explain his vote."
"Well, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I can't understand why people are withholding their votes from this Bill. This is the one Department in the state that is out trying to bring the industry and jobs into Illinois so we can have jobs instead of public aid. In my district right now there is an empty factory building, and I happen to know that they've made two trips out of state, and it won't be long before this factory will be hiring 500 people. Mostly through the efforts of this particular Department. Now if you would rather have public aid than jobs, then vote 'no'. That is the way to go."
"Representative Beatty to explain his vote."
"Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, this is a good Department. This Department has had their budget cut. They are bringing in new business. I have had some exposure to their work in my attendance of the meetings of the Economic Development Commission. They have assisted in bringing some German firms into Illinois. They are bringing new business in. I don't have all the facts and figures with me, but I know they have been doing constructive work in assisting unemployed to become employed. I think that perhaps the Democrats should resist some of these budgets, but I don't think this is the place to resist. I think we should vote 'yes' on this Bill."
"Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record, Mr. Clerk. Grossi, 'aye'. Bowman, 'aye'. On this question there are 96 voting 'aye', 63 voting 'nay', none voting 'present'. This Bill having received the Constitutional Majority is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 328, 205 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Representative Wolf, out of the record. Senate Bills Second Reading Order of Appropriations, Senate Bill 232, Representative Wikoff. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 232, a Bill for an Act to provide for the ordinary and contingent expenses of Southern Illinois University, Second Reading of the Bill. Amendment #1 was adopted in Committee."
"I'm sorry. For the purpose of the record it is Senate Bill 232, Representative Richmond. Proceed, Sir. Any Motions filed with respect to Amendment #1?"
"No Motions filed."
"Any Amendments from the floor?"
"Floor Amendment #2, Friedrich, amends Senate Bill 232..."
"Representative Friedrich, Amendment #2."
"Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I learned not long ago that the 50 highest paid employees in the State of Illinois are employees of the State University. And the one who really rung the bell is the Chancellor of SIU who now gets paid $80,000 a year. That includes his housing allowance. Not not including his housing allowance, he still makes about $12,000 more than the Governor of this state. Now if we're going to start saving money, I think here is a good place to save some because I can tell you that these...some of these people are very insensitive to this Legislature, and I think it is unreasonable when we turn money over to the universities and the Board of Higher Education and these university boards that they get carried away in fixing salaries and fix the salary of the Chancellor of the University of Southern Illinois, Buz Shaw, to the point of $80,000 when the Governor of this state only makes about $65,000. Now, I can't...I just found out in this particular appropriation that that one 206 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 item is not line item, so the only thing this Amendment does is reduce the appropriation so hopefully that the Board of SIU will reduce Mr. Shaw's salary to that of the Governor. Certainly anyone who knows anything about the responsibility and the work load of public officials, the Governor of this state has more responsibility than the Chancellor of SIU. Actually he is making about twice as much as the Comptroller, about twice as much as the Attorney General, and about twice as much as the Treasurer. Now I can't believe that any of you feel that is correct. So this is a simple little Amendment that attempts to reduce that salary."
"Representative Hoffman."
"Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I think there were two or three issues that we ought to be concerned about here. I think, number one, do we believe that the Chancellor of the University should be paid as much or more than those people who report to him? Should Chancellor Shaw be paid as much or more than the Dean of the Medical School? Because after all, he has the overall responsibility for the entire university. My relationships with Chancellor Shaw have personally been quite good. He has responded very well to my requests. In fact, I asked him to talk with a young man from my district, who was at S.I.U. He called him in and spent and hour and a half with him. And so his responsiveness, as far as I am concerned, has been excellent. But I think the key point is, do we believe that the Chancellor or the president of a corporation, to make an analogy, should be the highest paid member on that management team? I think history and experience would dictate to us that that is what we expect. We wouldn't expect a department head to be paid $100,000 and the president of the operation to by paid $55,000. 207 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Nonsense. And so I would suggest to you all that if we look at it in that context, that he is in fact the Chancellor of that university. He does, in fact, have the overall responsibility, and he should be the highest paid member on that particular payroll."
"Representative Matijevich."
"Would the Gentleman yield?"
"He indicates he will."
"Yes, I will."
"Mr. Friedrich, have you checked the salaries of other chancellors in the other universities?"
"Yes, I checked with Representative Wikoff, and he tells me he thinks the salary of the President of the University of Illinois is about $65,000."
"Have you checked yourself at all of the universities of all of the chancellors?"
"No, I haven't except I know that I have been told that this is the highest state...paid state employee in the state of Illinois."
"Well, is there any other background regarding this case?"
"What do you mean, background?"
"You know, I'm Minority Spokesman of Committee and I like to look at the reasons for Amendments and I did a little research on my own, and I understand that you had a little confrontation with the Chancellor regarding an applicant that you wanted for a position and that applicant wasn't the one that got the job. Is that part of your retribution against the Chancellor?"
"This is not a retribution. This is an attempt to make the salary more compensionable and comparitive to the other universities."
"I've got some facts too and I didn't go to Wikoff or 208 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 I didn't go to anybody else..."
"I'd say anything you have is hearsay."
"I understand that there is a gentleman by the name of Ivan Schroeder that you have recommended for a position and there were about 19 applicants who had the same score. He didn't get the job and evidently it's kind of ironic too that this is a 10,000 dollars you're pulling out of this gentlemans salary when this, evidentally, had occurred. Can you tell us about that?"
"I can say it's ironic that the... Mr. Schraeder..."
"Gentlemen..."
"... if you want to get down to cases, I think it was ironic that Mr. Schraeder was a veteran with an A Grade who was told he was going to get the job and they went back two years and picked up a guy who'd flunked the exam and gave him the job. I don't know what the significance of that is but maybe you can tell me."
"Those aren't the facts as I have them because I have the facts that they have identical qualifying scores, and also that Mr. Schraeder is on the list and when it is... he becomes qualified, when the position is open he is going to be considered as everybody else is."
"I haven't talked to Mr. Schraeder in two years."
"Evidentally, from your response to my last question I think I did hit on the sore spot and why this Amendment has been offered. Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I think and I've said it before many times, even on substantive legislation, that we ought not to write retribution into the law, that we ought not to use our legislative power to punish. I think that's a bad way to legislate. I think it's a bad way to appropriate. The fact of the matter is and I've said it in the Committee that I think that our higher education systems, our 209 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 universities ought to get a good word from this General Assembly. Education is no different than institutions and, if you will, politicians. Everybody's rapping education. Everybody's rapping politicians. It's about time somebody said something good about education and our systems of higher education in Illinois, and I think that they have been doing a good job. And I think this Amendment is improper and we ought to resoundingly vote against it."
"Representative Wikoff."
"Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hate to oppose my good friend, Dwight, but I would urge a 'no' vote on this simply if for no other reason that as late as we are getting in the Session, if this goes back to the Senate with this Amendment on, it's going to be thrown into Conference Committee and we have no idea what may happen on that situation. At least all the universities, the Appropriations Committee and the Senate are in agreement with what we have right now and I think we're just a little bit late to be starting something like this, although Dwight may be perfectly justified in what he's attempting to do. I don't think this is the proper time to do it and would urge a 'no' vote."
"Representative Bullock."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I was wondering if the Sponsor would yield for a question or two."
"He indicates he will."
"Representative, do you intend to withdraw this Amendment?"
"No, I don't, but I'll accept a voice vote. I have a closing statement to make and I think I'm entitled to that, Mr. Bullock."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to briefly address 210 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 the Bill."
"Proceed, Sir."
"The Amendment, I'm sorry."
"Proceed."
"I would hope that this Assembly would vote 'no' on this Amendment, and I'm glad to hear that Representative Friedrich will accept the voice vote and I think the outcome on that voice vote is rather obvious from some of the remarks that have been directed toward this Amendment. I don't think that the Representative intends, in any way, to force this Body into a compromising position by attempting to continue some personal vendetta that may occur between individuals of certain districts. I would hope that the Sponsor of this Amendment would accept the outcome of this Body and I would hope that the Sponsor of this Amendment, in the future, would attempt to communicate with the Chancellor at the University. My information leads me to believe that the Chancellor has the utmost respect for the Sponsor of this Amendment, and I think the two of them being reasonable men and I have always said that when logical men sit down reason becomes king and, in this instance, I think that this Assembly should, in fact, vote negatively on this Amendment in hopes that Representative Friedrich will use another alternative to communicate his sentiments to the Chancellor of the University."
"Representative Richmond."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. As the Sponsor of Senate Bill 232, I would like to briefly comment on this Amendment. It, as the grounds have been pretty well covered, I am disappointed that Representative Friedrich feels that this was necessary for him to take this type of action. I can't help but wonder 211 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 why he didn't put a similar, attempt a similar Amendment on all of the other budgets that have in them employees or Chancellors or whatever that make more money than the Governor. I don't know what the rationale for choosing the Chancellor Shaw is, but nevertheless I would like to point out in a survey of the universities of similar size throughout this country this extraordinarily high salary that he refers to is #16 out of 30 in universities of the same size with the same size budgets approximately. So; therefore, you know, I feel that it is an average in the group and I think that those comments are certainly out of line. I urge the defeat of this Amendment."
"Representative Karpiel."
"I move the previous question."
"Question is, 'Shall the previous question be put?'. Those in favor will signify by saying 'aye', opposed. In the opinion of the Chair, the 'ayes' have it. Representative Friedrich, to close."
"Yes, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you something. I was a student at SIU and they had 1400 students. I've been in this General Assembly for 18 years and I've voted for every appropriation of Southern Illinois University. I did that when the Gentleman from Lake and the Gentlemen from Jackson and some of these other counties weren't even here. I've helped that university grow and you can't say I haven't been loyal to it, but there comes a time and a place when you have to set down a little arrogance and I think the time has come when the highest paid salary in the State of Illinois needs to get some attention in this General Assembly and that's what this Amendment is for."
"Question is, 'Shall Amendment #2 to Senate Bill 232 pass?'. Those in favor will signify by saying 'aye', those opposed. It's close. In the opinion of the Chair, 212 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 the Amendment is lost. Any further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #3, Rea, amends Senate Bill 232 on..."
"Amendment #3, Representative Rea."
"Mr. Speaker, I withdraw Amendment #3."
"Amendment #3 is withdrawn. Any further Amendments, Mr. Clerk?"
"No further Amendments."
"Third Reading. Senate Bill 233, Representative Bradley. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 233, a Bill for an Act making appropriations to the Board of Regents. Second Reading of the Bill. Amendments #1 and 2 were adopted in Committee."
"Any Motions with respect to Amendments #1 and 2?"
"No Motions filed."
"Any Amendments from the floor?"
"Floor Amendment #3, Vinson, amends Senate Bill 233 as amended."
"Representative Vinson, Amendment #3."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Floor Amendment #3 would add 5000 dollars for personal services in the Board of Regents central office. I would move for passage of the Amendment."
"On the Amendment. Any discussion? Representative Darrow?"
"Will the Sponsor yield?"
"He indicates he will."
"Why all of a sudden do we need 5000 dollars for personal services at the central office?"
"It is not a case of really of adding money over what's already there. It's a case of a position that has been vacant that was cut out. We responded in, I believe, in a 213 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 bipartisan fashion to, through the staff, to agree that there should be some increase to make possible the addition of an additional staff person, but not at the dollar level that the Board had originally wanted to add that position."
"In other words, you're increasing the salary of one of the employees by 5000 dollars?"
"No. That's not the case. What it is, it's a six months funding thing rather than funding them as they requested for a full year."
"What's the person's duty? What's the current salary and why are we increasing it 5000 dollars again? I still don't understand."
"It's a position in the computer services area."
"Any how much are we paying that person and what are his or her duties?"
"What we're doing... I guess maybe I didn't explain this very well, Representative. What we're doing is we're restoring funds that were cut in Amendment #1 because we had made a miscalculation in Amendment #1. This will permit a person to be added at the Board of Regents and they requested in the computer services area. The salary would be a 24,000 dollar a year salary. We overestimated the value of that in our original cut. We are; therefore, partially restoring the funding for that vacancy."
"How long has this position been vacant?"
"Sixteen months."
"Why do we now need it if it's been vacant for 16 months and we have a hiring freeze?"
"The hiring freeze does not apply to agencies not under the Governor. Board of Regents is not under the Governor, number one. Number two, increased workload in the computer service area is the reason for which they would like to have the funding." 214 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"If we defeat this Amendment, will you still be able to hire this person?"
"At either a reduced salary or at a much reduced ... for a much reduced period of time during the year. And I think, as you know, Representative, in the computer field, particularly, our salaries are not competitive enough to attract people right now."
"Would we be able to get along without this person for another year?"
"No."
"Thank you."
"Further discussion? Representative Ewell."
"Mr. Vinson, can I ask the acid question of whose person is this person that we're trying to employ?"
"It isn't mine. Nobody has made a word to me that is it anybody's and the Board has not indicated to me that they have agreed to hire anybody who's been sponsored by anybody, if that's the real question."
"Very briefly, I have never seen one of these Bills come through yet that no one knows nobody who nobody is going to employ. This is somebody's person and I think that the Body is entitled to know whose? I mean, if it were mine..."
"Representative..."
"If it were mine... in statement to the Amendment."
"Proceed."
"You can close, but let me cite the Amendment to the Body. It has been my experience in this Body that this is somebody's person who got left off for some reasons or another, and I'm just asking the acid question to stand up and tell us whose person it is. And we might all be willing to vote for it. Otherwise, I mean, you want to do this in the dark and in secretive and I think it's improper 215 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 to the Body. I don't mind you all cutting these deals in the appropriation, but once in awhile when somebody falls out and I sit here as a mere floor Member unable to get anybody anywhere anytime anyplace, I just must question your person and the need for this person after 16 months of idleness."
"Representative Ronan, to shed light."
"Yes, will the Sponsor yield for a few questions?"
"He indicates he will."
"Representative Vinson, what are the qualifications for this job?"
"Ability in the area of computer services. Do you have somebody like that, Representative?"
"As Chairman of the Data Information Systems Commission, we've done a nationwide search to find people of this quality and these credentials. I happen to have an individual from my district who votes... who does vote Democratic in the primary and would be interested in this position. Where do I send this individual to apply for this job?"
"Is it a 33 or a 32nd Ward candidate?"
"This individual lives in the 33rd Ward."
"Has the Committeeman signed off on the application?"
"I've got a letter with me."
"Well, you will sign off on the application?"
"I said, it's from the 33rd Ward. Representative Ewell is not in the 33rd Ward and would not be welcome in the 33rd Ward at the present time."
"I think he's going to oppose it unless he signs off."
"All I'm telling you is I have a qualified candidate. Now, who do I send him to see?"
"You send all of your qualified candidates to see me just like you always have in the past, Representative." 216 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"With that assurance out of Representative Vinson, I think this Amendment's too low. If we're going to pay 5000 dollars for a qualified candidate from the 33rd Ward I think we're wasting our time. I'm willing, at this point, to amend it on its face to 50,000 dollars. I send you somebody who'll your socks off, Representative Vinson."
"Believe me, this is just the tip of the iceberg."
"The question is, 'Shall Amendment #3 pass for somebody... I'm sorry. Representative Catania."
"I was waiting to hear about Representative Vinson's affirmative action program."
"Representative Vinson, to respond as a plan filed in regard to this job, Representative."
"I'm sure it's a lady."
"Representative Ewell. Another few questions and we'll have the entire story. The question is, 'Shall Amendment #3 be adopted?'. Those in favor will signify by saying 'aye', those opposed. In the opinion of the Chair, the 'ayes' have it. Further Amendments?"
"No further Amendments."
"Amendment's adopted. Any further Amendments?"
"No further Amendments."
"Third Reading. Senate Bill 234, Representative Keane. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 234, a Bill for an Act making appropriations to the Board of Governors of State Colleges and Universities. Second Reading of the Bill."
"Representative Keane."
"Amendment #1 was adopted in Committee."
"Any Motions with respect to Amendment #1?"
"No Motions filed."
"Any Amendments from the floor?"
"Floor Amendment #2, lost in Committee. Floor 217 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Amendment #3, McGrew, amends Senate Bill 234 and so forth."
"Representative McGrew."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Amendment #3 to Senate Bill 234 provides for 250,000 dollars to start a nursing program at Western Illinois University. As you probably know, this is an issue that has been around for awhile. For four successive years the Board of Governors had included it in its budget and it has been only knocked out through the Board of Higher Education, not on the merits of the program but rather saying we didn't have the dollars. If you have been following the newspapers and the studies around, you would certainly realize that we do have an extreme nursing shortage in this section of the state as well as the entire state, and I would ask for an 'aye' vote."
"On the Amendment, Representative Schneider."
"Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I served with a number of the Members in this House and the Senate on the critical health issues relating to the nursing shortage in Illinois, and I have had a continuing interest in the programs and the problems, as you may recall from my opposition to 920 a week or so ago. Nowhere in that study nor during that time when we held hearings on the shortage of nursing did the question of the relationship of a new program at Western Illinois emerge. In fact, what is accurate to say is that the University of Illinois has a program in extension there. We are in a time of flux when various diploma schools are in decline but we are far short of providing the trained nurses out of other kinds of programs at the university level. This program has not been verified in fact or in accuracy to be a necessary program. The Board of Higher Education is evaluating those programs as we progress. I have not seen in print from 218 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 anyone that this kind of a program has been approved. So, I think we're wasting 250,000 dollars probably not enough money to go very far on a shortage that we are feeling unless we do something comprehensive. We have to do simple things like deal with the transferability of credits from the diploma schools and associate degrees to university levels. We have to cope with that. We have to attract nurses for different reasons. This is not a viable program. It is not essential. I think the Amendment ought to be defeated and I would ask your 'no' vote."
"Representative Wolf." Wolf(J. J.): "Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. I would just like to point out that this program has not been approved by the Board of Higher Education. The Amendment was offered in Committee. It was defeated on a bipartisan vote. The funds, even if appropriated, could not be spent because there's no program approved for it, and I would urge the defeat of this Amendment."
"Representative Vinson."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I respectively have to dissent from Chairman Wolf's recommendation in this case. I would urge an 'aye' vote. There is a substantial problem with the nursing shortage in this state. It's clearly documented. One of the problems has been the lack of production of good nurses. This program would do it. The Representative who offers the Amendment has pursued this for years. I believe he's correct in his pursuit. I believe the people on the Board of Higher Education who have consistently vetoed nursing programs are very wrong. I think that it's time that this chamber sent a message to the Board of Higher Education to the effect that we're not going to sit back and rubber stamp their decision when they're wrong. I believe they've 219 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 been consistently wrong. I believe we should create new nursing programs in this state. I believe that will redound to better health of the people of the state. I think it will substantially help the health care delivery system, hospitals, nursing homes and so forth. We are partially responsible for the creation of the nursing shortage in the fact that we have created a much increased demand for nurses in this state through things like the Mental Health Code reform and so forth. So I would strongly urge an 'aye' vote for Representative McGrew on this particular matter."
"Representative Darrow."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, Western Illinois University has branches in my district and this is a good Amendment for my district; however, I do not plan to vote on a sales tax increase. I do not plan to roll back the tax breaks for farmers. I do not plan to vote on the roll back of the tax breaks for industry. Therefore, in order to have money to balance the budget, I would suggest we defeat this Amendment. Everything that Representative Schneider said is correct. Now is not the time to fund a 250,000 dollar program. We have to watch our pennies and this is one place where we can do that. Thank you."
"Representative Wikoff."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and while this is a laudible Amendment, it keeps coming back many times and has been defeated, as Representative Wolf said, in Committee. It is not approved by the Board of Higher Education, and, for the same reasons that I mentioned earlier, we do have an agreement with the Senate that these Bills will be concurred on if they are not changed. I think we're running a very delicate situation should this go back and 220 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 be forced into Conference Committee. We could lose the whole ball game, and I don't believe the Sponsor of the Bill is interested in this and I would urge a 'no' vote."
"Representative Neff."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. In speaking in support of this Amendment, in west central Illinois we do have shortage of nurses. We have many nurses there in that section of the country who would like to keep up on the latest, and if we have the school there at Western University, this nursing school, this would give them an opportunity. We need nurses in that area of the country and; therefore, I would hope that we would all support this Amendment."
"Representative Keane."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to bring to the Member's attention the fact that no request was made by Western for this program to the Board of Higher Ed. or to the Board of Governors. As a number of speakers have implied, we do have limited resources. There are five schools within the Board of Governors system. The Board of Governors has a very, very difficult time with the limited resources that we provide them in picking among the many, many good programs which ones they can give to each of the different schools and which ones to fund. In the priority structure of the Board of Governors and in the priority structure of the Board of Higher Education, they have not included a nursing program, perhaps in the future. We were told in Committee by the Vice Chancellor or whoever the second in command was at Western is that they would love to start the program but, at the present time, they did not want it. That they were unable to implement such a program. Reluctantly, I ask you to oppose this Amendment. Thank you." 221 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Representative Hallock."
"Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question."
"Question is, 'Shall the previous question be posed?'. Those in favor will signify by saying 'aye', those opposed. In the opinion of the Chair, the 'ayes' have it. Representative McGrew, to close."
"Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Just to correct a few things. The Roll Call in Committee unfortunately was not bipartisan. There was not a single 'no' vote from this side of the aisle in Committee, and I would like to also thank the Gentleman from Champaign. I think it is really nice that the Senate has agreed to concur with us. I underline concur if we don't make any changes. I don't know how they're going to concur if we don't make any changes, but that's okay too. I would ask for an 'aye' vote. I would like to point out that over 60% of the students at Western Illinois University come from metropolitan northeast part of the state and I think it's one that would effect all areas. It's good for the entire State of Illinois and I'd request an 'aye' vote."
"The question is,... The question is, 'Shall Amendment #3 to Senate Bill 234 pass?'. Those in favor will signify by voting 'aye', those opposed by voting 'nay'. Have all voted who wish? Representative Woodyard, to explain his vote."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think many people were not listening during this debate on this issue. It was brought out in Committee that even if this Amendment were to be adopted the University could not implement the nursing program. Thus, it certainly is not needed. This is an agreed appropriation Bill by the Board of Governors and I urge a 'no' vote on this." 222 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record, Mr. Clerk. On this question there are 62 voting 'aye', 88 voting 'no', 4 voting 'present'. This measure having failed to reach sufficient votes is hereby declared lost. Any further Amendments?"
"No further Amendments."
"Third Reading. Senate Bill 237, Representative Wolf. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 237, a Bill for an Act making appropriations to the Illinois State Scholarship Commission. Second Reading of the Bill. Amendment #1 was adopted in Committee."
"Any Motions with respect to Amendment #1?"
"No Motions filed."
"Any Amendments from the floor?"
"Floor Amendment #2, Bradley, amends Senate Bill 237..."
"Representative Bradley, Amendment #2."
"Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, what Amendment #1 addresses itself to is the problem that the Scholarship Commission had and simply running out of money. There was a shortfall in fiscal '81 of approximately three million dollars. They simply made more awards than they normally do, but did not have the attrition that they generally do. More young men and woman stayed in school and so, as as result, many of them are coming up a hundred dollars short from the dollar award that they had anticipated in counting on and to receive."
"Excuse me. Representative Matijevich, for what purpose do you rise?"
"Point of order. What's the President of the Senate doing on TV in the House? I'd like to know what he's getting all publicity in our chamber of all things." 223 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Shame. Shame. Representative Bradley, continue."
"As I was saying, because of the shortfall in '81, there are students presently attending our universities who are, if they're a sophomore or junior going back to school, are being told they will have to pay that hundred dollars before they are allowed to return to school. Many of them simply don't have it. It was a obligation that the State Scholarship Commission had made to those young men and young women. I believe the State of Illinois, we were behind that committment. It seems to me that it's reasonable to ask that we appropriate these funds so that these young men and women will receive the money that we promised them to continue their education, and I ask for the support of the Amendment."
"Any discussion? Representative Wikoff."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, this is a laudible Amendment that should be defeated. Representative Bradley is right in that the Scholarship Commission did make some awards that we are not honoring now with the monies that were there. But those of us in the Scholarship Commission, those of us in Appropriations Committee, I think that many can attest to that. The then Director that we had who had created most of the problems which the Scholarship Commission has presently was still in office and he was told in very certain terms that they were not to make awards that they did not have monies for. Well, as normally, he paid the same amount of attention to his Appropriations Committee that he did in the past. The new Director we have is trying to live with his mistake. These are monies that are not budgeted, monies that are not there, and, if this should pass, it's going to take that kind of money out of next year's budget. We have made a 224 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 mistake. The Scholarship Committee made a mistake and I think that they should own up to it, granted it's going to created some hardships. I don't think it's that much and many of the universities are going to end upaccepting these rather swallowing them, if you want to call it that, rather than billing the students again. I think it's an Amendment that should be defeated, and, again, if it goes back into Conference Committee, we may end up with a lot less than there is there. Scholarship Commission is not one of the most favorite... favored operations we have in the State of Illinois. This needs a 'no' vote."
"Representative Griffin."
"I'd like to ask the Sponsor of the Amendment a question."
"He indicates he'll yield."
"I've asked this before, but following up Representative Wikoff's concern. How do we make sure that the students receiving the scholarships are, in fact, going to complete the term whether it be quarter or semester so that we know that state's getting the benefit of that money? And what about any academic qualifications as far as grades that are required for the continued use of these monies?"
"If I understand your question, I think what the Scholarship Commission what I understand it's doing now or going to be doing is giving the awards on a semester by semester awards so that they can have a better handle, a better track of the students. If that answers your question, they're going to have a better handle on it."
"I'd like to follow that up though. If a student does not complete a semester or a quarter, does the state get any refund of the balance that is not used and how do we know who completes a term and who doesn't? That's another question. What kind of a follow up do we have on that?" 225 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"I really cannot answer that question. If somebody... There's a liaison from the Scholarship Commission on the floor. If he can give us the answer and lightness, I'd appreciate it. Mr. Speaker, we'll get the answer in a second."
"Okay."
"May I speak to the Bill?"
"Proceed, Sir."
"This may not be the appropriate time to reinforce the need for reform in the way in which these funds are distributed and used, but I know it's a factor in my vote on this issue that if we can tighten up the manner in which we distribute these monies and follow up, I would be a lot more enthusiastic in the future about supporting the program. I'd like to see the program work. I'd like to see it used properly for the benefit of the students in the state, but is there any way either now or next time the Commission comes up with these requests we could get some assurances that there is going to be control on how these monies are spent? I'd really like to know that. We went through this, I think, last December. I don't want to go through another process as we did December following up giving more monies because there's been some misuse of the funds that have been appropriated. I really want an answer to this before I vote."
"Representative Ebbesen."
"Yes, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I'd just like to... I rise in support of the Amendment. I think that... Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that when a student, a student or X number of students are told that they have a scholarship, they count on financial assistance. The fact that the Scholarship Commission failed in the administration of handling the money is not 226 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 their fault and I think the responsibility rests right back here with this General Assembly. And we should be dealing with the Scholarship Commission and not the students. I think it's a good Amendment. It ought to be supported. It ought to be put on and those students should certainly not be held responsible in this situation. We've learned a lesson, something we can address at sometime in the future. This is not the time to do it in forcing these students into a posture where it is going to hurt them all individually. I encourage an 'aye' vote."
"Representative Wolf." Wolf(J. J.): "Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would rise in opposition to this Amendment. We gave a 5.3 million dollar supplement to the Scholarship Commission just last December. This is not entitlement scholarships. I understand the Commission does not support this Amendment, and however worthy the goals of the Sponsor are, it's another three million dollars that was short money. We're going to be looking, let me tell you, there are some Medicaide cut backs. We would hopefully restore some of the money for prescription drugs for the poor and the needy later on. They're going to be some very hardship cases coming up. The more we give away at this time, the less we have to negotiate with at that time. I would urge the defeat of the Amendment."
"Representative Bradley, to closed."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad the Chairman of the Appropriation Committee reminded us of the 5.7 million dollars that passed both Houses, because I believe the Governor vetoed that appropriation and that's exactly why we're in the position and the Scholarship Commission is in the position that it's in today and that's why I'm offering the Amendment. In answer, partial answer anyway to one of 227 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 the questions in regard to what happens if the student leaves school during any part of the semester. The... I understand that the, whatever university it is is billed if they've already received the money from ISSC, or, if they haven't received it, they don't get it. If they have received it, they're billed and the money is returned if the student does not complete the semester. Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, in speaking to the Amendment just very briefly, we're... in spite what Representative from Champaign says, what we're really done here is we've told people that we will give them so many dollars towards their education and then, because we don't fund the Commission or for whatever reasons, whether we gave too many scholarships counting on attrition that didn't take place, for whatever reason; we have young men and women who we had promised to receive most of them an extra 100 dollars that we told them now... we're telling them now they can't have. And it seems to me that it's the State of Illinois and it's you and I who are letting those boys and girls down. We shouldn't have given that many scholarships and I would agree with that now, but as long as we've already made those awards, and I do think it will cause a hardship to some of the young men and young women who are asked by the universities to pay that 100 dollars before they come back to return to school this Fall semester. In reviewing it also, I'd like to remind you again, Jake, that the 5.7 million dollars, the supplemental that we passed, the Governor vetoed it. I say that again to you. The Governor vetoed that money or we wouldn't be here with this Amendment and I ask for a favorable Roll Call on the Amendment."
"The question is, 'Shall Amendment 2 to Senate Bill 237 pass?'. Those in favor will signify by voting 228 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 'aye', those opposed by voting 'nay'. Mr. Clerk. Voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record, Mr. Clerk. On this question, there are 95 voting 'aye', 38 voting 'nay', 3 voting 'present'. This Amendment is passed. Amendment #2 is passed. Any further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #3, Preston, amends Senate Bill 237 as amended."
"Representative Preston, Amendment #3."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Amendment 3 is... provides for this year only. Right now, the Illinois State Scholarship Commission has applications, and, for the most part, committments for monetary awards that will be given up. They will be entirely out of money almost immediately after the fiscal year begins. What Amendment three does is it requires the Scholarship Commission to withold 8% of the available funds till after December 15 to accomodate later applicants. It doesn't deprive anybody of funds. It just keeps people in the pool who apply late for the funds. It keeps an 8% hold back. This is similar to Senator Newhouse's Bill in the Senate which passed the Senate and came over to the House and we worked out some of the problems with it and we never had an opportunity to have it read in Committee. So we put it on as an Amendment to this. It's good for one year only, only for this year and it will accomodate some late applicants."
"Any discussion? There being none, the question is, 'Shall Amendment #3 to Senate Bill 237 pass?'. Those in favor will signify by saying 'aye', those opposed. In the opinion of the...Roll Call's requested. Question is, 'Shall Amendment #3 be adopted?'. Those in favor will signify by voting 'aye', those opposed by voting 'nay'. 229 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record, Mr. Clerk. On this question there are 78 voting 'aye', 63 voting 'nay'. This Amendment is adopted. Any further Amendments?"
"No further Amendments."
"Excuse me. Representative Wolf."
"I'm trying to get my light to... flash my light to get an explanation of vote, Mr. Speaker."
"Proceed, Sir."
"If you haven't taken the final vote, I just want to point out that this money is really going to students at two private colleges, Central YMCA and Columbia. That's where the bulk of it's going. If some of the... Well, the bulk of it is, I understand it, Mr. Preston. If it's otherwise, I'd like to hear an explanation. I think many of the Members think it's going to community colleges which it's not."
"Representative Preston, for what purpose do you rise? Representative Preston."
"Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Gentleman. Those two colleges that you mentioned are two of the colleges that would benefit from it, but it is not for them alone by any means. It's for whatever scholarships that are granted throughout the state for any of the colleges."
"Representative Hastert."
"Yes, Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, I know that a Roll is taken here. I must have my light on or evidently I wanted to speak on this and didn't get recognized. This also creates a special area for scholarships. You know, we have scholarships for people who are needy and scholarships for people who are minority groups, but this creates a set of scholarships for people who are late, and all it does is create an area of money for people who have failed to meet 230 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 the application deadlines for scholarships. I think it's a bad idea. We beat this Amendment in Committee and it was a Bill in Committee and we beat it two or three times here on the floor and here it is again. I think maybe we ought to take that Roll Call over."
"Representative Karpiel."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen. I just want to reiterate what the last speaker did. It seems to me the Sponsor of the Bill..."
"Excuse me. Representative Preston."
"The record has been taken on this, Mr. Speaker. I don't know if the discussion is after the record's been taken. We should go onto the next Bill."
"Representative Preston, you are absolutely correct; however, you volunteered to answer the question and open it up."
"But now there's a whole discussion insuing and.."
"I understand that."
"... this matter is over."
"I understand that and I was ready to take the Roll and you volunteered to answer the question."
"You took the Roll, Mr. Speaker."
"Representative Karpiel."
"I was just going to say that I didn't understand the Sponsors comment that, and by the way, my light was on before the Roll was taken, that this Bill was not ever heard in Committee. I'm not a Member of that Committee but I did sit in on one occasion and the day I was there this Amendment, in the form of a Bill, was heard and defeated."
"Just so that we get the record straight. The Chair has announced the Roll on this Amendment. Representative Hudson. Proceed, Sir." 231 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Mr. Chairman, Mr. Speaker, I feel that as Chairman of the Higher Education Committee I should say.. .put the record straight just a little bit. Now, this Bill was introduced and was heard once in Committee. It was heard in a different form than it is now. It originally called for a 10% set aside. The Sponsor of the Bill wanted it to be heard again. Under the rules of the House, it could not be heard a second time in Committee. It was then amended and brought to the House floor and I think ruled not germane. But as it hit the House floor it was changed in it form to go back not to maintain the 10% set aside, but to go back to 8% and include a 20% figure in there based on merit. This changes the Bill. I don't think it's quite fair to say the Bill did not have a hearing. It did have a hearing although it was in the form that I mentioned originally."
"Representative Nelson."
"Mr. Speaker, having voted on the prevailing side, I move to reconsider the vote."
"Take the record, Mr. Clerk. It's declared won. The Lady from Cook, Representative Nelson, having voted on the prevailing side, moves to reconsider the vote by which Amendment #... what's the Amendment number? 3 was adopted. On that question, Representative Zito."
"Mr. Speaker, I would move to table that Motion."
"Either way it's a Roll Call, Representative. The Motion to table would take precedence if you persist in it. Either way we're going to get a Roll Call vote on that question. Okay. The Lady moves to reconsider the vote. On that question, Representative Preston."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The comments made by Representative Hudson were absolutely correct. The Bill, as it was originally presented in Committee, included a 10% 232 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 set aside. There were disagreements. I voted against... I voted 'present' on that in Committee as did a number of other Members of that Committee. Subsequently, I met with the Senate Sponsor, Senator Newhouse. I worked out something that was satisfactory to me and to some of the other Members of the Committee and that... what we worked out was an 8% hold back and requiring 20% based on merit, as Representative Hudson suggested. Because it was ruled not germane to the Bill we wanted to tack that Amendment onto, I could not pursue the 20% as an Amendment on an appropriation Bill, the 20% merit because it didn't go to the appropriation itself. The Bill, as it stands right now, this Amendment as it stands right now is for an 8% hold back. It's for one year only. I don't know what the great confusion is on it. It asks... It requires the Scholarship Commission to hold 8% back to accomodate late applicants, not for only two private colleges as was indicated, but for all the colleges in Illinois where the students get Illinois State Scholarship funds."
"The question now before the House is, 'Shall the vote by which Amendment #3 to House(sic, Senate)Bill 237 passed be reconsidered?'. That is the Motion. The Lady from Cook, Representative Nelson. Those in favor of the Lady's Motion to reconsider that vote will signify by voting 'aye', those opposed by voting 'nay'. Mr. Clerk. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Representative Cullerton, on this question."
"Mr. Speaker, I'm just.. Some people are a little confused. Is this the Motion to table her..."
"No. The Gentleman withdrew the Motion. This is on a strict Motion to reconsider so that we will go back and discuss and vote once again on this Amendment." 233 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Thank you."
"Have all voted who wish? Take the record, Mr. Clerk. On this question, there are 89 voting 'aye', 67 voting 'nay', and the Lady... Representative Ewell. Yes, Sir. The Lady's Motion prevails. The question now before the House is, 'Shall Amendment #3...' Let's wait till we crank it out. Are we ready, Mr. Clerk? The question now before the House is, 'Shall Amendment #3 to House(sic, Senate)Bill 237 be adopted?'. On that question, Representative Preston."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to try to explain it a little better perhaps than I did last time. Right now, the Illinois State Scholarhips Commission, by July 20, approximately, will have already committed all of its available funds for the coming school year. This Amendment... Under that situation, late applicants will not be... people who decide to go to school after that date will not be eligible for Illinois State Scholarship funds. This Amendment simply says that 8% of the funds will be held back for consider... to make those funds available to later applicants so that people applying after the date where 92% of the funds have already been given out will be kept in a pool and they will be eligible for these funds at a later date. For people... It accomodates a number of students who go to school who are, for financial reasons, unable to early in the year make plans to attend college, people who don't know if they're going to be able to afford to go. We are talking about 8% of the money, not denying funds, but just holding those funds back to be granted later on."
"Is there any discussion? Representative Roland Meyer."
"Will the speaker yield?" 234 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"He indicates he will."
"What happens to those people who file in good faith who need financial aid and are turned down because your holding back 8% for those who are filing late?"
"Representative Preston."
"Thank you. Yes, Representative, those people will not be turned down, Representative. After 92% of the available funds have been given out, the remaining 8% will be held. The people who apply for those funds who will be kept in a pool and that 8% will be later distributed based on need of the applicants. So it's not... No one will be told you are denied until 100% of the available funds have been given out."
"That's right, but those who file in compliance with the law and file on time still may be penalized because someone who filed late is getting the same treatment."
"Representative, we're not talking about changing the law or changing the eligibility under this. The eligibility remains the same. The application procedure in the law remains the same. It's just the money is given out as the applications are processed. Some student, as the applications are received by the Scholarship Commission and processed, some students cannot for a September starting date for school have made their decision whether or not to attend as of July 20th. Some people won't know until August 20th if they can afford to go to school. By that time... and these are generally your poorer students, students from depressed areas, the poor. But in order to give them a chance to show that they have need for the available funds, we're talking about delaying the date that all the funds are given out. We're saying keep 8% back for students who apply after the 92% available funds have been given out. That's all." 235 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"For what length of time will you hold those?"
"December 15."
"By that time, it may be too late for those who filed early to get in the school that they want."
"It has nothing to do with being accepted at the schools you want, Representative. It's talking about getting scholarship funds from ISSC and you're only talking about 8% of those funds."
"To the Bill, Mr. Speaker. I think this is a bad Amendment. I think those people who file in compliance with the law should be rewarded with those scholarships and those who file late, like in any other thing, are just too late. Why should we hold back 8% of these funds to give them to those and award them to those people who file late when those who have filed on time are going to be penalized?"
"Representative Hoffman."
"Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. It would appear to me that you're going to end up with two pools. You're going to end up with a 92% pool and an 8% pool. I would much prefer to be in the 92% pool. It you set up two separate pools on this basis, you're going to have to use two separate criterias because, if you have more people come in in the 8% pool who have greater need, they're going to shove the other people out. Whereas, if you had been in the 92% pool you would have gotten it. And certainly if you had been in the 100% pool regardless of when the cut off time was, you would have gotten more. I'm not sure.... I understand what the Representative's trying to get at. I think we get at it in such a way that a lot of young people who should have access to that are going to be shoved out because of the time frame. And so, with all due respect to the outstanding 236 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 and erudite Sponsor of this Amendment, I would ask you to vote 'no'."
"Representative Hastert."
"Yes, would the Sponsor yield? Sponsor, I'm a little confused here. If maybe you could make some explanations for us. Say, in a hypothetical situation, and you were student 9,999. Would the Gentleman please move in the middle? Can you see me? Okay. 9,999 to apply. Let's say the cut off date was May 1 just arbitrarily. Okay? And that student met all the requirements and he was next in line to receive his scholarship. Okay? Now, the Scholarship Commission, by this Bill, would remove 8% and that would be the cut off date and they would not grant that money to a later time. Now, this student has met all the requirements. He was in the next in line as far as financial requirements, academic requirements and all these things that students have to hurry up and get in and meet deadlines and get everything together to be accepted on this program. Okay. Now, this deadline is moved back and let's say, hypothetically, it's moved back to October 1. Alright, now, this student isn't necessarily 999 in line anymore. He could be 1999 in line. Is that correct? That is correct, right? Okay. Now, another question. Do you know... You say... Is this for just this coming year? Does the Scholarship Commission have money to set aside now for this project?"
"Representative Preston."
"That's my understanding, Representative."
"It was my understanding that the money's spent. There isn't any money to withold now."
"My understanding is that they could comply with this for fiscal year '82."
"I would certainly take, you know, your answer for 237 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 that."
"That's my understanding. I'm not vouching for it. I'm telling you what I've been told."
"And then do you have approximately any percentage or any knowledge? Somebody mentioned a few minutes ago that there were two colleges in Chicago. I believed it was named Columbia and maybe the YMCA that somebody said that they would get the bulk of this money. Do you have any percentages about..."
"I don't have percentages, Representative. They would be two of the schools that would... are two of the schools that need these funds. There are other schools that also need that situation or students who attend other schools also need it, but, basically, it's ... because this is a service to the poor student, the student without other avenues of financial assistance, generally, that is a description of many of the students who go to Columbia or YMCA. Poor students also go to many other colleges as well, but those are two of the schools that would benefit from this."
"Representative, I thank you for your patience and your answers on this and I already made my comment earlier so I'll be quiet."
"Two more speakers. Representative McGrew and then Katz. Representative McGrew."
"Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. As is very evident from this conversation that's going on here, this Bill certainly is not clear. When it came before the Committee, I did vote 'present' and, frankly, I gave it the benefit of the doubt at that time. Let me tell you the Bill was originally introduced by the Illinois Community College Board. After we got done in Committee and after I asked them the line of 238 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 questioning that I did, frankly, the Illinois Community College hung their head and said, 'We really don't care if it passes'. What we're really doing has been well defined. We're setting up two separate pools. We've got somebody because they're rich. We've got somebody because they're poor. We've got somebody because they're a good academic and now we're to have it on when they apply. If we're going to do it, why don't we say that we're going to add 1/10 ten times a year and so that we'll have ten separate pools? Why just two? It's a bad Bill. I ask for a 'no' vote."
"Representative Katz. No. Representative Tuerk. Representative Watson."
"Move the previous question."
"Question is, 'Shall the previous question be put?'. Those in favor will signify by saying 'aye', those opposed. In the opinion of the Chair, the 'ayes' have it. Representative Preston, to close."
"Thank you, again, Mr. Speaker. Basically, this question is simply summed up. If you want to help poor students, students who cannot decide in advance because they don't have the money or the luxury of deciding in advance if they can attend to go to college, then vote for this Amendment. If you don't, then don't vote for this Amendment. I guarantee you this Amendment does not effect personally anybody in this room. When your children want to go to college, you'll know six months or a year or maybe four of five years in advance so that you can budget for that luxury of sending your children to college. But there are constituents of mine and there may be constituents of yours and certainly there are people out there in Illinois who cannot afford the luxury of determining months in advance whether or not they can come up with the money to 239 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 get a college education. They don't know maybe until a week before or a month before school actually starts. This makes it possible for those students who can't earn the money or afford to feed themselves get additional scholarship assistance from the Illinois State Scholarship Commission. If you vote 'no' on this, if this Amendment does not pass, those students who don't have the luxury of planning out their futures months or years in advance will be foreclosed from a college education. I urge your 'aye' vote if you care about poor people."
"The question is, 'Shall Amendment #3 to Senate Bill 237 pass?'. Those in favor will signify by voting 'aye', those opposed by voting 'nay'. To explain his vote, Representative Tuerk."
"Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, we debated this Amendment about ten times longer than we'll debate the Bill that appropriates about two billion dollars for the school aid formula. I think it's senseless and we're never going to finish our work if we go on with this kind of bologna."
"To explain her vote, Representative Braun."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. The whole purpose of this Amendment is to avoid young people being caught in the switches of the change that we made. We went from an entitlement program to a program that's got six dollars. Half the kids in the schools in this state don't know that. We've been sending out notice, some of us, to our constituents trying to warn them if they don't get their applications in on time they may be left out in the cold. But a lot of students don't know that. This is one time appropriation that will cover those students who come in late. And it seems to me totally reasonable to allow an addition for the period that we're making the transition. It's not right to penalize 240 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 the students of the State of Illinois for our decision to change unbeknownst to them. That's all that this Amendment does. It only gives for an interim basis for a transitional period to allow those students who come in last into the sy... (cut off)."
"Representative Henry, for one minute."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I appreciate that fact that Representative Preston had the nerve and the foresight to present such an Amendment because it certainly strikes the areas in the inner-city that youngsters do not want to become a member of public aid, youngsters that do not have parent at home, youngsters that may have a woman or a female head of the household that cannot plan in the future. Ladies and Gentlemen, I urge you this will help reduce the crime. This will help reduce the welfare rolls. We want to try to change this cycle of living to educational living and this will help, but we need your green votes on the board."
"Representative Ewell, to explain his vote for one minute. No. Further discussion? Representative Stuffle, to explain... No. Take the record, Mr. Clerk. On this question there are 74 voting 'aye', 89 voting 'nay'. Amendment #3 is lost. For purposes of an announcement, very important announcement. Please be in your chairs. It's a very important announcement. Let no one disturb, speak, move about irreverently. Representative Getty. Hold your breath."
"I want to let the Democrats know that Representative Madigan's Office now has chicken in it and anyone who would like to have chicken can do so on this side of the aisle anyway. And Mark O'Brien..."
"Proceed, Sir."
"Mark O'Brien has already tested it and it's deemed 241 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 edible."
"Representative Braun, on the question of the chicken."
"No, Mr. Speaker, not chicken, but ham and egg. The Conference of Woman Legislators will have the Ham and Egg Talent Contest on June 28 which is Sunday evening at the State House Inn. Virginia Frederick, Diana Nelson, Barb Currie and most of the women here in the House have tickets for you. We will have a chicken dinner and a Ham and Egg Talent Contest with many of your colleagues performing and making a spectacle of themselves in the process. We would appreciate your support and your attendance. It's going to be a good time for everybody Sunday evening."
"Amendment #3 is declared lost. The vote being 74 'aye', 89 'no'. Any further Amendments?"
"No further Amendments."
"Third Reading. Senate Bill 238, Representative Wikoff. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 238, a Bill for an Act making appropriations for the retirement purposes of the higher education institutions and agencies. Second Reading of the Bill. Amendment #1 was adopted in Committee."
"Any Motions with respect to Amendment #1?"
"Motion: 'I move to table Amendment #1 to Senate Bill 238'. Representative Matijevich."
"Representative Matijevich."
"Yes, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, Committee Amendment #1 and Floor Amendment #2 are both technically incorrect and I have a Motion to table Committee Amendment #1 and..."
"The Gentleman moves to table Committee Amendment #1. Those in favor will signify by saying 'aye', those opposed. In the opinion of the Chair, the 'ayes' have it. 242 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Amendment is tabled. Any further Amendments? Any further Motions?"
"Floor... No further Motions. Floor Amendment #2, Matijevich, withdraws..."
"Representative Matijevich."
"I withdraw that. That's also technically incorrect."
"Gentleman withdraws Amendment #2. Any further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #3, Matijevich, amends Senate Bill..."
"Representative Matijevich."
"Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, Amendment #3 to Senate Bill 238 replaces Committee Amendment #1. It seeks to delete funding for the employer contribution to the State Universities Retirement System for the Illinois State Geological Survey, Illinois State Natural History Survey, Illinois State Water Survey. A total reduction of 1,900,100 dollars only because those are duplications and are in the House Bill 586 which is the Department of Natural Resources appropriation Bill. I move for the adoption of Floor Amendment #3 to Senate Bill 238."
"On that question, Representative Wikoff."
"I accept the Amendment. It's proper and appropriate."
"Any further discussion? There being none, the question is, 'Shall Amendment #3 to Senate Bill 238 be adopted?'. Those in favor will signify by saying 'aye', those opposed. In the opinion of the Chair, the 'ayes' have it. The Amendment's adopted. Any further Amendments?"
"No further Amendment."
"Third Reading. Senate Bill 271, Representative Wolf. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk." 243 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Senate..."
"Excuse me, Mr. Clerk. The Democrats are reminded that the chicken is in Representative Madigan's Office and the Republicans can see Representative Robbins. We have two strawberries and a half a banana left. Proceed, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 271, a Bill for an Act making appropriations to the Judicial Advisory Council. Second Reading of the Bill. Amendment #1 was adopted in Committee."
"Any Motions with respect to Amendment #1."
"Motion: 'I move to table Amendment #1 to Senate Bill 271', Representative Darrow."
"Representative Darrow, Amendment #1. A Motion to table Amendment #1."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. To explain Amendment #1, this is the appropriation for the Commissions. It's the omnibus Commission Bill and let me go over just briefly some of these. The Legislative Investigating Commission 890,000 dollars. That's the Commission that Representative Giorgi couldn't track a bleeding elephant through snow. Commission on the Status of Woman 137,000. Legislative Advisory Council to the RTA 25,000 and we won't need that one since we aren't going to have an RTA evidently. Commission on the Uniformity of Legislation 30,000 and you can talk to Representative Leinenweber about what that money's used for. It goes on and on and on. Recreation Council 60,000. Whatever that is. The total amount of money appropriated for these Commissions is 13,174,000 dollars. Now, the same work can be done by Committees. There's no need for these Commissions. If we table this Amendment, we don't have to spend this money. We don't have to roll back the tax break 244 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 on farm machinery because that roll back will only generate 12 million dollars. We don't have to sacrifice that. All we have to do is vote 'aye' on this Motion to table. Thank you."
"On the Motion, Representative Davis."
"Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm in sympathy with a great deal of what Representative Darrow said and I told the Appropriations Committee when we... This is the omnibus Commission Bill that was lost here on the House floor in House Bill 830. It was put back because it always is put back in somewhere, and I told the Committee Members that day that here's the omnibus Commission Bill as an Amendment and those of you who argue against any of the Commissions on this list, and there are 40 of them here, you should go right up and have Amendments drafted to kill whatever Commission you don't like. And if you don't like them, I personally will stand up on this floor and support your Amendments to kill the Commission, one at a time. Now a tabling Motion to table all of the Commission Bills at this point sounds like a very attractive thing to do. You must remember in side of all of these Commissions as they're always carefully and graphically constructed are the Legislative Audit Commission, the Legislative Reference Bureau, the Economic and Fiscal Commission, the Legislative Council which does such a magnificent job, the Legislative ` Information System and five or six or eight of these are nuts and bolts, fine Commissions that do outstanding work in support of the Committee systems and in support of the Members. So, if you don't like the other Commissions that are in this Bill, the suggestion to you, obviously of course... Oh and the Sunset Commission and the Energy Resources. There are... Oh yes. And you are the House officer of the Sunset Committee, Representative Darrow. 245 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 But anyway, you want to kill that one too and that, you know, if you want to kill your own Commission, that's okay. But the truth of the matter is it has been constructed that way. I told the Appropriations Committee Members, 'File the Amendments to kill it'. It's been sitting on Second Reading now for a week. No Amendments have come forward to kill any of these Commissions because they're all sacred cows. I want to kill all your Commissions, but don't kill mine. I don't sit on any Commission so I don't care. I'll kill all of them except the ones that I view as having a statutory effect that is positive on the legislative process. So, I'm speaking against the Motion to table. If you don't like it, it'll probably wind up in a Conference Committee. Go to the conferees and tell them which one you want to kill."
"Representative Matijevich."
"Yes, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, the former Representative and now Appellate Court Justice, Toby Barry and I many years ago filed a first Bill to eliminate Commissions. We quickly found out that we couldn't go anywhere. I've, since long ago, realized that Commissions will always be with us. There are some valuable purposes for some of the Commissions and all of us know that they are going to be tacked on somewhere and they can be tacked on somewhere even if we need 107 votes. So, we might as well quit playing the games. We don't want to be here July 1, 2, and 3 and one year Commissions held us that long. So I would urge the Membership to defeat this Amendment."
"Representative Wolf."
"Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, I would echo the words of the distinguished Minority Spokesman on the Appropriations Committee. You know, each and everyone of 246 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 these Commissions that are put on by an Amendment have statutory authority. Now, it has been pointed out, if you don't think these Commissions are worthwhile or if you have one in particular that you don't think is serving a useful purpose, then we ought to repeal the statute that grants authority for that Commission to operate. And until then I think they ought to be funded if that is legislative intent. Now, if it is legislative intent not to, if some of you feel that a particular Commission isn't spending the money wisely that you think the amount should be reduced, then Second Reading was the time for you to introduce your Amendment to cut their appropriation half or whatever you wanted to do with it. And if you want to eliminate them altogether, put an Amendment to eliminate the statutory authority that creates these particular Commissions. But to attack it in one fell swoop in this manner I think is a mistake and I would oppose the Gentleman's Motion."
"Any further discussion? Representative Ewell."
"Mr. Speaker, I heard the Gentlemen from many sides of the aisle talk about selling an armory because we want to save the state or make a few million dollars. Talk about fiscal responsibility and I happen to agree with them. But I happen to agree with Representative Darrow. If Commissons are invaluable, they will find their way back in Conference Committee. But there has been no ability by the Members of this Body to scrutinize these Commissions and I feel at this juncture that even the Appropriations Committees, because they too are boggled down with special interest, special consideration and whose person is whose person. Now, I suggest to you that Representative Darrow has taken a clean scaffle. He has said that this Bill was not intended to be the Commission Bill. This Amendment was not intended to be the Commission Amendment and he's saying 247 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 that we ought to slice them all off. There will be those that will survive. I assure you that government will go on. But why can't we for once do the will of the people. We're talking about 13 million dollars. We might actually end up saving about 10. We ought to kill this particular Commission and make it just a little harder to put all of these Commissions in. I'm with Representative Darrow 100%. He has integrity and he is talking about the nuts and bolts of the society because, to put an Amendment in for 13 million dollars for so many Commissions we can't even count them, is utterly ludicrous. And I'm going to vote with him and vote 'aye'."
"Representative McAuliffe."
"Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question."
"Question is, 'Shall the previous question be put?'. Those in favor will signify by saying 'aye', those opposed. In the opinion of the Chair, the 'ayes' have it. Representative Darrow, to close."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Representative Ewell was completely correct in what he said. There was a time in this General Assembly when we made individual appropriations to these Commissions. We could vote them up and down one at a time. But we soon learned that if we did that some of our pet projects would not be funded. Therefore, we have the omnibus Commission Bill. We lump them all together and then we're asked to vote for 13 million dollars. 13 million dollars and when you downstaters go to your Farm Bureaus and you say I voted to roll back the tax, I voted to make it more expensive for the Illinois farm implement dealers to sell their implements they're going to say why didn't you cut something else? Why didn't you cut something else so that we wouldn't have to suffer? Well, Ladies and Gentlemen, 248 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 here's your opportunity. Here's a quit pro quo. Here's where you're going to get that money so you don't have to roll back that tax. I would ask for a favorable vote. Thank you."
"The question is, 'Shall the Motion to table Amendment #1 be adopted?'. Those in favor will signify by saying 'aye', those opposed by saying 'no'. In the opinion of the Chair, the 'nos' have it. Are you joined by four Members? The question is... The question is, 'Shall the Motion to table be adopted?'. Those in favor will signify by voting 'aye', those opposed by voting 'nay'. Voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Representative Pullen, to explain her vote. I'm sorry."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That's been on since the very beginning of this procedure here, but I appreciate your recognizing me to explain my vote. The Gentleman is absolutely correct. This is 13 million dollars all lumped together when it should have been in pieces and most of it can well be done without. Those Commissions that are absolutely essential like the Legislative Reference Bureau and the Council can indeed come back and I appreciate the Gentleman from Will reminding us that we have killed this once already and I think the House should continue to kill it until it is whittled down to the absolute essentials. We are being faced... we are being asked to roll back tax relief and we going to be asked to increase taxes. We're going to go along business as usual and even higher and inflated prices for our Commissions. I think that the Gentleman is absolutely correct in moving to table this Amendment...(cut off)."
"Further discussion? Representative Yourell."
"I wanted to ask the Sponsor of the Amendment a. 249 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 question. Is the Executive Committee in this Amendment?"
"Representative?"
"If you want my 'yes' vote, put it in there and I'll be happy to vote 'aye'."
"Representative Schraeder."
"Mr. Speaker, I just want to address the subject very briefly. We've gone through this every year with an omnibus Bill approach and I remember very clearly Representative Lechowicz last year got up on the floor at the dying minutes of the Session and said under no conditions will we allow this to happen again. And here it is and I think the Appropriation Committee has done over the years a good job, but they continually fail on this issue. They don't address the issue of omnibus legislation and I think if they've ever done anything wrong, this is it and they ought to start addressing what we've talked about for all these many years. This ought to have a green vote."
"Have all voted who wish? Take the record, Mr. Clerk. On this question there are 71 voting 'aye', 82 voting 'no', 3 voting 'present'. The Motion fails. Any further Amendments?"
"No further Motions. Floor Amendment #2, Stearney, amends Senate Bill 271 as amended."
"Which Amendment? Amendment #2, Representative Stearney."
"Mr. Speaker, I'm told that this Amendment is out of order so I wish to withdraw it."
"Gentleman withdraws Amendment #2. Any further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #3, Stearney, amends Senate Bill 271 as amended."
"Representative Stearney, Amendment #3." 250 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, as suggested by the previous speakers, I am now taking a specific approach to abolishing one particular Commission and that is the Criminal Sentencing Commission. Amendment #2 would have deleted the appropriation; however, that was ruled out of order. So I've got to proceed with the other Amendment and then go on, subsequently, to the appropriation. This Amendment here now would place the principal office of the Criminal Sentencing Commission on the Island of Angelos Toehead in the Mississippi River in Cairo, Illinois. Now, and I... before I explain what I'm doing, I do want to say that I am one of the few Legislators, if not the sole Legislator, to ever have the honor of abolishing a Commission. We did that some years ago with the Prosecutors Advisory Council. It took me two terms to do so but we did finally put it to an act of extinction. Now, let me say this here about the Criminal Sentencing Commission and I wish to read you what its authorizing legislation says. It is to develop standardize sentencing guidelines designed to provide for greater uniformity in the imposition of criminal sentences. Now, I say to you. Is there anybody on this floor that has ever received a report from the Criminal Sentencing Commission as to any specific crime as to what the sentence should be? No. Not one has. Has this Commission ever met in the last year? I think not. Furthermore and I say this is the greatest reason for putting it on the Island of Angelos Toehead, is that if it did issue a report, would any of you even care what it said? No. You're going to do what you think is best and that is place legislation into the hopper that you think will solve all the ills of our society. So now we have a Commission that no one cares what they do and, if they did do something, you'd disregard it anyway. So let 251 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 me say this here. I am now going to attempt for the second time in the history of the State of Illinois to abolish a Commission and, as I said several years ago, it's impossible.. it's almost impossible. It's like defying the laws of nature to abolish a bureaucracy. It is if you were going to say, 'Newton, no, the apple does not come down, fall down from the tree, but it rises up'. And to 'Capernicus' who said that the planets revolve around the sun, 'No', we're going to say the sun revolves around the planets. But we've done it once before. We place it on the Island of Angelos Toehead, the Prosecutors Advisory Council because we were assured by the Gentleman from Benton, who did sit here several Sessions ago, that the Island of Angelos Toehead is flooded annually by the Mississippi River. So, if we cannot take away an appropriation, at least the waves of the Mississippi River, the waters of the Mississippi River will wash them dead away. We will rid ourselves of this Commission. However, I do want to say though, rather apologetically, that we did check with Jay Reed Abercromby who is the County Clerk down in Cairo, Illinois and he told me to my dismay that this is the first year in a great number of years that the Island was not flooded. And I'm really sorry, but he assures me though that next year he thinks there will be a great torrential rain and the water will come down flowing as it usually does and wash that bureaucracy away. So I say to you, if you with to abolish a Commission that has no basis in fact or reason or logic for existing, this is the Amendment you should support. Save the state 137,000 dollars that is wasted. As a matter of fact, the rent of this Commission in a building in the Chicago Loop is 1351 dollars a month. We have two individuals on the payroll earning 2000 dollars a month. Now, I don't mind that. 252 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 That doesn't bother me, but at least do something. Justify your being in existence. At least come forward once in awhile and say, 'Well, gee, that Amendment, that Bill is too onerous, to draconian', or, on the other hand, say the punishment is not great enough. But at least express yourself on 300 Bills that we having coming into the Legislature on this question, at least imposing criminal sentences. If you don't do that, there's no reason for your existence. So I ask you to support me in this endeavor. Defy the laws of nature. Abolish a bureaucracy for the second time in the history of the State of Illinois. If there are any questions from anybody who represents that Commission, I shall be glad to answer them."
"Representative McCormick."
"Mr. Speaker, you know, down in southern Illinois we never had anything in the world that rented for that much money and we don't have very many people down there that make that much money. And I want you to know that I think you ought to support this Amendment because we'd be tickled to death to have it down on that Island. And I'll guarantee you one thing, we'll clean it out every once in a while, and we need anything that we can get down there. I don't know how Representative Winchester feels about it, but, shucks, those jobs like you've got. I've got a brother or two that would like to have a job and I'm sure there's some of the kin folks like the uncles and the aunts. Haven't you got somebody that could be a steno, Robert? You know, it would be a shame to let this money get away, and since everything's so high up north, we'll take it. Thank you."
"Representative Winchester."
"Would the Gentleman yield?" 253 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"He indicates he will."
"Where is this 'Toehead' that you're referring to now? What location?"
"I was told by the Gentleman from Benton who has sat down there for a number of years who his now retired that that island is off Cairo."
"Cairo. Okay. We have no place known as Cairo in our area of the state."
"I got it right the second time."
"Can you tell Representative McCormick how many jobs that this Council... how many jobs that this Council has?"
"There is 137,000 dollars. It just depends how you want to cut it up."
"We'll accept it, Mr. Speaker."
"The chicken is ready in the Speaker's Office. Representative Friedrich."
"Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say we have a down south saying. If you say Cairo, you've never been to Cairo, and I just wondered if Mr. Stearney had ever been to Cairo or Vienna, either one. It's not Vienna either."
"Representative Pullen."
"Mr. Speaker, I wanted to assure the Gentleman that the Judiciary III Committee never heard from this Commission either, and I'm pleased to support his Amendment."
"Representative Yourell."
"Move the previous question."
"Before that, Representative Getty."
"Mr. Speaker, referring to the Constitution of the State of Illinois which expressly prohibits substantive language in an appropriation Bill. Further referring to rule 27 of the House, I would question whether this Amendment is in order."
"That question, Representative Stearney." 254 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"It was in order four years ago."
"Can't quite find rule 27. It seems to me you're right, Representative Getty."
"Mr. Speaker, now, let's not jest. I'm serious in this endeavor and you know it's germane. It's relevant and it's appropriate."
"Representative Getty, before the ruling, I am informed that in terms of the location of offices we have, in past appropriations as with a previous Commission referred to by Representative Stearney, and I'm throwing this in for consideration here, and in regard to the offices of the Department of Labor at 910, I believe, it was South Michigan that that language in regard to the location of the office where it was deemed to be proper. Now, that's just called to my attention now. If you have a response to that, I... Representative Getty."
"First of all, let me cite the appropriate Section. It's rule 27 F which says appropriation Bills and Amendments thereto shall be limited to the subject of appropriations, etcetera. Further, the Constitution of the State of Illinois which some of us pay attention to says in Section 8 D, appropriation Bills shall be limited to the subject of appropriations. I would grant you that, if there were an existing substantive Act that provided for a headquarters at the situs of 'Angelo Toehead' that, indeed, to appropriate to that situs...would be in order. The effect of this language; however, if it were put on an appropriation Bill, would be to do substantive Acts that an appropriation Bill may not do because it would attempt to direct that the principle office would be located on 'Angelo Toehead'. For that reason, it is indeed substantive, and; therefore, clearly out of order and not according to the Constitution or the rules of this House." 255 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Representative Matijevich, on this question. Representative Stearney."
"Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, the late Peter C. Granada who sat here for 35 years and was the Dean of the House told me and I imagine he's seen it many times in the past. He said with 89 votes, you can pass any Bill you wish and with 107 you could suspend the Constitution of the State of Illinois. Now, if that means....If that be necessary, we would move to suspend the appropriate rule, Mr. Speaker."
"Wherever the Parliamentarian is, the Chair would like his assistance, and, in the meantime, Representative Ewell."
"Mr. Speaker, I know what's good for the goose is sort of good for the gander here. So, I wonder if we might not ask the same question of Committee Amendment #1 while the Parliamentarian's reviewing it, because I know somewhere in all of those 150 odd Commissions or more we've got to have some language that's going to make that a bad Amendment. I think two of us can play that particular game. I think Representative Stearney's entitled to his vote on this issue right, wrong or indifferent. Now, remember you can't have it both ways. You can't sit up and rule him out of order and if the same thing applies to Committee Amendment #1 maybe we've done a better thing. So I would ask the same question of the Parliamentarian as to Committee Amendment #1 as to whether it's germane. I want to thank Mr. Getty for his assistance, prompt and aid in citing the correct Sections of the Constitution and the rules and also Mr. Dave Epstein of whom I'm very fond."
"Representative Matijevich."
"Yes, I was, because somebody moved the previous question, I wasn't going to say anything. But as long as 256 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 you're waiting for the Parliamentarian, would the Gentleman yield, Representative Stearney?"
"He indicates he will."
"Representative Stearney, in the past I've always observed that you are very innovative. I wonder if you could amend this on the face because you weren't successful four years ago. Amend it on its face and allow for travel funds for you and the Commission all to visit that island that you have indicated that you want to have them be on, and be a survival test with no food supply and see who comes out of the island. I know, as far as the mosquitoes, you'll win because with all of the cigar smoke, they won't stand it and you will, and, possibly, you'll win out. Why don't you amend it to that extent?"
"Mr. Matijevich, I don't believe there's any necessity for me going down there at this time. However, I will in the Fall because Representative Winchester will probably invite me to go down there goose hunting, and, at that time, I'll be glad to make a close inspection of that island."
"Representative Getty."
"In further assisting you, Mr. Speaker and the Parliamentarian, I would cite to you the case of Benjamin versus Devon Bank of 68 Illinois second 142 which holds that the General Assembly may restrict and qualify the use to which funds appropriated may be put, but restrictions or qualifications that are themselves substantive law such as restrictions that change existing Statutes respecting permissible locations for some offices of the Department of Labor must be passed separately from the appropriation Bill."
"Representative Stearney."
"What year is that case?" 257 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Citation is... the opinion itself was filed October 5 of 1977, Sir."
"Is that by the Supreme Court or an Appellate Court?"
"It's the Illinois Supreme Court, Sir."
"Have you shepardized that decision as of yet? Mr. Speaker..."
"The answer to that is yes, Sir."
"... that's probably been overruled by now."
"No, that has been shepardized and it is current right up to the minute, Sir."
"I haven't had a chance to read it, so I'm not entirely certain as to the meaning and the effect of that decision."
"The Parliamentarian indicates to me that he has shepardized and he's read it and shepardized it and it is good law, up to date, right on the mark. Representative Stearney."
"If that be the case, Mr. Speaker, I imagine that you're agreeing then with Mr. Getty."
"It would be simpler, Representative Stearney, ... it wouldn't be simpler, but you have the option in terms of what appears to be the law to withdraw the Amendment or have the Chair make a ruling."
"If that be the case, I will withdraw this Amendment because the following Amendment is to wipe out the appropriation."
"Amendment #3 is withdrawn. Any further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #4, Stearney, amends Senate Bill 279(sic, 271) as amended."
"Representative Stearney."
"Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, this Amendment is to wipe out the entire appropriation of 137,490 dollars. Now, if you were to read the stated 258 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 purpose of this Commission, it sets six reasons for their sole reasons for being in existence. Namely, to monitor the fiscal impact and effect upon prison population cause by the use of determinate sentences. Two, to determine the overall desirability and feasibility of determinate sentencing and reclassification of felonies. Three, to review the Criminal Code and Code of Corrections and make recommendations on the best methods available for sentencing. Four, to ascertain the number and percentage of commitments to the Department of Corrections. Five, to develop standardized sentencing guidelines designed to provide for greater uniformity in the imposition of criminal sentences. And six, to make such other recommendations that the Commission deems necessary to promote certainty and fairness in the sentencing process. And I say to each and everyone of you, have you ever heard from this Commission in the year that it has been in existence? No. They have said nothing, and furthermore, as I said earlier, if they did say anything, you wouldn't consider it anyway because you would continue to introduce the legislation you thought best. Now, what we've had; we've had death penalty Bills come in. We've had murder of fetus Bills come in and pass this General Assembly. We've passed Bills to make it mandatory incarceration for commission of burglaries for gun related crimes. Things of this nature. No one really cares about this Criminal Sentencing Commission and I say to you now, in all seriousness, if this Commission is not to do anything, then it has no purpose for its being in existence. I say it should be wiped out. If in one years time they haven't said one word on the subject, then they haven't done anything. I say this in all seriousness now. I've become rather frustrated not seeing this Commission at least 259 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 attempt to effectuate its purpose in life and that is to make some determination, make some rulings on whether we should have different classifications of criminal offenses and whether we should at least elevate or reduce the penitentiary sentences. They have not done that. And I'm saying to you now, I ask you to join me in this endeavor. Wipe out this Commission. Now, I don't really think it will be forever wiped out. We may wipe it out for one or two days, but it will come back in the omnibus Bill sometime in the future, the next few days. But at least you will put them on warning that they should at least attempt to justify their existence in life for that 137,00 dollars they are getting, for the 2000 dollars a month for each of these people on the payroll. Let them do something. Let them come forward. Let them at least be heard. As of now, they haven't. At least give them a word of warning. Vote 'yes' on this Amendment and let it carry. Perhaps it will come back in the waning days of the General Assembly. They will be put on notice. There is no reason for them being in existence. I ask you to vote 'aye' on this particular measure. Thank you."
"Representative Johnson."
"Representative Stearney, how many... what's the dollar amount of the appropriation of this Commission?"
"137,490 dollars."
"That's increased hasn't it, substantially, since the Commission was formed?"
"I believe so. Staff man tells me..."
"How long has it even been in force?"
"I think several years."
"Has there ever been a single Bill that's come out in the Legislature that's been a result of that Commission?"
"Not to my knowledge." 260 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Isn't it true that if we took that 137,000 dollars an appropriated it to police officers or various other law enforcement officials that most people who understand criminal justice think the money could be better used in that area? Is that right?"
"I think it would be put to better use somewhere."
"Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, if there's ever a Commission that deserved to die with 177 votes, this is it. Some of you have... know of any ... have people that are on the Commission that you want to preserve a job and I don't think there are any, then I suppose you should vote to continue it. But there is absolutely no rational reason why anybody would want to continue this Commission in force. We have had a hodgepodge and some are good laws and some are bad and some good and some bad Bills introduced making everything aggravated battery, some things non-verbationable, applying the death penalty here and the death penalty there, but none of them have any coordination at all; and the supposed function of the Criminal Justice ... or the Criminal Sentencing Commission is to make a rational classification of crimes. We don't have that. This is the most anti-law enforcement Commission we could ever have. We're taking 138,000 dollars of the taxpayers money and throwing it down a rat hole. We could take the same amount of money and appropriate it for police officers to do their job, to pay them adequately, to fund rape crisis centers, to be able to fund the general area of law enforcement so we do something about crime rather than creating a Commission and tell the people we're doing something about crime. This is an absolute, total boondoggle. It's a waste of money. It's never had a single Bill or a sinlge law come out of it and I urge everyone to join with Representative Stearney in crushing 261 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 this ridiculous Commission."
"Representative Getty."
"Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, I enjoyed the eloquent presentation by Representative Stearney concerning 'Angelos Toehead' that, together with the proposal to cut all of the funding for the Criminal Sentencing Commission, was based upon statements that no report had been filed, that no Bills or suggestions from the Commission had gone on and that no guidelines for sentencing had been promulgated. Those are not the facts. You have not been told the truth. As a matter of fact, there have been, although late, annual reports by the Criminal Sentencing Commission, but they have been filed annually. I know that my colleagues here in the House are very studious in reading all of those reports, so I'm sure none of you would say that they hadn't read it, but I have. I happen to be on the Commission and I happen to know that the Commission has met in the last year. The Commission has met at least five times in the past year. Just about the number of times that Representative Stearney's Committee has met. As a matter of fact, the Commission has, over the course of the last three years and sometimes over my objection and my negative vote, endorsed legislation which Representative Stearney would disagree with because it was too harsh with criminals. Now we get down to the nitty-gritty, right? Okay. Representative Stearney has some disagreements with the philosophy of some of the Members of the Criminal Sentencing Commission."
"Order in the court."
"So be it. We're all entitled to our disagreements in philosophy, but should we crush an organ of government that is, in fact, trying to do its job? It is now working with the administrative office of the Illinois courts to put 262 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 together, on a statewide basis, the first comprehensive fix on the cases as they come out of each county so we know how many cases are going to the penitentiary, how many cases are going on probation, how many cases are having alternative sentencing, how many cases are being dismissed. That information is not available and only through the coordinated efforts of this Commission will it ever become available. Right now, we have developed a statistical form that is going to be utilized by judges throughout the state. We have gotten the cooperation of the Judiciary so that we will know facts about who's being sentenced where, so that we will be able to develop data that will show, in fact, who's going to the penitentiary, who's being place on probation, whether or not violent people are being placed on probation and whether or not non-violent people are being put into the penitentiary, whether mistakes are being made on a comprehensive statewide basis, whether we have a uniform system of sentencing procedures. That's being done. Now, I don't expect each and everyone of you to watch and see what the Commission does. I know you're all too busy. I know I attend the meetings of the Commission whenever I possibly can. I have to confess to you I missed the last meeting because I was here on the House floor, unfortunately, and in my position, I couldn't leave when they met within the last month right here in this building. But I'm sure the Republican Members attended. I'm sure my other colleagues attended. I know the Senate did because they were out of Session at the time rather than working all night. But I want to tell each and everyone of you that while I don't agree with everything that the Commission has done or its Chairman, Senator Eagan, has done, I do say it is a worthwhile Commission and the frustration of one Member or even several Members 263 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 concerning the position of the Commission on certain Bills, which is a tough law and order type of position, should not be cause to disrupt a Commission which is indeed performing a very valuable service to this state in developing meaningful sentencing guidelines and in developing a knowledge of just who is being sentenced to what, how, where, how long and why. I would ask you to defeat this Amendment."
"Representative Stearney on a point of order and to reply."
"Well, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, rather sophomoric arguments have been advanced by Mr. Getty. He attempts to throw sand in your eyes, confuse you, delude you as to what the real issue is. First of all, he attacks me personally. That in logic is what we call an argumentum ad hominem. Confuse the issue.."
"Excuse me, Sir. Representative Stearney?"
"Put by character in issue and do not talk about the facts. But whether I disagree or I look at one piece of legislation in one fashion or another, is rarely...really. irrelevant. The question is, 'What has the Commission done?'. That is the real issue. And I say to you there has been no evidence submitted to you to justify what they have done in the past three years except merely a self-serving remark as to a promise. Something on a wing and a prayer as to what may come in the future as to what they may do. But they've had three years and not once in the three years have you seen, anyone of you, and I challenge anyone to step forward and say they've seen a report issued by this sentencing Commission. Never once has it come across anybody's desk. No one has seen it. They have advanced no arguments for or against any legislation. It is merely a promise. For three years they 264 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 promised at $137,000a year. That is approximately $460,000 in promises we have got. No, the issue is what have they done, not is as to what my view may be as to what they have done, but have they, in fact done anything. And I say to you now, you have an opportunity, one of the rare moments in the history of the General Assembly, to do something significant and that is abolish a Commission who's time has run out. Vote 'aye' on this measure."
"Representative Ewell."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think we could look at this from slightly a different point of view. I understand that the Committee tabulates all these sentences and watches people when they come in and out of jail, but I think you could get my secretary to send a letter to the six jails and ask how many people came in, how long they were there for and what they were going to be there for and what they're going to do. I mean, it's not that complex. At least not for $137,000. Now, $137 (sic, $137,000) taken from another approach when we consider that the average family on welfare receives $280 a month is a five percent increase for a whole year for 816 families. Now, you've got to get your priorities together. I think to ask the question we have to ask is whose Commission is it? Because that's the bottom line. When you find out whose Commission it is, his friends are all going to vote for him and the other people will be whistling in the wind. Now I'd like to know whose Commission it is. Well, they've already told us that. It's a Senate Commission. Senate Commissions have a tendency to live long after and before House Commissions because they are more respected and above all, they're more protected. Now, I want to say that as a matter of philosophy, Stearney is absolutely right. He has put his fingers on the crux of what the society is all 265 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 about. It is totally a question of priorities. If we cannot goad the hog that belongs to another, how can we goad any hogs? This Commission is a hog that belongs to one of our Members. It, too, must be goaded and Stearney is right again when he asks you where are these reports because all you're going to find out is in the proverbial language of the bureaucracy, 'They're at the printers', or '...on the press'. And we all understand that term very well. Ladies and Gentlemen, if you take this Amendment on balance and if you strike but a single principle, for once or twice in your life, if you stand up you'll find out it becomes a little easier each time. This is a good Amendment. If you look at it on its face it would have 176 'ayes', with the exception of a few. I would ask that all the Members of this House for once stand up for the principles conserving the money of the taxpayers, goad the hog that is feeding on the slush and the slop and let's put this Commission out of business for number one and then let's proceed to number two. Thank you."
"Representative Bower."
"Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I happen to be a Member of the Criminal Sentencing Commission. The..Well, you may be surprised at what I say. You can vote however you want to on this Amendment. It's entirely up to you. I have nobody on the pay roll. I have nothing that I'm gain or lose whether the Commission continues or not. But I think that you should bear in mind that what Representative Getty says is absolutely correct and what Representative Stearney says is only partially correct. The Commission has met. It has met with regularity. It did meet within the past month and I, too, was on the floor of the House while it was meeting because we were in Session. It has issued reports and like so many 266 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 of the Commissions of this General Assembly, for better or for worse, many of his projects are not ones that you're going to see results from overnight. The statistical information that the Commission is attempting to..."
"Excuse me. Excuse me, Sir. Representative Stearney, for what purpose do you arise?"
"Point of order. I thought I had closed and therefore you would go to a Roll Call and we could have explanation of votes. But if this be the case, then I'm entitled to again close. So I think you should take the Roll Call and let people explain their vote and put the timer on..."
"Let's...Let's..Representative Yourell."
"Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. We've been on this issue would you believe 72 minutes?"
"I believe it."
"Representative Stearney has spoken eight times on these two Amendments. Everybody that's spoken has been an attorney. Now is it proper at this time to move the previous question, as I did on the previous Amendment? Now, either we're going to get going or we're not."
"Representative Yourell, it would be proper to have someone move the previous question, but having spoken, it would be improper for the Chair to take that Motion from you..."
"All right. Let somebody else do it. I just wanted to make a comment. Seventy-two minutes on these two stupid Amendments is plenty."
"Thank you, Sir. Representative Bower to conclude and then we will call on Representative Stuffle."
"Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't think you called the previous question in the middle of comments and I'm certain the Representative will want a..that Representative Stearney will want to properly chastise me after I get done 267 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 anyway. As I was saying though, the Commission is performing valuable work and I think that Representative Stearney takes a just a little too much credit for abolishing the Commission. Yes, the old State's Attorneys' Appellate Service Commission no longer exists. He happened to do a great disservice to most of the small counties of this state because that Commission, although it had problems, certainly performed very valuable services for the small counties of this state in terms of the Appellate case load. But now that former Commission which he abolished is back, bigger and better than ever in the form of the Appellate Service Commission. All I ask is to weigh what Representative Getty has said about what the Commission has and is doing, realize the facts that Representative Stearney has put toward you are not altogether factual. Thank you."
"Representative Stuffle."
"I move the previous question."
"The question is, 'Shall the previous question be put?'. Those in favor signify by saying 'aye', those opposed? In the opinion of the Chair the 'ayes' have it. Representative Stearney to close, briefly, Sir. Please."
"Well, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, to you, Bus, I say, I may introduce five Amendments during the course of a Session and you introduce fifty. I have never complained about that. As to you, Mr. Bower, it was not the Prosecutor Appellate Service, it was the Prosecutors' Advisory Council and again, you're right. It's like 'Vladimar Illyvich Lenin' said in his monograph, 'One step forward, two steps back'. But unless we take the one step forward these Commissions will grow by leaps and bounds and get even bigger too quick. I ask a favorable Roll Call on this vote...matter. Thank you." 268 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"The question is, 'Shall Amendment #4 to Senate Bill 271 pass?'. Those in favor will signify by voting 'aye', those opposed by voting 'nay'. Representative Bullock to explain his vote."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In explaining my vote, when the Gentleman closed and he wants to quote 'Vladimir Lenin', the only appropriate response to that communist remark is a 'red' vote."
"Representative Kulas to explain his vote."
"Yes, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I could support this Amendment if Representative Stearney would be amenable to amend it on its face to say that any Member of this General Assembly who introduces three or more Amendments in one year shall be sentenced to the electric chair."
"Do you wish to vote, Sir? Representative Ewing to explain his vote. Representative Yourell, there are still a lot of people that want to talk. Representative Yourell. Representative Ewing to explain his vote. Representative Piel to explain his vote."
"With five meetings last year that averages out to $27,400 .....$27,480 a meeting, so I think a 'yes' vote would be a very good on this."
"Have all voted who wish? Representative Ronan to explain his vote."
"In explaining my 'no' vote, I just want to clarify one thing. I don't have one job on this Commission and I think it's important that we vote against this cause I'm going to be here a long time and maybe someday I might get appointed to this Commission and I want to make sure there's a big budget there so if I do get on there, there might be a job for me. So I vote 'no'."
"Further discussion? There being none, have all 269 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record, Mr. Clerk. On this question there are 81 voting 'aye'...Mautino, 'no'. 81 voting 'aye', 60 voting...Leverenz, 'no'. 81 voting 'aye', 61 voting 'no', this Amendment is hereby adopted. Any further Amendments?"
"No further Amendment."
"Third Reading. Senate Bill 339? Representative Wolf. Out of the record? Senate Bill 344, Representative Wolf. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 344, a Bill for an Act making certain appropriations for the Capital Development Board, Secretary of State and Southern Illinois University for permanent improvements, grants and related purposes. Second Reading of the Bill. Amendments #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 were adopted in Committee."
"Any Motions with respect to Amendments 1 through 9?"
"No Motions filed."
"Any Amendments from the floor?"
"Amendment #10 was withdrawn. Amendment #11, Winchester, amends Senate Bill 344 as amended and so forth."
"Representative Winchester, Amendment #11. Representative Wolf, what's your pleasure, Sir? Representative Winchester on Amendment #11."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Amendment #11 would add $43,000 for the planning of a new armory located at North Riverside in Chicago. It's a reappropriation. It was deleted from Senate Bill 344 by the Senate. However, such funds are needed to complete the planning procedures for the armory. Construction funds total $100,000 and appropriated in a new 270 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 appropriation Bill, Senate Bill 345, for construction purposes of this armory and I would ask for a favorable vote."
"Any discussion? Representative Matijevich."
"Would the Gentleman yield?"
"He indicates he will."
"Representative Wincher..."
"Winchester, Winchester."
"I remember when...Winchester. What did I say?"
"Wincher."
"Winchester, I'm sorry. Whatever I said, Bob, I remember in the debate on Representative Cissy Stiehl's Bill in regards to the armory in Chicago that there was some mention made of an armory in North Riverside. And I wonder.."
"I don't think so..."
"...If this is tied in somehow and if so, how?"
"Well, I think that conversation was on an armory that's already in existence someplace in the center of the city of Chicago. This is new project for North Riverside. I don't think we're talking about the same situation. This one is for planning, John. It hasn't even been constructed. There is no construction yet. This is for planning. It's a reappropriation."
"Okay. I just wanted to check because as I recall, that conversation in the debate. Representative Pechous has been informing me on this."
"Representative O'Brien."
"Yes, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield for a couple of questions?"
"Yes."
"He indicates he will."
"This Amendment is for a what? An appropriation for 271 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 construction of an armory in North Riverside? Is that what I've heard?"
"Okay. It's for forty-three thousand dollars for the planning of a new armory in North Riverside in Chicago. It's a reappropriation from Fiscal Year '80."
"Has the land been acquired by the State of Illinois at this time or is the land owned by the State of Illinois? Or is this a feasability study that we're paying for?"
"I...it's my understanding that the land has not been acquired yet. We ...we are asking for the planning monies. We're waiting to see if ...if we're going to get federal funds. If we do not receive the federal funds then the planning money will not be spent..."
"Well, was this $43,000 necessary as seed money to match federal grants?"
"No. This is for ...This would be to begin the planning process for the construction of the new armory. The planning has to be done before we can get the federal funding."
"Well, has anybody contacted General Philips and is he aware of this Amendment since he..."
"Phipps?"
"...Since he wasn't aware of the Amendment that was introduced to sell the Chicago Avenue Armory?"
"Well, I've been assured that this is his request."
"Well, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, if I might address the Amendment for a minute. I think that perhaps it's a little bewildering for us to be voting for a $43,000 appropriation for an armory in an area where I'm not so sure that we actually need an armory at this point in time. I'm not so sure that there's any land available out there. I'm not so sure that there is land that we could afford out there in that neighborhood. In addition to that I don't 272 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE : 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 feel and I don't think anybody in this room can feel under the Reagan economics that there is going to be matching funds for the construction of any armories at all for the State of Illinois. I would think that we ought to have some testimony before some Committees and talk with General Philips (sic, Phipps) and find out exactly what is going on. I'd like to make one other point that Representative White...Phipps, okay, fine. That Representative White made earlier and that was a comment made by Representative Stiehl who was pushing the Bill to do away with the Chicago Avenue Armory and on the behalf of the Governor and the General. And quite frankly they indicated that the responsibility and the facilities at Chicago Avenue that were being used by the community groups could be transferred to Randolph. Well, there has already been a deal made to sell the Randolph Street Naval Armory to do away with the S curve by Lake Shore Drive in the city of Chicago. So, until we get some coordinated planning from this Department and from this agency in terms of need, in terms of matching dollars and so forth, I would encourage all Members to oppose this. I think this is poor planning and a last minute haphazard attempt to try and buy a feasability study to put an armory where we don't even know if we need it at present."
"Representative Daniels in the Chair."
"For those of you that are wondering, the phone number is 785-3569. Representative Topinka."
"Yes, Mr. Chairman...Excuse me. Mr. Speaker, North Riverside, of course, is in our District and we do have the land available there. We right now have a National Guard maintenance center there. It's one of the largest in the State of Illinois. And it does overflow and overlap and there's no place for it to overlap and overflow into. An 273 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 armory would be a very good idea. It's a very necessary idea and the land is available and I know the village would be very pleased to have it. So I would encourage a 'yes' vote on this."
"Representative Birkinbine."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move the previous question."
"The Gentleman has moved the previous question. The question is, 'Shall the main question be put?'. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. The previous question is put. Representative Winchester to close."
"Well, for Representative O'Brien, this is a reappropriation. It's not a new appropriation. It was in the Capital Development Board reappropriation Bill. The Senate cut it out. The Senate has, you know, agreed it should be restored now. It is something that's being requested by the military and naval. General Phelps (sic, Phipps) is aware of it. He supports it. I'm surprised since this is, you know, ....I'm accused of always trying to get things for southern Illinois and for once I'm trying to put something in the great city of Chicago. Specifically in North Riverside in Chicago. I could withdraw this Amendment and later on down the road you would regret it. But I'm not going to withdraw it and I might add that there are construction funds in Senate Bill 345 that have already been approved. And I would just simply ask for a favorable vote."
"The Gentleman has moved for the adoption of Amendment #11. All those in favor will signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. All those in favor will signify by voting 'aye', opposed by voting 'no'. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Representative Leverenz, to 274 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 explain his vote. Timer's on, Sir."
"Well, may not be necessary, but you have a Naval Armory probably within a mile from that location. You have the largest complex for maintenance in the State of Illinois at 22nd and 1st. It's ridiculous and that's why the Senate took it out. I think it might be to connected to a sewer. Thank you. Vote red."
"Representative Pechous."
"In explanation of my 'yes' vote, let me assure you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Members....Ladies and Gentlemen of the Illinois House, this has been a matter that has been pursued....Mr. Speaker, bring some order here please. This is a matter that has been pursued..."
"Please come to order..."
"...By those interested in developing a 43 acre site in North Riverside, 10 acres of which have been before the Illinois General Assembly in past years on a planning study. The dollars have never been really available. They've never been expended. There is before the US Congress under the Sponsorship of Congressman Henry Hyde a Bill to cede ten acres of that federal plot to the State of Illinois for the development of an Illinois armory in North Riverside, an armory that will contain a 1...."
"Will you bring your remarks to a close please, Sir?"
"Yes. A military reservation that will bring a one thousand man contingency from the western suburbs. The dollars are reasonable. $43,000 is the reappropriation. I would be voting 'yes' and I'd ask others to vote 'yes'. Thank you."
"Representative Bower."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Obviously Representative Winchester and I could 275 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 care less whether this facility is built from any personal standpoint. It's about 400 miles from his District and 200 miles from mine. If you happen to believe that the Illinois National Guard needs to be improved in this state, this is one of the prime facilities that the ...that General Phipps and the National Guard have identified as needing a new armory in order to reach out and attract members in the suburban area. It's as simple as that. I urge an 'aye' vote."
"Representative Winchester."
"To explain my vote, Mr. Speaker. You know, I thought that I was...Well, I am sponsoring an Amendment here that is approved by the Governor's Office and it is for the city of Chicago but obviously the folks in the city of Chicago don't want it. But I would ask one favor, one favor. Would 25 'no' votes please get off so that I would not be a Member of the century club? I do not want to be a Member of...Please get off, 25."
"Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record. On Amendment #11 there are 34 'aye', 123 'no', 2 voting 'present'. Amendment #11 is lost. Further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #12, J.J.Wolf-Winchester..."
"Representative Winchester, Floor Amendment #12."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now we can all be serious. We've got the fun on that terrible Amendment out of the way. This would reappropriate ..reappropriate three ....thousand dollars for the Legislative Space Needs Commission for its ongoing land acquisition program. Land acquisitioning include the following: St. John's Lutheran Church, one million dollars; At 216 East Monroe, one million five hundred thousand. And I would move 'do adopt' 276 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 on Amendment #12."
"Any discussion? Hearing none, the Gentleman moves to adopt Amendment #12. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. All right. Once more. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. Roll Call. Representative Winchester. All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', opposed by voting 'no'. The voting is open. Representative Winchester to explain his vote. May we please have some order?"
"Well, I, in all seriousness, the last Amendment I suppose could create a lot of fun and excitement on both sides of the aisle. But this is a very serious Amendment for the Legislative Space Needs Commission. It is an Amendment. It's a reappropriation of dollars that's important to creating additional space and buildings that we need around the capital complex and very seriously I would ask for a favorable green vote on this Amendment."
"Representative Friedrich, Dwight Friedrich."
"Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I'm a Member of the Space Needs Commission and for the last several years we have been methodically picking up property around the state complex. Most of the time it has been run down houses which were not habitable and I don't know how much you've paid attention to it, but we are now getting a pretty good block of property around here which is available for parking, future expansion if it's needed of state facilities. It is not done haphazardly. It's done very methodically as Representative Murphy and others can tell you. So I just want to tell you that you'd better think what you're doing here. This is not a waste of state money. And this parking space and additional space is needed."
"Representative Matijevich." 277 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Well, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I don't know if this is an anti-Winchester day or what, but I really think that there is that need. The Space Needs Commission is that agency which must plan in the capital complex. I think it is needed. It is a reappropriation and I would urge the Membership to change from a 'no' to 'aye' on this. It's something that ought to be in the appropriation Bills. You know sometimes I, like all of us, get mad when I read the editorials in the Springfield newspaper that are always downing us, Legislators. And believe me, I've said to myself, 'What the hell would the city of Springfield do without government?'. And I think it's about time that that newspaper realized that, that we have been very supportive of Springfield, mainly because we are supportive of government in trying to provide services to people. But this is a necessity and I would urge the Membership to vote 'aye'."
"Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Representative Birkinbine."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. We've heard from Members of the Space Needs Commission and we've heard that this is a reappropriation as though that somehow makes it worthwhile. We've heard from Dr. Mandeville saying what a terrible state of affairs the State of Illinois is in as far as its financial condition. We've heard the Governor who said that he does not like to be blackmailed tell us that if this or that passes, we're going to have to lose money out of Education because that's the only place to lose it. I suggest to you that this is a place where we can stop spending three and a half million dollars. If we're in such dire financial straits, I suggest that the State of Illinois take a one 278 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 year hiatus on buying property around Springfield, Illinois and simply put that money toward education or something else. We don't have to be blowing money like this. It's a ridiculous idea. I suggest you vote against it."
"Representative Greiman."
"Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I'd like to tell you about some personal experiences in my life. Back in 1964, I wanted to remodel my house and I just didn't have the money to do it. And so I said, I think I'd better do it next year. And I did. I had the money the next year. But I didn't have the money that year. And so I put off doing that that year. And I would suggest that the Space Needs Commission follow my lead and do the same thing and put it off a year. The church will be there. Churches don't skyrocket and zoom in price. It'll be available next year probably, just like the remodeler was available to do my remodeling jobs just a year or so later when I had a little more money. And I recommend that perhaps you ought do that. Thank you."
"Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record. On Amendment #12 there are 87 'ayes', 69 'no', 1 'present'. And the Amendment is adopted. Further Amendments?"
"No further Amendments."
"Third Reading. Senate Bill 345, Representative Wolf. We're having trouble with the machine again. That's what we're waiting for. Senate Bill 345. Read the Bill."
"Senate Bill 345, a Bill for an Act making appropriations to the Capital Development Board and Southern Illinois University. Third Reading of the Bill. Excuse me. Second Reading of the Bill. Amendments #....This Bill has been read a second time previously. The next Amendment is Amendment #20, Ropp, amends Senate Bill 279 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 345 as amended and so forth."
"Representative Ropp, Amendment #20."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. I think maybe there's been a little horsing around here this evening. And I would like to pass this Amendment. You all know the importance of being properly shoed in order to run so that we can generate sufficient funds in many of the programs that we spend money throughout the State of Illinois and I welcome your support on this small amount of money to replace a very dilapidated building on the state fairgrounds."
"The Gentleman...Please. Give the Gentleman the same courtesy that you would expect from him when you're presenting Amendments. Representative Ewell?"
"Sponsor tell me how big this building is?"
"Representative Ropp."
"Would you repeat that question please?"
"How big is it? About ten feet by twenty or..."
"Twenty by twenty-four."
"Twenty by twenty-four...the size of one nice size room."
"That's correct."
"Twenty thousand dollars?"
"Yes, Sir."
"You've built it once?"
"Yes, Sir."
"You're rebuilt it since that time. In other words there have been other appropriations to repair it over the past 20 years, I think four to be exact."
"That's correct, yes."
"That's correct, too. Now, you want to tear it down and build a new one or do you just want to add something to it?"
"This building is in such severe shape that it's about to 280 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 fall down, honestly. And we're trying to replace the wood sides with concrete blocks so that it would provide more durability over the next 20 years."
"Well, let me speak to the Bill just a little bit to talk to the conscience..."
"To the Amendment, Sir. Proceed."
"...To the Amendment. Here we go again one more little dip into the Agricultural Premium Fund. Now for those of you who don't know what that nasty Agricultural Premium Fund is, it's a fund that's collected on the vice of people who bet on horses. And where are those people? Eighty-six percent of this money comes from Cook County. Would you believe that? The other 14 cent..percent comes from Cahokia, downstate. Now, would you believe where the money goes? Would you believe that the majority of this money goes to the other 101 counties downstate for projects such as this blacksmith's shop which was built once, rebuilt and repaired about four times over the past 20 years? And now, we ask $20,000 more to build one room. For what purpose? So we can shod the horses. Now where are these horses going to run? They're not running for track times so that they're going to run up at Paramutual Betting because we don't believe in that vice and sin down here. We don't believe in it. It's bad. And I'd suggest to all of you, that now you want to take the vice and sin money out of the city of Chicago and the county of Cook and spread it around downstate. But sin is sin and it cannot be cleaned up by a transfer. The time has come that every tub sit on its own bottom. Now, if this building or this one room that cost $20,000, that has been rebuilt four or five times, can't stand on its own, then it deserves to fall. I suggest to you when we repaired this building the last time we should have asked something about the contractors who were making 281 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 out, taking the money, building the building that you and I know won't last five years. Cause you'll be back asking for some more money. You know this and I know it. Now, I'm suggesting to you Gentlemen in the all senses of equity and fairness let's keep this money in the Agricultural Premium Fund and expend it for true agricultural purposes and other related purposes in all the counties. But $20,000 for a shop that's been rebuilt four times, paid for once and God knows how many times before I got here, is ridiculous. This again, is nothing but another example of the greedy little hand reaching into the till, taking money out of the sin and vices of Cook County and bringing it down here for the remarkable clean up and spent in some other areas. This is a bad Bill, an inappropriate Bill and mind you, only the first of many to come. We all ought to give this a resounding century club defeat."
"Representative Hallock."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think we've heard this debate many times in the last few days. I'd move the previous question."
"The Gentleman has moved the previous question. The question is, 'Shall the main question be put?'. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', opposes 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. The previous question has been moved. Representative Ropp to close."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. Let me just add that these horses that are shod out here at the Illinois State Fairgrounds run all over the State of Illinois providing entertainment at a number, if not all, county fairs throughout the State of Illinois. They provide entertainment for people in Chicago. They provide for many dollars, many millions of dollars throughout the State of Illinois. This is one of the large industries 282 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 that we have in the state and you can say that because the people in Chicago are the only ones that bet on them, that they should keep that money. Let me reassure you that if we do not provide for their proper shoeing in downstate, if we do not provide for breeding, the caring and the foaling of those animals downstate, and if we do not provide for the hay and the oats and the feed and the management and the care downstate, that those people in Chicago would never have the opportunity to see the fine horses that we breed in Illinois. This is a drawing card to the State of Illinois. It generates sizable amounts of money and the shed that we're trying to replace is nothing but a small piece of flimsy wood that has been patched time after time after time after time and in the wintertime it drips snow throughout that whole floor. I urge a favorable vote on this Bill (sic, Amendment)."
"The Gentleman has moved the adoption of Amendment #20. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', opposed by voting 'no'. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Representative DiPrima."
"Yes. Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen, let's give this one for the old 'gropper', Notre Dame spirit. Let's give them a vote on this. Twenty thousand, a bag of beans. Ah, what the....One for the 'gropper', the 'gipper', you know."
"May we please have some order? May I remind the House tomorrow night is the midnight deadline. You will all be anxious to pass your Bills on Third Reading. We're trying to accomplish many things this evening. We've got a lot of work left to do. Can we please have some order? Representative Robbins." 283 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"For those who might be interested, we very seldom complain about the amount of money that goes from the Ag Premium Fund to such things as Chicago Fest, McCormick Place and so forth in Chicago. The fact that we need a small building out here so that they can keep the horses in shape, so that they can run in Chicago, is something that you are overlooking. We...We have the training ground. We raise the horses. We provide you the opportunity to have the fun. By the time we get done with that, most of us can't afford to go to Chicago to watch them run. Some of us do and we leave our money there. And that is shared equally as if it were yours. We increased the price of the tax of admission for each of us this year so let's...let us have an opportunity to have a building out here to keep our horses in shape just like you would want to have if you were a horse owner and thinking about trying to shape a horse up to go to Chicago."
"Representative Henry."
"Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Recently when this Amendment was first...was introduced into the House, I was heavily against it for a number of reasons. I was trying to bring to the floor of the House that a number of the people in my District were being shortchanged by the funding mechanism of the State of Illinois. I think I made that point. I do not want to see the horsemen and the horse drivers and the people in the southern Illinois, I do not want to see them shortchanged. But at that same time I want them to understand that if I can change my mind for a good Sponsor, if I can change my mind for a good reason, then they should be able to change their reason...change their minds and help us in Chicago. And for that reason, for a good Sponsor, I change my mind and vote 'yes'." 284 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Representative Neff."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. In explaining my 'yes' vote on this Amendment, I think there's some misunderstanding. The people that get the horses shod out there are people...paying the State of Illinois money to keep the horses out there and if they don't supply a building for the horse shoer many of these people may not be there. And so I think it's helping the state make money and keep the horses in shape for there is much training and so forth going on at the fairgrounds."
"Representative Huskey."
"Mr. Speaker, let's help Representative Ropp quit horsing around and give him your 'aye' vote for a mere $20,000. We voted 13 million dollars out for Commission. We can't vote $20,000 to keep the horses...to keep the horses in shoes? Give him an 'aye' vote. Let's let him quit horsing around."
"Representative Leon."
"Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I did have a 'no' vote up there for a few minutes. Then I remembered that perhaps we do have some very spectacular horse racing during the State Fair. I do know those horses need to be shod in order to run at the State Fair. I don't appreciate the fact that the $20,000. I think that's too much money. But we do need a horse shoeing barn at the fairgrounds and I would appreciate a few more green votes up there. Thank you."
"Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record. There are 87 'ayes', 73 'no'. Amendment #20 is adopted. Further Amendments?"
"Amendment #21, Davis..."
"Representative Mulcahey, for what purpose do 285 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 you arise, Sir?"
"Well, I don't know what Order it is, Mr. Speaker, but I would just like to mention that a few minutes ago, three times in a row you asked for order in this chamber. Nobody and I mean nobody including the Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives can keep 177 people in one room for 12 straight hours. I think you've got all the order you're going to get today."
"Well, Representative Mulcahey, we are doing our best to help you and all the Members accomplish their desired goals. We will continue to do that and we're going to move forward. All right. Amendment #21. Representative Davis."
"Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I hope we can have order for another two or three minutes anyway. Amendment 21 is offered by myself and all the Legislative Members of the House from the 39th and 42nd..."
"T.V. light is on.."
"39th and 42nd Legislative District. It appropriates $850,000 in school construction bond money and I think that's about all that's left in the school construction bond account for the disaster...the disaster repair of two schools in Joliet grade school District that were devastated by the eight inches of flood waters that recently fell in the Joliet area. The two schools were built in a flood plane some 45 years ago. Unfortunately, flood insurance was not available at that point in time. The Capital Development Board has signed off on this as has the Illinois Office of Education and Special Designation. And I think it's a very good Amendment and it's one where we can show the people of Joliet, Illinois that the Legislature cares about them and these two schools are totally out of commission now, foundationally and with the 286 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 boilers and the power plants. And I certainly recommend to you an 'aye' vote."
"Representative Matijevich."
"Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I rise in support of this Amendment. By the way, Mr. Speaker, I might say in addition to what Representative Mulcahey said, the other night when I raised some heck about us being here for so many hours I meant it. And I talked about the health of the Members. Some of us don't realize we're also talking about the health of many other people around here. The Doorman here had a heart attack and was in intensive care and I think is in intensive care. So I think the Speaker ought to realize that we're talking about the health of a lot of people. We'll get our work done. We all know that. And I join Representative Mulcahey in his remarks. But I also join Representative Davis in support of this Amendment."
"Representative Ewell."
"Mr. Speaker, I don't want to sound redundant, but for about seven, eight or nine or ten years I have been asking Representatives who preceded Representative Davis, those who preceded Leinenweber, Van Duyne and all the others who we talk about the flood waters. Everybody in the Body here knows that when it rains you're going to get flooded in a flood plane. If you build in a flood plane, you're going to get rained on. And everybody knows it. They're going to rain and it's going to flood the flood plane next year, the year after and for the next 20 years. What you're doing is asking that the whole State of Illinois pay to the Joliet School District the sum of $850,000 so they can repair schools that were damaged by flood waters. I suggest to you that these are the same people, the same people who said that when the city of 287 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Chicago is ravaged by what we call desolation, manmade desolation and desecration of the area that's made it a disaster area, they turn a deaf ear. They seem to think that there is no time that ever they will need help. When we ask for help and we talk about a RTA and a unified RTA, they give us one response. Reach into your own pocket and pay for it. Raise the fares to the sky. Go to $2.00, $3.00, $4.00,but pay for it out of your own pocket. And here, we have the arch assassins of the RTA all in a lump, all in one lump sum begging the entire State of Illinois to come to their aid and save them for something that certainly they can foresee, certainly they can anticipate and certainly that they knew existed in advance. To say anything else is to say you're either guilty of ignorance or not having any vision at all. Now, I suggest to you there is no fairness, no fairness whatsoever, when you should cry on the steps of the State Government for problems that are essentially yours, that were brought about by not manmade disasters, but by God sent disasters. Maybe he's sending you disasters so that you might get a message. Now, this was not the fault of the General Assembly. We did not cut your taxing powers. We did not stifle or do any single thing to you or the Gentleman from down front who has been one of the arch assassins of the RTA. And now, you stand in the position of beggars, begging the state to come to your aid only because you need it. Gentlemen, I ask, how long is your memory? How long will your memory last after tonight? When we, in the city of Chicago, cry out and when we ask for help and when we plead for help and we show you destitution, poverty and an inability to help ourselves, we get the same hard core answer. Dig into your own pocket. Dig into your own resources. And I say, shame on you. Shame, shame, shame." 288 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Representative Swanstrom."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move the previous question."
"The Gentleman has moved the previous question. Shall the main question be put? All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. The main question is put. Representative Davis to close."
"Well, I agree with Representative Ewell to a great degree and certainly the one degree. I, personally, blame God for that eight inches of rain as well. And, I've talked to the Parson here that ...from Penny Pullen's District who prays every morning to stop the rain. I feel somewhat guilty about that rain myself because one time I was home from the General Assembly. It was about 14 weeks ago and I attended the Kiwanis Club that I belong to in the small town of 'Peatone' and they asked me to give the invocation. And I take my religion very personally and in my vocal outburst with God that day, we were in the throws of a draught in March this year and the farmers were having an awful tough time getting the corn in the ground cause there wasn't any moisture over the winter. And I prayed for rain that day. And maybe Mr. Ewell is right, as a matter of fact, cause the rain's never stopped since then and I know at my house, during that same eight inches Joliet got, we got six inches and the pheasants and the rabbits were coming two by two to the back door. And we started building. But the truth of the matter is, these two school buildings in Joliet were built during the WPA administration some 45 or 50 years ago. They were built in the flood plane and for that I apologize to the people of Illinois for building in that flood plane. But eight inches of rain when God decides to do it to you, it's done wherever you live it seems like. There was nine feet of water in those two school buildings 289 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 and it is a match situation. The formula is clear that the local effort will have to be substantial to match this $850,000 in school construction bond money and I believe that we owe it to the kiddies."
"The Gentleman has moved the adoption of Amendment #21. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. Once again. All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', opposed by voting 'no'. The voting is open. Representative Van Duyne to explain his 'aye' vote."
"Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In explanation of my vote, I'm only adding my plea for your 'aye' vote also to Representative Davis and Leinenweber and the rest of us from the 39th District. I would just remind my earnest colleague, Mr. Ewell, that these schools that we are speaking of are primarily black schools. There's at least 60 to 75 percent black students and we are trying to give them the best education possible and trying to get these schools repaired. Thank you."
"Have all those voted who wish? Take the record. On this Amendment there are 105 'aye', 36 'no', 1 'present'. Amendment #21 is adopted. Further Amendments?"
"Amendment #22, J.J.Wolf-Winchester..."
"Representative Winchester, Amendment #22."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Amendment #22 adds $3,500,000 to the Capital Development Board Fund ...from the Capital Development Board Fund to the Legislative Space Needs Commission for an ongoing land acquisitioning program for FY '82. The projects included in the land acquisitioning are as follows: 222 South College 2 million dollars, 600 South Second Street 6 hundred thousand dollars, Edwards and College 100 thousand, American Legion on South Second 150 290 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 thousand, the Sandwich Shop at 3rd and Monroe 325 thousand and miscellaneous properties for 325 thousand and I would move 'do adopt' on Amendment #22. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that Representative Ronan will close."
"Representative Birkinbine."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield for a question?"
"Indicates he will."
"How does this Amendment differ from Amendment #12 which was for 3 million, 456 thousand dollars?"
"All right. Amendment #12, Representative Birkinbine, was a reappropriation of projects that goes back to Fiscal Year '80 and '81..."
"So this is..."
"...This is a new appropriation for the Department...er..for the Capital Development Board to issue bonds for the purpose of land acquisition of these properties."
"So it's not replacing it. What we end up with is a total appropriation of roughly 7 million dollars for the Space Needs Commission to buy more land here in Springfield. Right?"
"Well, I think Amendment #12 was a reappropriation on two specific projects where perhaps some contracts have already been issued and some work is already under, you know..in the process of being done. Amendment #22 is new projects. This is new appropriations, new dollars for the Capital Development Board and for Legislative Space Needs."
"Does this have the blessing of the administration? Does this have the blessing of the administration?"
"Yes, my staff people says that it does."
"Really? I thought we were short on money. And within a just a few Amendments of each other we're now 291 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 buying 7 million dollars worth of property in Springfield? I thought we were going to have to cut into the school funds because we're so short. I guess that's a rhetorical question."
"Apparently I'm not getting the message across that we're talking about bonds. We're not talking about General Revenue Funds, Representative Birkinbine. We're talking about funds. One is a reappropriation of dollars that's already been approved and this is...this is the issuance of new authorization to sell bonds for the purpose of purchasing this new property."
"Well, you're right. That wasn't clear. The explanation doesn't say that, but I remind you that bonds cost money too. And, again, we've been told that this is an austerity year and again, whether it's bonds or sheer outright money from the General Revenue Fund, I would suggest that based on the words coming from the Leadership of this state, be it Mr. Burris or be it Mr. Thompson, we simply can't afford this. So I suggest we vote against it."
"Representative Kane."
"Would the Sponsor yield?"
"Indicates he will."
"How much money has been spent for land acquisition by the Space Needs Commission in the last five years?"
"I'm sorry, Representative Kane. We don't know that."
"Don't know that. How much in the last two years?"
"It's my understanding that last year they were appropriated 3.5 million dollars. As far as any further back than that, we don't know."
"What, if anything, is the Space Needs Commission doing with all of this properly that it's buying?" 292 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"If..I would..."
"What is the purpose for which we are buying all of this property?"
"Well, for the purpose of buying parking lots, for construction, for capital construction of buildings, for expanding buildings, and so forth. I would appreciate it if some Members of the Legislative Space Needs Commission would perhaps give me some assistance in answering Representative Kane's question."
"Isn't it true that all of the new state buildings that have been built in Springfield in the last several years have been built...have been built on property purchased by the Capitol Development Board and not by the Space Needs Commission?"
"Would you repeat that question please?"
"Isn't it true that all of the new buildings built in Springfield for the state in the last several years have been built on properly purchased by the Capitol Development Board and not by the Space Needs Commission and built on property outside of the Capitol complex so that all of the plans for the Capital complex that have been put into effect, none of them have ever come to fruition? Is that not true?"
"Mr. Speaker, could I yield to Representative Friedrich to answer that question?"
"...Representative Friedrich."
"Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, the capital complex was defined by this Legislature a number of years ago with the goal that over a period of time the state acquire the property within those...within that complex. It's being done systematically and Representative Kane is right. There have been no new buildings built in that complex since this acquisition started. However, the 293 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 revenue building will be in this area and I don't know what is planned for the future, but what it amounts to in fact is kind of a stockpiling and a protection of the buildings that are here in terms of neighborhood and that sort of thing. This is nothing that has sprung up in the last fifteen minutes. The capitol complex area was defined several years, Representative Kane, as you well know."
"Isn't the revenue building however outside of the capitol complex and didn't the Capitol Development Board put it specifically outside of the capitol complex so that they could build the building themselves?..."
"Yes, that is true. That is true..."
"...For purpose....themselves because the Space Needs Commission was acting so slowly?"
"I'm not sure why....because we're acting slowly, but it will be in the general area here and will be part of the capitol complex once it's here. In the meantime, the property is being used, the buildings are being raised, old houses and so on to protect this area around here. This is something that was defined many years ago by this Legislature and the acquisition has been slow and systematic."
"Have any of the projects that have been...that have been or were in the original plans of the Space Needs Commission for the capitol complex going back over the last ten or fifteen years? Has there been any single project in the capitol area that has been completed or brought to fruition in the last fifteen years?"
"No. You know that."
"None at all?"
"There have been no new buildings built in the capital complex here in the last fifteen years because there have been no new buildings built in this area. The land has 294 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 been acquired and you're quite correct in what you're saying."
"Thank you."
"Representative Hallock. Representative Hallock."
"Move the previous question."
"The Gentleman has moved the previous question. The question is, 'Shall the main question be put?'. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. The main question is put. Representative Ronan to close."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House. The Legislative Space Needs Commission is a very diligent Commission. I'm not a Member of that Commission but Representative Farley is Co-Chairman. He was called off the floor for a few minutes so I just wanted to speak in behalf of this Bill. They've worked very hard. They've done an extensive amount of research. Obviously the decisions they've made are fully justified. What this will do is it will give the state the opportunity to have space available for the expansion of agencies, also to use it for any other services that the state does need. If we put off the decision to buy these properties, obviously now through inflation, the cost is going to go up and in the long run the state's going to use money. The Space Needs Commission does do a good job and consequently I urge everyone on this side of the aisle and the other side of the aisle to vote for this needed appropriation."
"The question is, 'Shall Amendment #22 be adopted?'. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', opposed by voting 'no'. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted 295 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 who wish? Take the record. Representative Ronan?"
"Absentees."
"All right. Dump the Roll. We're going to do it one more time. Now, everybody listen and get on the Roll, will you please? The question is, 'Shall Amendment #22 be adopted?'. All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', opposed by voting 'no'. The voting is open. Representative Hoxsey? Representative Winchester to explain his vote."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, you know, as the Chairman of the Subcommittee in Appropriations Committee, it's my responsibility to present this Amendment to you. The Amendment is presented to me through the Appropriations Chairman from the Legislative Space Needs Commission. It is an important project to them and I happen to feel that it is an important project, the projects that they have listed here. For some reason or another, maybe I'm not getting my message across to the, you know, to the Membership. But I would ask that you reconsider and give us a green vote because I do feel that it is important. I wish that there were Members of the Commission that were on the floor to stand and defend Amendment #22, but apparently there are not. So I would ask for a favorable vote on Amendment #22."
"Representative Katz to explain his vote. The timer is on."
"Yes, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, not only is the message getting across, the double message is getting across. As we go around the state saying we are for contracting government, we are for reducing government, we are for turning back, we are busily engaged in appropriating more money to buy more space in Springfield. The only reason the property prices will go up will be an 296 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 assumption that we're going to need more property to continue to expand State Government. I think we ought to do what we say and vote against such appropriations and live frugally and prudently which is what the people of the State of Illinois want us to do and I vote 'no'."
"Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record. On this question there are 82 'ayes', 78 'no', 1 'present'. Amendment #22 is adopted. Further Amendments?"
"Amendment #23, Winchester..."
"Representative Winchester, Amendment #23."
"Well, I think, from the...at the very beginning, Mr...Mr. Speaker? At the very beginning I think I should make it clear that this Amendment is specifically for one area of the state, for my area of the state, for my home county of Hardin County in which I have at this time a correctional work camp, a camp that is successful. It has 50 residents working there that everyday work in the 'Shawnee National Forest' picking up garbage, various paraphernalia and really doing a fantastic job. They are inmates that have within six months to nine months before parole. There's no fences. There's no walls. And it's a beautiful atmosphere, a beautiful area and what we're wanting to do is to expand that institution to where it would handle 100 inmates instead of 50 inmates. A proposal, a study has been submitted to the Governor's Office for consideration. And what this Amendment would do would be to appropriate $500,000 for Capital Development Board bonds for planning, construction and the expansion of a Hardin County work camp in southern Illinois and I would ask for a favorable vote."
"Representative Leverenz."
"My good friend, the Sponsor, yield?" 297 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Indicates he will."
"Yes."
"Could you tell us in this Bill how much is already in it and appropriated for planning and construction in the Department of Corrections?"
"None. This is a project that's under lease between the Department of Corrections and the Harin County School System and in order for CDB to do any additional work the Department of Corrections would have to buy the facility from the Hardin County School System. This is the proposal I understand that's been submitted to the Governor's Office for consideration, for consideration as a way of alleviating the bed space problem that we have in this state for residents and if that proposal is approved, that acquisition is made, then this money would be available for..to CDB to construct the additional space."
"Well you had about three or four 'ifs' in your answer there. The fact is that there currently is six point seven million dollars already in this Bill for planning and construction purposes and that money is not identified as site or county specific, nor is it identified in terms of program specific. It's like Reagan's new program of block grants. Further, there is $100,000 for planning purposes not identified also in the Department of Corrections...for the Department of Corrections in Senate Bill 344. So I think this Amendment, though I rose to speak in favor of the last one and was not recognized, that this one is indeed frivolous and only reconfirms what you did cite in Committee that you would do anything to get another program in your county in the Department of Corrections as the Committeeman for southern Illinois."
"Representative Stearney."
"Would the Gentleman yield?" 298 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Indicates he will."
"Can you tell me who would be housed in this work camp?"
"Inmates, residents of the correctional institution who have not...who were not sentenced there as the result of committing a heinous crime, a crime such as rape, incest, murder and so forth, those that are of lesser felonies."
"This is minimum security institution?"
"This is a minimum security institution."
"And these are adults I take it."
"These are all adults."
"Now, is it true that to build an institution that would house 750 inmates would cost something like $35,000,000?"
"Representative Stearney, this is not to build a new correctional institution. This is a small work camp of 50 residents."
"Okay.."
"..And we will expand.."
"Well, then let me address myself to the question. I support this measure and let me say this here. What we do need are minimum security institutions because what we have done just last week is pass a Bill making it mandatory imprisonment, four to fifteen years for those convicted of burglary. Now we're going to have an additional three thousand people going to the penitentiaries within the next year. So I would think that we take the first step forward and that is appropriate $500,000to the construction expansion of this county work camp. And we're going to have to do far more I would think this Session because I'm told it takes 35 million dollars to construct an institution to house 750 inmates alone. And furthermore, 299 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 as to where it's located, I'm told that nobody..that everybody is for more prisons and is for incarcerating more people, but nobody wants those prisons in their county. As a matter of fact, I'm told they wanted to put one in the Speaker's District but that was sort of koboshed at the last possible moment. And if Mr. Winchester is willing to have them in his District, I think we've got no alternative but to put them there. And so I would speak, I speak favorably on this Motion and ask that we not only appropriate $500,000, but that we go a bit further in some other Amendments and spend a little bit more money for the construction of more institutions. Thank you."
"Representative Vitek."
"I move the previous question, Mr. Speaker."
"The Gentleman has moved the previous question. The question is, 'Shall the main question be put?'. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. Representative Winchester to close."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I said earlier, this is, I guess it can be considered a prok barrel Amendment. It is for my home county and my area in the southern part of the state. I'm not going to kid anybody or fool anybody around with it. I just would ask for a favorable Roll Call vote."
"The question is, 'Shall Amendment #23 be adopted?'. All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', opposed by voting 'no'. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Representative Smith, Irv Smith."
"Yes, Sir. In explaining my 'yes' vote, I'd also like to say to Representative Winchester that we have a minimal security prison at the state fairgrounds which we would be very happy to trade with him. And, not only that, but give him the funds that it takes to operate that prison. So, if 300 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 this should pass he could have operating funds along with the half a million dollars it would take to purchase the site."
"Representative Dick Kelly."
"Yes, Mr. Speaker. The reason I'm opposing your proposal, Representative Winchester, and I know it's a worthy one as far as you're concerned and I don't have any problem with that. But I have a Member of this Commission to visit these work camps and these centers where these young people are being place and there is a great problem in regulation and supervision. I know that we visited one down in the Kankakee area and we found that the particular site...there was a person who are there less than three months who really wasn't too familiar with the procedures and the manager...the head person was gone out of state. The assistant was gone out of state. We asked them what type of element of young people do you have and it was everywhere from the smallest felony all the way up to murders and I...."
"All voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record. On this Amendment there are 73 'ayes', 65 'no' and 2 voting 'present'. Amendment #23 is adopted. Further Amendments?"
"Amendment #24, O'Brien..."
"Representative O'Brien, Amendment #24."
"Yes, Mr. Speaker and Members, this is an Amendment, in my estimation, that is probably the best real estate deal that the State of Illinois could get involved in, probably for the next ten years. This Amendment very simply, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, appropriates a million dollars for the acquisition of two landmark residences in the city of Chicago, one called the 'Wrigley Mansion' and the other one called the 'Kellog Mansion'. Both of those 301 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 names are very great in American history. I might indicate to you that this million dollars that is appropriated represents one-third of the purchase price. The 'Wrigley Estate' is asking one point two million dollars for the purpose of their estate and the 'Kellog' is asking two point four, but they have indicated that they would be willing to accept one point eight million. I can tell you right now that they are valued in excess of three million dollars and I have back in my office in a folder pledges of $100,000 from fifteen private citizens throughout the State of Illinois that will come up with one point five million dollars towards the purchase price for these two facilities. I am aware of the fact that the state has already made it a priority to purchase a landmark historic building here in Springfield called 'Dana House' which is a Frank Lloyd Wright building and I think this would be in keeping with the landmark groups and it certainly could be needed. These buildings could not be duplicated for six million dollars and there has been some talk about a Governors' residence in the city of Chicago and also a Mayor's residence in the city of Chicago. The city would have its matching funds of a half a million dollars and I could also indicate to you if it wasn't used for a Governor's residence, that we might possibly have the Supreme Court meet in one of the buildings on a periodic basis which would certainly make our legal fees cheaper for those attorneys that would be arguing cases before the Supreme Court if they decided to hear a certain amount of cases up there in the city of Chicago. I'd ask for a favorable Roll Call. I'd like to point out once again, this is the best real estate deal that the State of Illinois could get involved in for the next ten years."
"Representative Peters." 302 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Will the Sponsor...Will the Sponsor yield?"
"He indicates he will."
"Representative O'Brien, did you indicate that you thought this might be used in some way for the Supreme Court?"
"Yes, I...could you turn this microphone up a little bit so...Thank you. I did indicate that there has been some conversation by other Members of the Supreme Court that they might like to have ability in the city of Chicago..."
"Thank you. Thank you. I have no objection, Representative O'Brien, to building a mansion in the city of Chicago for the Mayor..."
"We don't have to build it. It already exists. You couldn't duplicate it for twice the money."
"Fine, I'd be for appropriating the money to buy it. I'd be for appropriating the money to buy a mansion for the Governor. One in every city. But I would not be anywhere near anything that had to give the Supreme Court one quarter of one tenth of one percent of anything of absolutely anything and should this get anywhere near passage, Mr. Speaker, I want to verify the Roll."
"Representative..."
"Representative Vitek."
"Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question."
"The Gentleman has moved the previous question. The question is, 'Shall the main question be put?'. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. Representative O'Brien to close."
"Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members. I would like to indicate that I only mentioned that I had heard that the Supreme Court would like to be in Cook County for certain hearings and there is a positive aspect because of the travel expenses for the attorneys that argue 303 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 before it. That is not the intent of the Bill. The intent of the Bill is for the purchase, basically, and it says right in the Amendment, Representative Peters, if you'll read the Amendment, it says for a Chicago residence for the Governor and a Chicago residence for the Mayor. As I've indicated to you, the cost to acquire these two pieces of property is in excess of three million dollars. This is only one-third of the cost. The rest will come from private industry and you couldn't duplicate the buildings, Representative Peters, if you tried."
"The question is, 'Shall Amendment #24 be adopted?'. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The 'nos' have it. Amendment #24 is lost. Further Amendments?"
"No further Amendment."
"Third Reading. Representative Darrow."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At this point, we've amended this Bill. Is it appropriate that we have another state Debt Impact Note filed? We had one filed prior to the Amendments. This would be in compliance with Public Act 81-0615."
"Well, Representative Darrow, I think your question is certainly not out of order, with the exception that the Bill is already on Third Reading, Sir."
"I tried to get your attention before you moved it to ask that question. I think we ought to comply with the State Statute that we enacted and move it back to Second until we have a State Debt Impact Note filed."
"I'm sure that the Sponsor of the Bill would be happy to furnish you with additional statement and address that subject in debate. The Bill now is on Third Reading. Now, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, if we may have your attention for a minute? All right. If we may have your 304 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 attention for a minute there's a very important Motion coming up right now. Representative Rigney for a Motion."
"Well, Mr. Speaker, a written Motion has been filed. I ask the Clerk to read it."
"Here it is."
"I move to suspend Rule 35-G with regard to deadline for consideration of Senate Bills on Third Reading in the House and to extend the current deadline until midnight June 29th."
"Well, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, as I look at the Calendar on Third Reading it appears to me that there are about six pages of Bills to which we have never addressed ourselves..."
Speaker Daniels: "Representative Rigney, one second. Representative Darrow?"
"Mr. Speaker, I was attempting to have this House comply with the State Statute which we had enacted last year with regard to a State Debt Impact Note so we would know the impact of the Amendments that we have just adopted. It was not for me personally, but it was for the Members of this House. You moved this Bill to Third Reading before I was recognized. It was for that purpose that I had my light on. I'd appreciate it if you would move this Bill back until that Impact Note was filed for all the Members, not just for me and so that we can comply with the Statute that we enacted."
"Mr. Clerk, was there a request for a State Debt Impact Note filed?"
"Mr. Speaker, the request need not be made. It is in compliance with the Public Act that we adopted."
"Representative Stuffle."
"Yes, Mr. Speaker. I happen to be in the position of being one of the Sponsors of the Motion that you called 305 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 with Representative Rigney which may not be a popular Motion on our side of the aisle, but let me say this to you. With regard to Mr. Darrow's point, I think he's absolutely correct. The Membership has and deserves the right that he has asked for to have that Bill remain there until that statement is made. And that ought to be the Order of Business that we're on and he ought to have his request granted before we go to the Motion put by Representative Rigney and myself."
"Representative J.J.Wolf."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was going to make a suggestion to the Chair, because of the fact that you had moved the Bill already, I notice that I am the principle Sponsor, I would be happy to hold this Bill on Third Reading. The Economic and Fiscal Commission is the agency to supply that and if that would satisfy the Gentlemen, I would be very happy to hold that Bill until such a Note is filed."
"Representative Darrow?"
"Mr. Speaker, I have no reason to amend this Bill or to add any more appropriations which could occur. If that's the purpose for moving it to Third, I would have no objection. However, I cannot speak for the other Members of the House of Representatives. They may have some objection to having it removed....having it moved to Third until the State Impact Note is filed. It would be up to the Members of this House whether they would comply. I, personally, do not want to see any more Amendments added to this or any more debts incurred by the State of Illinois. I even question whether we have enough bonding authority to cover what we have already included in this Bill. So it would be up to the Members of this House whether that would be in compliance with the State Debt Impact provisions."
"Representative Lechowicz." 306 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. But I think the Gentleman's point is well within reason. He was trying to seek the recognition of the Chair for the specific purpose of asking that the compliance of the Rules be adhered to. I believe that the Chair maybe did not see his light. That is quite possible, but I believe that since he was recognized and that was his intent, I would strongly recommend that the Bill be brought back to Second Reading and in turn we can get the necessary Fiscal Impact Statement filed and advance it to Third tomorrow or if we can get it done tonight, we can do that. But I think that in order to keep this House running in some sort of shape, it would be a good suggestion to bring it back to Second."
"Representative Lechowicz, what the suggestion is to Representative Darrow is that Representative Wolf, as the principle Sponsor, will leave it on Third until the Gentleman, Representative Darrow, receives a statement from the Economic Fiscal Commission. Representative Darrow."
"Again, it's not for me, personally. It's not for me, personally. It's for this House and to comply with this Statute. It's not up to Clarence Darrow, Representative Darrow; It's up to every Member of this General Assembly. They have a right to that information. I merely am making that request on behalf of the Body."
"Representative Matijevich."
"I only rose to speak against that deadline extension. I'll wait for that."
"We'll recognize you at that time. Representative Wolf, your pleasure, Sir?"
"Well, Mr. Speaker, although I was off the floor for a while in another meeting, I understand that you've been debating this particular Bill for about two hours. And I make that offer in all sincerity because of the fact that 307 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 the Bill is on Third Reading, has been advanced to the Order of Third Reading. I again renew my offer in all sincerity that I will hold that Bill on Third Reading until such a Fiscal Statement has been filed which we will get from the Economic and Fiscal Commission at the earliest possible opportunity."
"Representative Wolf."
"On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if you can construe it as such. Mr. Darrow?"
"Representative Darrow."
"Would you listen please? You know, we get to where there's a Catch-22. If we in fact did bring the Bill back to the Order of Second Reading and more Amendments are filed, and then we shut if off there. Then somebody is going to say we have to have a Debt Impact Statement at that point. This can go on ad infinitum. And we can never get this Bill called. I'm trying to make a good faith offer to satisfy the Members cause we can never get this Bill called because somebody will keep demanding every time another Amendment is filed that we have to have another statement and that's what's wrong with these screwy statements that are required."
"Representative Darrow."
"I am merely saying that we are not complying with the Statute. This is not the first time that this Leadership has not complied with the Statute, nor with the Constitution of the State of Illinois. It is not my responsibility to enforce the Statute or the Constitutionality. I only attempt here, in the House of Representatives, to abide by the Constitution that I swore to uphold. I will leave the burden of this entire matter on the Speaker of the House of Representatives, George Ryan. If he wishes to violate the Statute which he no 308 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 doubt voted for and if you wish to be a party to that, that's your prerogative. I merely point that out to you. Thank you."
"Okay. Now, Representative Darrow, in particular what Section of the State Statute are you referring to, Sir?"
"We are referring to Chapter 63, Section 42.77, request for Debt Impact Notes."
"And that says, '...whenever any Member of either House is of the opinion that a State Debt Note should be prepared on any Bill and such Note has not been requested, the Member may, at any time, before the Bill is moved to Third, request that such a Note be obtained.'. That request was made. The Note was filed properly at the time that it was made. And that request has been honored pursuant to Statute. Now, your interpretation, Sir?"
"It continues if you read on, '...when the Act is amended.', if you read on in that paragraph."
"A request was made prior to the movement of that Bill to Third Reading. That request was honored. The State Debt Impact Note was filed. No further request was made, Sir, and the Bill was properly moved to Third Reading pursuant to Statute."
"The reason the request was not made at Second Reading was because you did not recognize me at that time."
"Sir, you told the Chair that what you were doing was saying the Statute required it and the Statute did not unless a request was filed and the request had been filed and that request was honored and that is the basis the Chair moved it to Third. Now, we are not going to get in a long dialog on this, Sir. But I think a careful reading of the Statute would be well in order for you to view carefully, Section 42.77. And that burden was met and 309 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 that's why the Bill was moved to Third Reading. This Bill is on Third Reading. Now the Members of the House, I'm certain, are now concerned about the Motion that Representative Rigney wants to put so that each Member may decide how they want to vote on that Motion. Representative Rigney."
"Well, Mr. Speaker, it's obvious that I'm rather reluctant to have to put a Motion like this. I had certainly hoped that we would be able to keep to the time table that we have originally adopted. But I look at this Calendar; I've got the same one that you've got. There are six pages of Bills on Third Reading. There are four pages of Bills on Second Reading. And it seems to me that the only responsible thing to do is to take a realistic look at this and be willing to extend our deadlines. It seems to me it's going to be rather difficult to go home and explain to our voters why it was important to introduce all of this good legislation to take the time and the money to put it through the whole Senate process, to bring it up to the passage stage in the Illinois House and then because of some kind of arbitrary rule that we adopted in good faith some time ago, to say well, I'm sorry folks. We just aren't going to be able to solve your problems. We aren't going to be able to hear this legislation because an arbitrary deadline has passed. I'm doing what I consider to be the sensible thing under the circumstances. I hope that you will see it the same way."
"Clerk, read the Motion please."
"I move to suspend Rule 35-G with regard to deadline for consideration of Senate Bills on Third Reading in the House to extend the current deadline until midnight, June 29th."
"On that question, Representative Slape." 310 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. It's been kind of a long Session. I think if my memory doesn't fail me right now there was an effort made several weeks ago, or maybe even several months ago, to put the rules, the temporary rules, of this House in order. And that time there was a Motion made and the point was raised on this House floor that temporary rules we live in now have deadlines and were set for two....for Calendar year two years ago. We've already made our mistake. We passed the moment when we should have brought our rules into line. I think it's too late. And I would rise in opposition to this Motion. I think we should have ....We've been here for about three or four days. We should have been working instead of getting up and talking on some of this nonsense stuff that we've been up talking on and I think it would be a mistake at this time to extend the deadline one more time."
"Representative Deuster."
"Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I rise in opposition to this suggestion that we get rid of the deadline. In support .....To express my reasons for my opposition, I'd like to say this. We were all elected to the Eighty-Second General Assembly and we were elected for a two year term. Our rules, which specify these deadlines, were designed to try and help force us into spreading out our work load in an orderly manner over those two years. Now, on an earlier occasion when we reached this same pentacle at which a decision had to be made, we adopted a Motion establishing a June...a Spring 1982 Calendar, so that the House Bills that we did not have an opportunity to vote on did not die, but those House Bills, any many of them were very important to each and every Member in this House who introduced them and got them out of Committee, 311 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 those House Bills are now on the Spring 1982 Calendar, so that we will have some work to face us in the second part of our two year term. I see no reason that we should give better treatment to the Senate Bills. I think the House Bills and the Senate Bills should be handled in the same manner and if there is a Sponsor of a Senate Bill who sees that it's not going to be called all he has to do is to make a Motion or go to the well and put that Senate Bill on the Spring 1982 Calendar, the same way many of our Bills were placed. Now, another reason for opposing this extension of the deadline and particularly for the new Members, I would like to point out for the new Members who have not been through this experience, the reason for the deadline is so that you're going to have one or two days in which you're not dealing with all these Bills, but is going to occupy your time and your mentality and your alertness to watch for these Conference Committee Reports that come back from these Committees with all kinds of stuff in there that will really surprise you. Now, the reason for this deadline is to make sure that we are not caught with surprises and that we can focus our tired, weary minds on looking at those Conference Committee Reports and that's enough of a job in itself. So I think for two reasons this Motion should be opposed. One, we should not treat the Senate Bills any better than our own. We have established an orderly procedure, a Spring '82 Calendar to put over these Bills and lastly, we want to protect ourselves from surprises and we want to save our time so that we can legislate in an orderly and intelligent, in a calm fashion these last two days. For those reasons, I urge all of you to oppose this Motion to amend our rule by getting rid of this important deadline that we now have to protect us."
"Representative Mautino." 312 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I, too, would like to address this Motion. The longer I'm here the less things seem to change. For those of you that know me know that I do not vote for extending deadlines. And there's a reason for that. Today is a perfect example and I agree in total with Don Deuster which I don't normally do, as far as agreeing with Legislators. We've moved about 15 Bills in about twelve hours and for those of you that are freshmen, what will happen if you extend the deadline is on Friday you'll move about 10 or 15 and on Saturday you'll move about five. On Sunday you'll move about three and you'll be doing the whole process from then on until the end of the month. And it's absolutely ridiculous. That side of the aisle has the Majority. You can move around that Calendar any way you want to move. All you have to do is put your votes together. So what I'm saying to you, if you don't want to make the biggest mistake in your life, in this Session it would cause more chaos than we've already got, is extend that deadline and see what happens. I recommend a 'no' vote."
"Representative Stearney."
"Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I rise in opposition to this measure. We've suspended the rules once. Now they're asking we suspend the rules twice. July 10th will come along and they'll ask us to suspend the rules a third and a fourth and a fifth time. And we'll never go home. Now, what we did yest....It's bad enough now with introductions. We used to introduce them when they sat in the gallery, but now we've gone a step further. It's become fashionable to take them up on the podium and let them give speeches for a half hour or so. We've done that three times today. Tomorrow, there will five different people. Everybody and his sister and his brother 313 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 will be recognized from the podium. And we'll be here August 1st. There's no reason. And let me remind you now. The Senate has no qualms whatsoever about killing House Bills. Senator Bower there will tell you. They will kill yours in one fell swoop and all of you freshmen thinking that you're going to get a fair hearing, mind you now, there is no such thing as fairness. That is only in the minds of the beholders. And the Senate will slay them all with one fell swoop. So best we do it now. Kill them all. What is not passed by midnight tomorrow will live to see another day. Vote 'no' on this measure so we can go home before summer is over."
"Representative John Dunn."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To end the suspense about the suspension, I move the previous question."
"The Gentleman has moved the previous question. The question is, 'Shall the main question be put?'. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. Representative...Representative Stearney, if you'll...If you will sit down we will go ahead, Sir. All right. Representative Stuffle to close on the Motion."
"Representative Rigney and I did not put this Motion in frivolously. We did not put it in joyfully either. We put it in as a matter we thought of necessity because there have been Members coming to us and saying our constituents couldn't understand how we had 100 Bills left on the Calendar when the House deadline came for House Bills. Now we've got at least that many Senate Bills. My constituents don't know the difference between a House Bill and a Senate Bill. They know the difference..."
"Can we have some order please?"
"They know the difference between what's on the Statute books and what isn't. There are a number of pieces of 314 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 important legislation that cannot be put on any Calendar other than the one we're on and have effect this year. Many of us know what those Bills are. Many of us know that while some are opposing this Motion on its face for stated reasons, that they have other reasons to oppose the Motion because they don't want some Bills to be called or to be given a hearing because they believe that those Bills will pass. There are very important Bills here. Some people have said to me, 'Why take up the time of the House? Let them die.' I don't think they should die. I don't think we ought to let the purposes for which we were elected go by the Board simply because we have a time constraint. I haven't stood up here and introduced anyone this Session from the floor, from the podium. I think we ought to do our work. We ought to get down to business and we ought to be able to go back home and say we did our best and we took as much time as we had to take to get the job done. And if that means one more suspension, then we have to do it; We ought to do it. Representative Stearney's remarks were well put. I just happen to disagree and if we're here on July 10th, I won't vote for that extension. But I will for this one and I ask for an 'aye' vote."
"The Gentleman has moved to suspend appropriate rules to suspend the deadlines until midnight June 29th. On that Motion, all those in favor will signify by voting 'aye', opposed by voting 'aye'...'no'. It takes 89 votes and the voting is open. Representative Vinson."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Delay and paralysis in House operations are a good way to kill Bills if you're only objective is to avoid their passage. It's not a good way if you want to have issues openly and fairly discussed, if you want to defeat Bills or pass them on the merits. For that reason, I would 315 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 support Representative Rigney and Representative Stuffle in their Motion. Failure of their Motion is a good way to produce 'user lists' which have a hundred, two hundred, five hundred Bills on them and only one or two minutes to vote. If you want open discussion on the merits of Bills, if you want to deal with farm land assessment, gun control and so forth, I would urge an 'aye' vote on this measure."
"Representative Lechowicz."
"Mr. Speaker, what's the status of Senate Bill 345?"
"It's on Third Reading."
"Keep it there."
"Representative Ewell."
"Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, when you live by the sword, you die by the sword. I live by the sword through the Committee system and I died by that sword. But I didn't cry. I took my licks and I went home. I've also lived through a lot of other Amendments. I've lived by the sword and I've died by it. But there are those of you, Gentlemen, who believe that the sword that cuts my meat will not cut your potatoes and that's nonsense. It's a two-way sword. You did it to me in the Committees. You did it to me by telling me that my Bills that couldn't come out of the...since I didn't have special connections down in the Legislative Reference Bureau, that they couldn't get out. You told me that they were dead. And I abided by it. You said that I could live without it. I suggest to you...I suggest to you, Gentlemen, that we can live without these Bills. It is those of you who need a little more, who need a little more greed for the various things that you want. Let us all partake and live by the same rules. Once we do that, we'll have a little more equity and understanding. And this should certainly be a century club Bill. I vote 'no'." 316 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Representative Vitek."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My only hope and pray is that this joins the century club and I vote 'no'."
"Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record. There are 68 'aye', 92 'no', 1 'present'. The Motion fails. Senate Bill 88. Representative Robbins?"
"I feel like even though you have declared the results of the vote, even though I was denied the right to speak and was in favor of the...of extending the Motion, I think one of the things that the people of this House ought to realize is that on your desk or in your wastebasket are the Bills, most of them, that were put on Spring Calendar added as Amendments to Bills. That's the reason we're here today. Also, there have been numerous Amendments placed on Bills just simply so that we could not move our Bills as a delaying action. It's time that you look at the delay action, look at the Bills and vote them up or down and let's quit wasting our time and go through the Democratic Bills as they are killing ours."
"Senate Bill 88. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 88, a Bill for an Act..."
"Excuse me, Mr. Clerk. May we have some order please? Okay, now, the deadlines are not extended. It is the desire of this House to continue in the fashion that we've been going. Representative Meyer on a point of order. State your point, Sir." Meyer, Ted: "How did you get to 88? Shouldn't you be on 1177?"
"No, Sir. Senate Bill 88 was removed from the record with the understanding that we would return to it. Senate Bill..." Meyer, Ted: "Then what order will you be in?" 317 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Senate Bill 88. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 88, a Bill for an Act in relation to the compulsory retirement of Judges. Second Reading of the Bill. No Committee Amendments."
"Any Amendments from the floor?"
"Floor Amendment #1, Vinson..."
"Representative Vinson, Amendment #1."
"Mr. Speaker, I withdraw Amendment #1."
"Withdrawn. Further Amendments?"
"Amendment #2, Getty..."
"Representative Beatty or Madigan? Who's handling that? Representative Madigan."
"Withdraw the Amendment, Mr. Speaker."
"Withdrawn. Further Amendments."
"Amendment #3, Getty..."
"Representative Madigan? Amendment #3?"
"Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker?"
"Representative Madigan?"
"Our plan is to withdraw Amendments 3 through 10."
"Amendment #3 through 10 are withdrawn. Representative Getty the principle Sponsor of those Amendments, Sir? Three through 10 are withdrawn. Further Amendments?"
"Amendment #11, Getty..."
"Representative Madigan, Amendment #11."
"Mr. Speaker, Amendment #11 relates to Associate...Judges within the Judicial system. And this particular Amendment would remove the provision which reduces the number of Associate Judges to which some downstate Circuits are entitled by the number of Resident Circuit Judges in excess of one per county. Only Circuits under 200,000 in population would continue to be reduced as to Associate Judge entitlements. It would remove the 318 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 provision which reduces the number of Associate Judges to which Cook County is entitled by the number of Resident Circuit Judges in excess of 31. It authorizes one additional Associate Judge for each Municipal District in Circuits of 200,000 or more and removes reference to Public Act 80-1037 dealing with additional Resident Circuit Judges."
"The Gentleman moves the adoption of Amendment #11. Is there any questions? Are there questions? Representative Barr, Amendment #11."
"Yes, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I rise in support of Amendment #11. Urge favorable vote by the Members on both sides of the aisle. This Amendment is necessary to provide the number of Judges required in our larger counties, Cook and the larger counties downstate to handle the increased...the ever increasing work load and to cut the back logs that are course...that our courts face. We've discussed this and our full support of it. And I urge a favorable vote."
"Representative Brummer."
"Yes, will the Sponsor yield?"
"Indicates he will."
"Representative Madigan, how many Judges are added or authorized as a result of this Amendment? How many new Judges are authorized?"
"Representative Madigan."
"It would be a net increase of 49."
"Okay and out of those 49 how many would be in Cook County and how many in downstate?"
"Eighteen in Cook County and thirty-one downstate."
"What areas of downstate would the thirty-one Judges be located?"
"In your Circuit there would be four new Judges." 319 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"And what need is there of four new Judges in the 4th Circuit?"
"Well, we thought that there would be one for you..."
"I mean, has there been a specific request from the Judiciary..."
"The criteria was done on a case load basis."
"Well, when we had the reapportionment of the Judicial Circuit proposal of Representative Giorgi, he indicated that the 4th Circuit had a light case load and therefore the size of the Circuit ought to be increased because they had too many Judges there and now I see that this proposal indicates that there should be four additional Judges in the 4th Circuit which includes Effingham County. And I don't understand the disparity of the information that they're both...both decisions are based on a case load basis."
"Representative Brummer, this Amendment would create a 200,000 population dividing line with respect to whether entitlements will be reduced in relation to the number of Resident Circuit Judges. Those over 200,000 will not have entitlements reduced. Those under will continue to be reduced under the Statute. The same threshhold allows Circuits over 200,000 to receive one additional Associate Judge for each Municipal District of the Circuit Court."
"I notice that in the metro-east area they apparently lose a Circuit Judge there. This takes away an existing Circuit Judge...I mean Associate Circuit Judge? I think that's..."
"Which Circuit would that be?"
"I think that's the 3rd Circuit."
"Third Circuit there's a net loss of one."
"And that is because they have a light case load there? What would be the additional salary cost as a result...on 320 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 an annual basis as a result of the creation of 49 additional Judges?"
"....Information, it would be an increase in salaries of 2.1 million dollars a year."
"I have no further questions."
"Further discussion? Representative Vinson."
"Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. This Amendment I would argue that people ought to vote in favor of. I think if the Members look at the Amendment carefully they'll find that there is an equitable distribution of Judges statewide. Something that we worked very hard to get and that is now properly enshrined in this Amendment. The Judges are properly allocated by population and case load. It's a good Amendment. Every Member should be in favor of this Amendment. There is no problem. There is no kink. There is no curve in this one and I would urge an 'aye' vote."
"Representative Schraeder?"
"Mr. Sponsor of the Amendment, I believe my District is the 10th Circuit. What changes are there in that District? I believe it's the 10th, Peoria."
"The 10th Circuit would have a net increase of one."
"Well that's...Mr. Speaker, on the Amendment."
"Proceed, Sir."
"It's quite obvious that if there's an increase in my Circuit it's an unjustified Amendment. We don't need additional Judges. We send Judges out of the District because they're not busy. And so on that basis alone, I have to object to the Amendment."
"Further discussion? Representative Dwight Friedrich."
"Mr. Speaker, would the Sponsor yield?"
"Indicates he will." 321 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Did I understand you to say, Representative Madigan, that this would assure one Associate Judge in each county?"
"Representative Madigan."
"You went by that pretty fast. I didn't..."
"The answer is 'no', Mr. Friedrich."
"Okay. Then the other question is, has there been a Fiscal Note filed? Mr. Speaker? I asked if there had been a Fiscal Note filed and I'm awaiting an answer."
"Representative Lechowicz."
"Point of order, Mr. Speaker."
"State your point, Sir."
"The Gentleman's request is not in order. The Amendment is being debated. The Amendment has not been adopted. At that time, before the Bill moves to Third Reading, he can request a Fiscal Note."
"Your point is well taken, Sir. Representative Madigan. Further discussion? Representative Cissy Stiehl."
"Mr. Speaker?..."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield for a question?"
"Indicates he will. Can we please have a little order? We're having some difficulty hearing. Can we please have some order?"
"Representative Madigan, did I understand you properly? Will this reduce the number of Judges in the metro-east area by one?"
"Is that the 20th Circuit?"
"Yes."
"There is no loss in the 20th Circuit."
"Thank you."
"Further discussion? Representative Schuneman."
"Question of the Sponsor, Mr. Speaker." 322 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Indicates he'll yield."
"Representative Madigan, I'm concerned...very interested in the 14th Judicial District, 14th. Can you tell me what the effect of this would be in that District?"
"A net gain of one."
"And, there is ..somewhere there are Bills that would change some of the counties in those Districts. Does this affect that in any way?"
"No, that provision is not in here."
"All right. Can you tell from the information that you have there what would happen to the District would includes Lee County? I'm sorry. I don't know what number that is."
"That's the 15th Circuit. No..No change."
"Okay. Thank you very much."
"Representative Peters."
"Will the Gentleman...Will the Sponsor yield?"
"Indicates he will."
"Representative Madigan, I apologize first of all because my staff analysis does not appear to be up to date. So if I am incorrect in what I ask you, I would just, you know, appreciate that you give me the correct information. What effect does your Amendment have on the mandatory retirement ages for Judges?'
"The Amendment does not affect that."
"Excuse me?"
"The Amendment does not affect that."
"Representative Beatty, for what purpose do you arise, Sir?"
"Point of information. The Bill that I had in the House raising the age of Judges has passed the Senate. While that is part of this Bill it's meaningless now because it is already on the Governor's desk." 323 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"I think the Gentleman, Representative Madigan, answered the question. Representative Peters."
"Representative Madigan, is the split on the Judges 18 more for Cook County?"
"Representative Madigan."
"Mr. Peters, for Cook County this would authorize 18 additional Judges. That does mean that they will be 18 new Judges in Cook County. Today the formula for apportionment of Judges to Circuit is based upon population data. In light of the new data forthcoming from the Federal Census Bureau, Cook County would not be entitled to these 18 Judges. But we all know that the case load in Cook County is such that these Judges are needed. So that what we're doing is attempting to amend this Statute to conform to our needs, to reality."
"And this adds also 31 Judges for downstate? Thirty-one additional Judges downstate?"
"That's correct. That's correct."
"For some 49 additional? Almost 59, Representative Madigan. Forty-nine additional Judges..."
"Now, Mr. Peters, let's be careful. The 18 in Cook County are there now. Okay? Thirty-one downstate are new."
"Representative Madigan, when you say the 18 in Cook County are there now, would you...would you explain please?"
"Mr. Speaker, could you ask the people around me to maintain some order?"
"Okay. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Democrat side of the aisle, would you please...it's a Republican. Get that Republican out of there."
"I was not referring to Mr. Telcser."
"Okay. All right. May we please have some 324 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 order? It's a very important Amendment."
"In spite of what Representative Telcser might say, Representative Madigan, I don't think I'm going to be for this. But, go ahead."
"I didn't think so."
"Yes, but go ahead."
"Mr. Peters, today the number of Associate Judges allotted by Statutes to a Circuit is determined according to population data. In light of the new population data, which has been developed by the Federal Census Bureau, Cook County would lose Associate Judges. That would mean that some of the sitting Judges in Cook County today would no longer be authorized. Therefore, the purpose of this Amendment is to provide authorization in the Statute in order to retain those Judges in Cook County. That's half of the Amendment. The other half is new authorization."
"So then in fact what ends up happening is we are now having more Judges in Cook based on the population than we might not ordinarily be entitled to."
"Technically that's correct, but as I have said, the Statute deals with population. You and I know that the case load in Cook County is significantly greater than it is outside of Cook. As an example, 80% of the traffic cases in the State are heard in Cook County. So that what we're attempting to do is to provide authorization in the Statute to retain the Judges that are now sitting in Cook County."
"Yes, see the thing that I can't quite grasp, Representative Madigan, is that somewhere, somehow, I've been lead to believe that there will be an additional number of Judges which is room for more people to be on the bench. And being somewhat selfish, however being that selfish is a genuine legitimate interest, Representative 325 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Wolf and I have no place to light not being attorneys. So we would be somewhat concerned especially on our side of the aisle who in fact may be considered for those judgeships should it be Cook County. That's a selfish interest, Representative Madigan. I admit it freely and openly."
"Do you think you might be interested in a bailiff's job?"
"No, I...No, I was offered that by Mat 'Biezat'."
"Maybe an Administrative Assistant to a Judge."
"Well, Representative, I won't pursue this here, but maybe on Third Reading when this gets pushed together with one or two other matters, we might all be more concerned with it."
"Representative Vitek."
"Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question."
"The Gentleman has moved the previous question. The question is, 'Shall the main question be put?'. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. The previous question has been put. The Gentleman, Representative Madigan, to close."
"As I explained earlier, Mr. Speaker, this Amendment is needed to continue authorization for the city Judges in Cook County. I would recommend an 'aye' vote."
"The Gentleman has moved for the adoption of Amendment #11. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The Roll Call. All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', opposed by voting 'no'. The voting is open. Amendment #11. Have all those voted who wish? Have all those voted who wish? Have all those voted who wish? Take the record. On Amendment #11 there are 110 'aye', 47 'no'. Amendment #11 is adopted. Further Amendments?"
"Amendment #12, Telcser..." 326 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Representative Telcser, Amendment #12. I don't know if we're still having the problem over by Representative Madigan, but I wish you people would stop harassing him. Excuse me. Representative Koehler, for what purpose do you arise?"
"Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I rise for the purposes of an introduction. A young man from Peoria and central Illinois, John Daley, is visiting us here this evening. He's over here to my right."
"John Daley, the former Youth Governor of Illinois. It's 30 years ago, right John? All right. Representative Peters, for what purpose do you arise, Sir?"
"Well, I'd like to introduce the distinguished journalist from the city of Chicago, reporter for Channel 2, Mike Flannery. Give him a hand. And Mr. Speaker, Abraham Lincoln, who's on our side here, right here. And Steven Douglas who's on that side over there. Give him a hand."
"Representative Vitek."
"Here we go again, goofing off. Let's fool around. Keep on going. Another extension is coming up. Let's get down to business."
"Representative Telcser."
"Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, Amendment #12 is an Amendment that deals with the filling of vacancies of Judges in the Circuit in which I reside."
"Representative Lechowicz, for what purpose do you arise, Sir?"
"Mr. Speaker, I'd like to have a ruling if the Amendment is germane."
"May we see the Amendment? Representative Madigan."
"Mr. Speaker, while the Parliamentarian is examining the 327 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Amendment for germaneness, would he also determine if the Amendment is in order since on page six of the Amendment under Article III there is a provision for an immediate effective date whereas earlier in the Amendment under Article II it provides for a different effective date."
"Representative Lechowicz, Madigan, your points are well taken and the Amendment is out of order. Further Amendments?"
"No further Amendments."
"Third Reading. Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, just to back up for a second. There was a Fiscal Note request on Senate Bill 88 filed by Representative Peters. The Fiscal Note has been filed. So we'll move the Bill. Leave it on Third Reading. It's for the record. Of the three stars from the T.V. media up in the gallery, Hugh Hill, Dick Kay and Mike Flannery, all three of them up there. Five o'clock news, if you all listen you can hear what's happening on the ten o'clock news. Representative Cullerton?"
"I rise for the purpose of an introduction. I'd like to introduce to us all the Speaker of the House, George Ryan."
"Senate Bills, Second Reading. Senate Bill 1177, Representative Levin. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 1177, a Bill for an Act to amend the School Code. Second Reading of the Bill. Amendment #1 was adopted in Committee."
"Any Motions filed?"
"No Motions filed."
"Any Amendments from the floor?"
"Floor Amendment #2, Vinson.."
"Representative Vinson, Amendment #2."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the 328 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 House. Amendment #2 is a very good Amendment. Provides that required daily physical education in the public schools will apply only to grades kindergarten through eleven and I would move for adoption of the Amendment."
"The Gentleman's moved for the adoption of the Amendment #2. Is there any discussion? Representative Levin, your light is not on, Sir. Representative Levin, Amendment #2."
"Yes, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I would oppose the adoption of Amendment #2 which would have the effect of gutting the Bill by deleting everything after the enacting clause and it deals with physical education. It would reduce the amount of required physical education twelve to eleven years. There are a number of Bills that came before the House Elementary and Secondary Education Committee, none of which were approved. There were attempts to discharge, for example, House Bill 90, which is similar to this Bill and that was overwhelmingly defeated. I would ask as a courtesy, you know...the issue that Amendment #2 addresses I think is an issue which certainly deserves to be aired. It is not, however, something which is relevant to this particular Bill. It would gut this Bill which deals with an important topic and accordingly I would ask that this Amendment be defeated."
"Representative Schneider."
"First of all, Mr. Speaker, on a matter of parliamentary inquiry and I think the Members have already...one of the Members on the other side of the aisle spoke to this. And that is, I think it was Representative Robbins as a matter of fact...that is the question that Bills that have already come before the House have been defeated not only in Committee, in subsequent Amendment efforts. Is that not a dilatory procedure on 329 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 such a consideration as this? This is about the third time that this has been before us. The original proposal, Representative Schuneman...Also a proposal in Amendment form and now a third time. I think we're wasting our time on dilatory tactics and on that I'd like to be recognized first off."
"Your point is noted, Representative Schneider. The Chair, in parliamentary opinion, the Chair is of the opinion that it is not dilatory. It is a different Bill that is being debated on a different day, different time, and each Member has a right to determine how they want to present their legislation. So, it is not dilatory."
"Well, my, how we apologize for the system. But nonetheless, on this Amendment now, to the issue, it is or has been a Bill that had gotten I think a proper exposure. It's one that I think both sides of the aisle, those of us who have been involved in the Education Committee, have addressed not only explicitly in the proposal that is before us, but also with the recognition that somewhere the State Board of Education, the School Problems Commission and those of us on the Mandate Subcommittee to study mandates will address this issue. I would ask that the Members recognize that and that they quickly ...that I would ask for 'no' vote on this Amendment, Amendment #2, because we will address this I think in the coming months ahead. Please vote 'no'."
"Representative Cullerton."
"Would the Gentleman yield?"
"Indicates he will."
"Representative Vinson..."
"Representative Vinson?"
"Representative Vinson, in addition, your Amendment in effect proposes...This is Representative Cullerton asking 330 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 the question, Sir. Your Amendment purports to add on to this Bill a Bill that you...failed in Committee. Is that correct?"
"My Amendment purports to add on to this Bill an improvement..."
"Excuse me, Sir. Would the Gentlemen between Representative Vinson and Representative Cullerton please retire to their seats or move a slight bit? And may all other Members please be in their seat. Those not entitled to the floor would you please clear the floor? Now, as a final reminder, it is now 10:10 and in the event that you haven't figured it out yet, if your Bill is not off of Second Reading onto Third by midnight, it is going to be dead. So let's move on. Representative Vinson."
"Yes, in response to your question, Representative. My Amendment is an effort to advance a good idea that I believe would improve the Bill."
"All right. I have no problem with that. But don't you at the same time kill the Senate Bill 1177? In other words, you strike, in your Amendment you strike that Bill don't you?"
"Yes it does."
"Well, could you also explain to us in addition to your explanation of what you're adding, explain to us why you're killing Senate Bill 1177 and not just using it as a vehicle?"
"Well, it makes it a better Bill."
"Well, what's wrong with Senate Bill 1177 that you're ..by your Amendment, you're deleting?"
"We just think that by adopting this Amendment it will put 1177 in the proper shape so that the Governor could rightfully sign it."
"Well, to the Bill...the Amendment, Mr. Speaker, I 331 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 don't think that it is another opportunity merely for Representative Vinson to get a Bill passed that's been rejected by this House in the past. But it goes further and attempts to gut the Bill that has passed the Senate. He's not merely using it as a vehicle to try to advance a good Bill, but at the same time he's killing another Senate Bill and not even having the decency to explain to us why that Bill is bad. And therefore I would ask that you vote against this Amendment."
"Representative Vinson to close."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Essentially what 1177 as passed by the Senate would do is rob the Oversight Board of its authority. Because the budget deadlines which are necessary to Oversight Board authority would no longer be in effect. So we would get back to the same position we were in in the pre-Chicago school crisis, School Board budget. I don't think we want to do that. What the Amendment does is to delete those negative provisions which are an artful way to escape oversight over substantial amounts of taxpayers' funds and improve it by substituting for those ..that evasion an effort to deregulate the physical education requirement by one year because I don't really believe it's necessary for high school seniors to be involved in physical education. I think there are a lot more important things for their time at that particular level of education. I would urge an 'aye' vote on the Amendment."
"The Gentleman's moved for the adoption of Amendment #2. Representative Schneider, you want a Roll Call? All those in favor will signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The 'nos' have it. Amendment #2 is lost. Further Amendments?"
"Amendment #3, Schneider..." 332 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Representative Schneider, Amendment #3."
"There's ...Amendment #3 is flawed, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask that it be withdrawn."
"Withdrawn. Further Amendments?"
"Amendment #4, Schneider..."
"Representative Schneider, Amendment #4."
"Amendment #4, Mr. Speaker, deletes the language on page two of the Bill as proposed as it came to the floor. Simply what we're trying to do is to allow for the adoption of an interim budget which would permit the Chicago schools to remain open. It is less definitive in its language as the Bill originally came before the House. But it serves basically the same purpose and I would ask that this Amendment be adopted."
"The Gentleman moves for the adoption of Amendment #4. Is there any discussion? Being none, the question is, 'Shall Amendment #4 be adopted?'. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. Amendment #4 is adopted. Further Amendments?"
"No further Amendments."
"Third Reading. Senate Bill 1182, Representative Levin? Read the Bill."
"Senate Bill 1182, a Bill for an Act to amend Sections of the School Code. Second Reading of the Bill. No Committee Amendments."
"Any Amendments from the floor?"
"Amendment #1, Vinson..."
"Withdrawn. Further Amendments?"
"No further Amendments."
"Third Reading. Senate Bill 1183, Representative Levin. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 1183, a Bill for an Act to amend the School Code. Second Reading of the Bill. No Committee 333 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Amendments."
"Any Amendments from the floor?"
"Amendment #1, Vinson..."
"Withdrawn. Further Amendments?"
"No further Amendments."
"Third Reading. Senate Bill 1184. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 1184, a Bill for an Act to amend Sections of the School Code. Second Reading of the Bill. No Committee Amendments."
"Any Amendments from the floor?"
"Amendment #1, Vinson..."
"Withdrawn. Further Amendments?"
"No further Amendments."
"Third Reading. Senate Bill 1186. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 1186, a Bill for an Act to amend Sections of the School Code. Second Reading of the Bill. No Committee Amendments."
"Any Amendments from the floor?"
"Amendment #1, Deuster..."
"Representative Deuster, Amendment #1."
"Please withdraw Amendment #1."
"Withdrawn. Further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #2..."
"Representative Levin? Representative Levin."
"Yes, Representative Deuster, I believe we want to go with Amendment #1 and the last part of Amendment #1 is the new Amendment we filed. We need Amendment #1."
"I don't think so, Representative Levin. Amendment #7, which you and I have jointly sponsored, amends the Bill on both line 13 and 32 and I think that takes care of it."
"No. The Amendment #1 deals with the city of Chicago. 334 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Amendment #7 deals with the second paragraph which is the downstate. We need both Amendments."
"Well, no. I think if you read them...I don't want to protract this, but if you read Amendment #7 it refers to page one of the Bill, line 13..."
"You're right. You're right."
"Okay.."
"Amendment #1 is withdrawn. Further Amendments?"
"Amendment #2, Deuster.."
"Representative Deuster."
"Please withdraw Amendment #2."
"Withdrawn. Further Amendments?"
"Amendment #3, Levin.."
"Representative Levin."
"Withdraw it."
"Withdrawn. Further Amendments?"
"Amendment #4, Levin...."
"Representative Levin?"
"Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, Amendment..we had in Elementary and Secondary Education the Bill that was proposed by the Governor which was affectionately known as the 'School snitch Bill'. That Bill was defeated. However, there was a feeling on the part of many people on both sides of the aisle, including the Senate Sponsor of this Bill, that the Department of Law Enforcement was interested in getting involved in drug education in the schools. And Amendment #4 is permissive in this effect. It authorizes the Department of Law Enforcement to get involved in drug education. I would ask for the adoption of that Amendment. I don't...I believe it's been cleared."
"Representative Schneider." 335 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Well, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, we have not ever undertaken with any kind of success that kind of a program. For a while the School Code was said with language that said you had to teach drug and alcohol abuse in the schools. It was at that time a mandate. It was not done. We repealed it. We have not ever established successfully that monies that had been set aside for drug and alcohol abuse were ever expended or even allocated and appropriated by the State Board even though it was a special line item. Now we're coming before the House of Representatives at this late and curious hour with a proposal for that kind of education. It is no substitute for that atrocious Bill that was called the 'Snitch Bill'. It is even worse in that it fools a lot of people into thinking and lulling a lot of people into thinking that we're really going to be educating kids and adults at whatever level toward this problem. That is not a problem that will be solved with this Amendment, nor...it was not solved in the past by the mandate. I would ask that we defeat Amendment #4 to House Bill 1186 (sic, Senate Bill 1186)."
"Representative Ropp."
"Mr. Speaker, thank you very much and Members of the House. I would also urge the defeat of this Amendment. I think many School Boards and units are attempting to deal with this problem very effectively. I know in our local area they are doing this very well. I hate to get teachers involved in the kind of situation where we had talked about some time ago where it was snitching. To me there are more important problems to deal with in the area of education rather than to also put this burden on teachers or even law enforcement people. I urge the defeat of this Amendment."
"Representative Mulcahey." 336 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Mr. Speaker, this indeed is the..no matter how camouflaged it may be, it's the 'Snitch Bill' which was roundly defeated in Committee. It has no place in the education program and I likewise ask for a resounding defeat."
"Representative Levin to close."
"Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, this Amendment was requested by the Senate Sponsor as an attempt at a compromise. I opposed the drug 'Snitch Bill' in Committee and this is not the drug 'Snitch Bill'. The drug 'Snitch Bill' would have required teachers to effectively rat on the kids if they found drugs or drug use. One component of that Bill however did authorize the Department of Law Enforcement to engage in drug education. I will totally abide by the decision of this Body. The Senate Sponsor did think this was a reasonable compromise and so, you know, I will ask for your support if you think it's a good idea."
"The Gentleman moves for the adoption of Amendment #4. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The 'nos' have it. The Amendment is lost. Further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #5, Vinson..."
"Representative Vinson? Withdrawn. Further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #6, Schneider.."
"Representative Schneider on Amendment #6."
"Just one minute, Mr. Speaker. I don't know what this is. I'm informed that I can now withdraw that Amendment."
"Withdrawn. Further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #7, Deuster..."
"Representative Deuster, Amendment #7."
"This is the Amendment that Representative Levin and the 337 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 people behind the Bill have worked out. It corrects some language to avoid an ambiguity. And what it really does is it strikes out the phrase, 'in a criminal proceding' and puts in language so that it reads, 'upon a finding of guilty of such business offense'. I urge the adoption of Amendment #7. It makes no substantive change, but it avoids some confusion in the language."
"Any discussion? Being none, the Gentleman moves the adoption of Amendment #7. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. Amendment #7 is adopted. Further Amendments?"
"No further Amendments."
"Third Reading. Senate Bill 1187. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 1187, a Bill for an Act to amend Sections of the School Code. Second Reading of the Bill. No Committee Amendments."
"Amendments from the floor?"
"Amendment #1, Vinson..."
"Withdrawn. Further Amendments?"
"No further Amendments."
"Third Reading. On the School Code, Senate Bill 954. Representative Hoffman. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk."
"Senate Bill 954, a Bill for an Act to amend Sections of the School Code. Second Reading of the Bill. Amendment #1 was adopted in Committee."
"Any Motions filed?"
"A Motion to table Amendment #1 by Representative White."
"Representative White. Representative Reilly, for what purpose do you arise?"
"Yes, Mr. Speaker, Amendment #1 was mine in Committee and there were some technical problems with it so I would move 338 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 to table Amendment #1."
"Representative White and Representative Reilly move to table Amendment #1. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. Amendment #1 is tabled. Any Floor Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #2, Schneider."
"Representative Schneider, Amendment #2."
"Amendment #2, Mr. Speaker, was to correct Representative Reilly's technical errors. I withdraw it."
"Withdrawn. Further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #3, Reilly."
"Excuse me. Representative Madigan."
"Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to state for the record that I object to any requests for leave to take any Bill back from the Order of Third Reading to second tonight and I hereby request a Roll Call on any such effort."
"Thank you, Sir. Okay, Representative.... I'm sorry. Amendment #3. Who's Amendment is that?"
"Representative Reilly."
"Representative Reilly, Amendment #3."
"Withdraw Amendment #3."
"Withdrawn. Further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #4, Reilly."
"Representative Reilly, Amendment #4."
"Withdraw Amendment."
"Withdrawn. Further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #5, Braun."
"Representative Braun, Amendment #5. Representative Hoffman, your pleasure, Sir?"
"Table."
"Representative Hoffman moves to table Amendment #5. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. Amendment #5 is tabled. 339 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #6, Jones."
"Representative Jones, Amendment #6. Representative Stuffle."
"Yes, point of order on Amendment #6. The Amendment refers to the Bill as amended. I don't believe that the Bill is now amended having had a tabling of Amendment #1. I question whether the Amendment is now in order."
"Representative Jones. Withdrawn. Further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #7, Reilly."
"Representative Reilly, Amendment #7."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First, I would ask leave to have Representative Stuffle added as a hyphenated chief Sponsor of Amendment #7. Is there leave? I would ask leave to have Representative Stuffle as a hyphenated chief Sponsor."
"The Gentleman asks leave. Does the Gentleman have leave? Leave is granted. Representative Stuffle is added as a hyphenated chief Sponsor."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And Representative Stuffle will close on the Amendment. The Amendment makes three changes in the School Aid formula which I can describe technically. First change is to lower the Title 1 cap to .62. The second change is to raise the high school qualifying rate from $1.05 to $1.08 and the final change is to weight all elementary students at 1.03. I can also describe it in a way you're probably more interested in. I have a bunch of printouts here. There are also some distributed around the floor that various Members who are interested in education have and you're probably more interested in that. The function of the Amendment essentially is to try to bring some equity in the distribution of the funds that we're 340 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 going to appropriate for the common school general distributive aid formula. Basically, what the Amendment does is decrease the increase that the City of Chicago is going to get. They'll still get an increase. They will still have an increase percentage of state aid and an increased amount of state aid but it decreases that percentage. It also brings some equity at long last between the high school districts which are as a general matter in less need of state aid than other kinds of districts. And elementary districts, the underlying elementary districts in those parts of the state that have dual districts. And finally, it distributes more money to the smaller and downstate unit districts. That is where the same School Board runs both the elementary and the high school. The Amendment, I think most of you will understand in terms of the effect that it has on your kind of school district. A great many of you have been contacted by the elementary districts asking your support of this Amendment. A great many of you have seen printouts showing that your school districts will get additional funds. On that basis, I would be glad to answer questions. I would be glad to provide printouts to anyone who wants them and I would ask for a favorable vote on Amendment #7 to Senate Bill 954."
"Representative Emil Jones. Representative Ray Ewell."
"I want to ask.. I'll ask the Sponsor this question. How much money does it effect Chicago by? How much money are you taking from us if it went with no Amendment or if it went with this Amendment? How much money do we lose?"
"Six million dollars."
"Why?"
"Well, it's a matter of trying to decide what an equitable distribution is. You will be gaining, the city 341 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 will be gaining twenty some million dollars no matter what we do. Without the Amendment, most parts of the state might stay even or lose. It's simply a matter of trying to bring some equity. It is not intended in any way as an anti-Chicago proposition."
"To the Amendment. Equity like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I say again here you see one savage attack on the City of Chicago. Yes, you do have the vote to do exactly as you please. Yes, you and the rest of the state can take six million dollars from us, redistribute it throughout the rest of the state and call it equity. It is not now. It cannot be nor will it ever be equity. This is in essence a little bit of statutory rape. We are the victims. I pointed out to you in a rather lighthearted manner how you're willing to give $850,000 to a particular district because they were beset by problems. The City of Chicago has an approximate one hundred million dollar short fall coming up. There will be layoffs of teachers, curtailing of programs, restrictions of all types by virtue of the budgetary constraints as they are now. You are, again, taking from us not by the Committee process but by the amendatory process the ability of Members on the floor to sit here and tell you you're getting a little bit more. I say to you, that's true. You are going to get a little more from us. You're going to take it from us because we cannot defend ourselves. But I want to point out to you, Gentlemen, that one day, one day Chicago, Cook County, DuPage County are going to get together on the formula. That there won't always be the divisions. And there will be those of you from downstate who will be crying in every single capacity. You're saying you're taking it from us. Yes, that may well happen. Those of you who sit here idly, smug and complacent and believe you can never be the 342 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 victims are mistaken. I say to you there's a time. There is no equity or justice in this world unless we provide it to each other. What you're doing is insanity. You're taking from a school district where you have no right to take it from. You're saying that we're getting an increase but you're getting an increase too. You want six million dollars of our money, taking it out of the Title 1 funds because that's where you're taking it out from. These are the kids who it is was assigned to. These are funds that also come down because of the federal government. You're taking it from us simply because you have the power to do so. Gentlemen, when you cry for equity and fairness, you have to do equity and fairness. And I say it will come back to haunt you. Now, I plead with you for a little consideration, a little understanding and a little fairness. And please, don't take from our kids six million dollars."
"Representative Hoffman."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Amendment #7 to this Bill which is in the same form as the formula Bill that we passed out of the House by a vote of something like 144 to nothing. Either quiet them down or turn me up."
"Alright, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, could we please have order? Representative Hoffman."
"This particular program in its present form without the Amendment is the only program that we have been able to get agreement on among all of the various factions of the education community. There was an effort by the State Superintendent of Education to find a consensus among the high school, elementary and unit districts. This effort was not successful. Then a group of elementary districts came forward with a proposal which would redistribute the 343 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 money from Chicago and from the high school districts to elementary districts only. That is the Amendment and was the explanation of the Amendment that we voted on in the Education Committee which was Amendment #1. That Amendment has been tabled. This particular Amendment redistributes the money from high school and some of the poorer unit districts to all elementary students in both elementary and unit districts. Now, rather than ask the Sponsor of the Amendment questions to which I already know the answer which is a fairly typical technique here, let me just tell you what this Amendment does. This Amendment redistributes away from every high school district in this state eleven million dollars. Eleven million dollars difference between the present condition that this Bill is in without this Amendment. Amendment #7 redistributes eleven million dollars away from every high school district in this state. There are 123 high school districts that are losers. Only three districts that find no change. Now, let me tell you that this money, this Amendment distributes additional money to some of the most wealthy districts in this state. Districts with over two hundred thousand dollars of assessed evaluation per pupil get increases. 'McHauley', Hollis, Central Stickney, Rosemont, Oswego, Maple Grove, which is probably the richest district in this state, Skokie, Rockdale. These are districts with all over two hundred thousand dollars of assessed evaluation. Now, the districts, some of the districts who pay are those districts which have practically no ability themselves to support their own schools. Some of the poorest districts in the state. Egyptian. These are districts with less than fifteen thousand dollars per ADA pupil behind each of those pupils. Egyptian, East St. Louis, Cobdon, Brooklyn, Madison, Hardin County which is a county district, they 344 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 lose. That's a community district. That's a unit district. Murphysboro, Lebanon, Cairo, Polk County which is a whole county. They lose. Masack loses except for Maple Grove and Joppa which are the two wealthiest districts in the... two of the wealthiest districts in the state because they have a power plant. The Calhoun unit loses. Pose and Robbins loses."
"Would the Gentleman please bring his remarks to a close?"
"Mr. Speaker, I haven't even taken a microphone out yet. Redistributes the money away from some of the poorest districts in the state to some of the wealthiest. Ladies and Gentlemen, in bringing my remarks to a close, let me reemphasize once again that in the proposal that is embodied in the original Bill there is a reduction of seven million dollars in terms of the general distributive fund to Chicago by the reduction in Title 1. This changes that by an additional 5.8 million and redistributes away from every high school district in this state. Now, you're been hearing from some of the elementary districts. For example, I know in one of the north shore districts today the high school districts sat down with the elementary districts and realized that their high school district was going to lose more in dollars under this proposal than all of the elementary districts underlying them and were going to gain. This is a very complicated area to be operating in. I would encourage you to oppose Amendment #7 because of all the inequities that are built into the program."
"Representative Birkinbine."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. In.. closer to street language what the good doctor was saying is that high school districts here get screwed with this Amendment. Of all the various school districts 345 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 in the state out of the high school districts absolutely none, zero, gain by this Amendment. They lose out. In fact, 123 out of 126 actually lose. Now, I've got a few dollar totals for you here. J.S. Morton High School school district loses $294,000 with this. Lyons Township High School district loses two hundred and twenty-seven, eight thousand eight hundred dollars with this. Thorton Township High School, $350,400. Main Township High School, $471,000. Proviso Township High School, $337. Township. Picking them out. Breman Township, $205,000. City of Chicago and I hope that the Minority Leader is listening to this. The City of Chicago loses with this Amendment $5,854,000. In other words, if this Amendment is not adopted the City of Chicago will retain that much in its high school system. What the Amendment chooses to do is to shift from our high schools into our elementary and unit districts an incredible amount of money. Now, the Sponsor of this Bill and the Elementary School District Association feel that elementary school districts have been under-funded for some years and too much advantage has gone to our high school districts. Well, they choose to correct that with what can best be described as a meat ax approach. My own, one of my own high school district, Evanston, loses $195,000 just on this one Amendment. New Trier Township loses $234,000. Close to a quarter of a million dollars. As I said, it seems at best a meat ax approach. Representative Ewell indicated that they talk about equity and distribution. I suggest to you that this Amendment certainly does not do that. Now, opponents might say, 'look we're only trying to even out elementary school, unit school, with the high schools.' But there's a way to do that. You could do that over a period of years. I suggest that if you hit any school district in the state with 346 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 $200,000 or more at one crack loss you're doing them severe damage. And I indicate again to you that the City of Chicago alone in their high school district is going to come up short $5,854,000. I suggest that all of you look at these totals. Should you wish to come by and look at what happens to your high school district in the state, I'd be more than glad to share your numbers with you because I assure you the parents and school district in your area are going to be might concerned about why you voted the way you did if you don't look at these numbers beforehand. I recommend a 'no' vote on this Amendment."
"Representative Sandquist."
"Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question."
"The Gentleman moves the previous question. The question is, 'Shall the main question be put?' All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. Representative Stuffle, to close."
"Mr. Speaker and Members, every year we go through the same debate on the school aid formula. Every year there's a discussion of whose ox is being gored. Every year we attempt to come to some sort of resolution to this problem. It doesn't make everyone happy especially in a year when there's not enough money to go around. Some have suggested on our side of the aisle that this is not part of what was agreed to by the Democratic task force in education but I suggest to them while that may be true we did not consider this Amendment at that time to my recollection and to others on that task force. I suggest to you that there are cuts in some districts. The attempt in this Amendment by Representative Reilly and myself is to bring this into balance and to be fair. Representative Hoffman talked about some poor districts losing money. He did not talk about the fact that wealthy, suburban and downstate high 347 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 school districts, many of whom have large surpluses while other unit districts and elementaries are going begging are the ones that we're trying to bring into an equitable situation. They have the ability to raise tax money and to receive state aid without referendum. Elementary and units are not in that position. This is an Amendment which attempts to bring this into a fair posture for the districts of this state. The city does lose some money but I would point out to you that the City of Chicago which receives 31.7% of the state school aid distribution last year still with this Amendment on the Bill would receive 32.1% this year of the state aid pie. For those reasons and the reasons cited by Representative Reilly I would urge an affirmative vote on Amendment #7 to Senate Bill 954."
"The Gentleman's moved the adoption of Amendment #7. All those in favor will signify by voting 'aye', opposed by voting 'no'. The voting is open. Representative Schneider, to explain his vote. The timer's on, Sir."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My light was on also. The previous speaker's words ought to turn to ashes in terms of the logic of whether or not we had addressed it in a previous Commission or Committee meeting. I would suggest to you that what Representative Birkinbine has said is true. We are impaled on the choice between high schools and elementaries but that's only a political problem. The reality is that there is a loss to Chicago. More realistically is that we have been unable to solve the problem because we have been responding out of the frustration of the unacceptability of the opinions offered by School Boards that are high school and elementary or unit districts. It's that kind of a problem that we're trying to solve in the heat of the end of a Session. We 348 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 also, when we change the Title 1 weightings from 675 to 620 shift money away even within that district of Chicago to the non-Title 1 kids. Chicago of those kids who are Title 1 (cut off)."
"Please bring your remarks to a close, Sir."
"All out of the compliance with the statute that we had established a number of years ago. Remember next year is the first year that we will try to find the money to follow the child in our program to take that action over a three year period. Chicago goes from $493,000,000. $814,000 to $487,000 under this proposition we had seen that the adjustment we had made in the proposition, the Hoffman bills and the School Problems Commission were seen as an acceptable way to try to redistribute money throughout the State of Illinois. If we can defeat this Amendment, I think we can look for way to solve the inequities that proportedly weve addressed by Representative Stuffle. I would urge you to vote 'no' on this Amendment."
"Representative Ebbesen. Representative Deuster. The timer's on, Sir."
"Mr. Speaker, in explaining my 'yes' vote, what this Bill essentially does is a little fine tuning in the formula mainly to give a little more weighting, a little more money to the elementary schools who are having the most difficult financial time now. With declining enrollment and also this Bill expresses the philosophy that there's no more important point in the education of children to make sure that there's adequate funds and to keep those schools open than our elementary schools. It doesn't make a major change. It makes a minor change. It moves in the direction recognizing our high schools have adequate funds in most cases and the elementary schools are 349 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 really hurting and need this support. Please vote 'aye'."
"Representative Emil Jones."
"Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Back in 1973 when we came up with the resource equalized formula and we included this weighting in there for disadvantage students throughout the State of Illinois, we included that in there because of the added cost of educating children from disadvantaged families across the state. And now I see you constantly have attempted to chop away at that particular weighting factor. A year ago it was a... two years ago it was a .75. Last year you dropped it to 675. Now we are down to 62. You are constantly robbing the poor to take care of the rich. This was not the intent of the formula. As Gene Hoffman pointed out, school districts across the state, they are impacted with poverty students are being robbed."
"The Gentleman from Cook, Representative Piel, to explain his vote. The timer's on, Sir."
"Just to say if this receives a favorable majority I would like to verify the Roll Call."
"The Gentleman from Cook, Representative Bullock, to explain his vote. The timer's on, Sir."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Had I been able to ask the Sponsor a question on this Bill I would have asked the Sponsor, 'why are you weighting the kids 1 through 8 and not weighting those kids in high school?' I would have asked the Sponsor, 'why are you dropping from .75 to .62 for Title 1 children?' The kids who need the most help, the kids that need the money, the kids that you would like to see rehabilitated before they hit the streets of our society and cause us additional expense. I would have like to ask the Sponsor those questions but since I could not I could only draw one 350 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 conclusion since the Sponsor is silent on that point. That this Sponsor, in fact, is, in fact, child abuser. A child abuser by neglect, a child abuser, yes, even by design. By attempting to force these individuals who need the most rehabilitation particularly in urban Amer...(cut off)"
"Representative Polk, to explain his vote."
"I find it interesting that my good friend over here, the Assistant Majority Leader, is so concerned about the amount of funds that Chicago is not going to get. We point out to them and know they're not going to get the twenty-eight million that they asked for. They're only going to get twenty-two million additional funds. Let's point out that it is going to be an additional money going into the City of Chicago, twenty-two million dollars worth. And, yes, the elementaries and secondaries are going to be better off. But those high schools in our areas and the area around the collar counties have always had a big balance to work with. So what we're trying to do is making this more equitable. And, yes, Chicago is going to lose five million from what they originally asked for but they're going to get twenty-two million new dollars."
"Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Lady from Cook, Representative Braun, to explain her vote."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. You know it's unfortunate that our shortsightedness makes us take out.. take against those who are the least fortunate all of our state's problems. The fact of the matter is, there's an article in Crane Chicago Business some time ago in which the business community was complaining about the level of literacy of children coming out of the school system that they couldn't hire, they couldn't employ because the children were not receiving the 351 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 services. These are precisely the dollars that are targeted at those youngsters. These are the dollars that are targeted to provide the additional funds for education of economically disadvantaged students and have 87 votes up there saying we don't care what happens to those students. We don't care what happens to the city. We don't care what happens to the future of our great State of Illinois. I find to be reprehensible. Ladies and Gentlemen, it is not a matter of competition among school districts. It's a matter of where we are going to put our dollars. Are we going to put them in education for children, for all children. Are we going to help economically disadvantaged children..(cut off)."
"Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record. On this Amendment #7 there are 90 'aye', 70 'no', ten 'present' and Amendment #7 is adopted. Further Amendments? Excuse me. Representative, I'm sorry. Representative Braun."
"We would like a verification, please, of the affirmative vote."
"Representative Madigan."
"Mr. Speaker, I wish to amend an earlier objection that I had placed in the record but I believe that the Lady has asked for a verification. Did you respond to that?"
"The Lady has asked for a verification. She will get her verification. You, Sir, Representative Madigan."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, earlier in the evening I filed an objection in the record to any effort to take any Senate Bill on the Order of Third Reading back to the Order of Second Reading. I wish to amend that objection now so that the objection is only filed to Senate Bill 999 and Senate Bill 1095. So that I wish the record 352 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 to show that I hereby object to any effort to take Senate Bill 999 and Senate Bill 1095 back to the Order of Second Reading. And if there is a Motion to that effect I hereby request a record Roll Call vote. And also 256."
"Anything else? Any others?"
"No."
"Okay, Sir. Thank you. Alright, the Lady, Representative Braun, has requested a verification of the affirmative Roll. The Gentleman, Representative Reilly, requests a poll of the absentees. Representative Dunn. (John)" Dunn, John: "Mr. Speaker, please record me as 'aye'."
"Representative John Dunn, 'aye'. Representative Jack Dunn." Dunn, Jack: "Present."
"Representative Jack Dunn, 'present'."
"'Aye' to 'present'."
"Oh, I'm sorry. Representative Jack Dunn was recorded as 'aye'. Change him to 'present'. Any further changes or additions? Proceed with a poll of the absentees."
"Bluthardt. Garmisa. Margalus. Martire. Redmond. Richmond. Robbins. No further."
"Proceed with the poll of the affirmative Roll."
"Ackerman. Alstat. Barkhausen. Barr. Bartulis. Bell. Boucek. Bower. Bradley. Breslin. Brummer. Carey. Christensen. Conti. Darrow. Davis. Deuchler. Deuster. Donovan. John Dunn. Ralph Dunn. Ebbesen. Fawell. Findley. Flinn. Virginia Frederick. Dwight Friedrich. Giorgi. Hallock. Hallstrom. Hannig. Hastert. Hoxsey. Hudson. Johnson. Kane. Karpiel. Katz. Jim Kelley. Klemm. Kociolko. Koehler. Leverenz."
"Change Representative Huskey from 'no' to 353 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 'aye'. Representative Jane Barnes from 'no' to 'aye'. Further changes? Representative Robbins, 'aye'. Further changes? Proceed."
"Matijevich. Mautino. Mays. McBroom. McClain. McCormick. McGrew. McMaster. Miller. Mulcahey. Murphy. Neff."
"Representative Richmond, for what purpose? Representative Richmond, 'aye'. Proceed."
"Nelson. Oblinger."
"Representative Breslin."
"Mr. Speaker, would you change my vote from 'aye' to 'no', please."
"Change Representative Breslin from 'aye' to 'no'. Proceed."
"O'Connell. Ozella. Polk. Pullen. Rea. Reed. Reilly. Richmond. Rigney. Robbins. Ropp. Saltzman. Satterthwaite. Schraeder. Schuneman. Slape. Irv Smith. Steczo. E.G. Steele. C.M. Stiehl. Stuffle. Swanstrom. Tate. Topinka. Tuerk. Vinson. Watson. Wikoff. Winchester. Sam Wolf. Woodyard. Yourell. Zito. Zwick and Mr. Speaker."
"Representative Karpiel."
"Do I have leave to be verified?"
"Representative Karpiel asks for leave to be verified, Representative Braun. Does she have leave? Leave is granted. Okay, Representative Braun. Questions of the affirmative Roll."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I have a count?"
"Approximately 93-94. 93 'ayes'."
"Okay, here we go."
"May the Lady please have your attention? Thank you."
"Representative Rigney." 354 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Rigney's here."
"Representative Ebbesen."
"Ebbesen? Representative Ebbesen? Is the Gentleman in the chambers? How is he recorded?"
"The Gentleman's recorded as voting 'aye'."
"Remove him."
"Representative Oblinger."
"I'm sorry, I can't hear you, Ma'am."
"I'm very sorry. Representative Oblinger."
"Representative Oblinger. Is the Lady in the chambers? How is she recorded?"
"The Lady's recorded as voting 'aye'."
"Remove her."
"Representative Steele. E.G. Steele."
"Representative E.G. Steele. Is the Gentleman in the chamber? Is Representative E.G. Steele? How is he recorded?"
"The Gentleman's recorded as voting 'aye'."
"Remove him."
"Representative Vinson."
"Representative Vinson. Is the Gentleman in the chambers? Representative Vinson's in the aisle."
"Representative Smith, Irv Smith."
"Representative Irv Smith. He's by his seat."
"Representative Tate."
"Representative Tate. He's over here by Representative Rigney. He's here. Trust. Have trust and faith."
"I do. Representative Satterthwaite."
"Representative Satterthwaite. Representative Satterthwaite. I do see you. I hear you. Where are you? Way up in the air. She's up in the air. She's here. Further questions?" 355 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Oh, yes. Representative Steczo."
"Representative Steczo is in his seat."
"Representative McGrew."
"Representative McGrew. He's by his chair."
"Representative Mautino."
"Representative Peters, for what purpose do you rise? Change Representative Peters from 'present' to 'no'. Okay, Representative Braun, the last one you asked?"
"Representative Mautino."
"Representative Mautino. Is the Gentleman in the chambers? He's back in his chair."
"They're hiding. Representative.. Representative Ozella."
"Representative Ozella. Representative Ozella. Is the Gentleman in the chamber? How is the Gentleman recorded?"
"The Gentleman's recorded as voting 'aye'."
"Remove him."
"Representative Neff. There he goes. My cousin, walking down the aisle."
"Okay, he's in the center aisle."
"Representative.. Representative Karpiel was verified?"
"Representative Karpiel was verified."
"Representative Hoxsey."
"Representative Hoxsey is in her chair."
"Representative McMaster."
"Representative McMaster is in his chair."
"Representative Monroe Flinn."
"Representative Flinn. Representative Flinn. Is the Gentleman in the chambers? How is the Gentleman recorded?"
"The Gentleman's recorded as voting 'aye'."
"Remove him."
"Representative Koehler." 356 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Representative Koehler is right in front of you."
"Where? Oh, I'm sorry. Alright. Representative John Dunn."
"Representative John Dunn. Representative John Dunn."
"Forget that. He's voting 'present'. Representative Kane."
"Now, wait a second. Representative Ebbesen has returned so return him to the affirmative Roll. Representative Kane. Is the Gentleman in the chambers? Where is he? Representative Kane is over on the left. He's being surrounded by the press getting ready to storm the podium for the third time in sixteen years. Alright, Representative John Dunn is over here on the right. Further questions?"
"Representative Donovan."
"Representative Donovan is in front of you, Ma'am."
"Where? Oh, I'm sorry. Representative Darrow."
"Representative Darrow is over in Representative Jones'.."
"I apologize but the milling around makes it a little difficult."
"I understand that."
"Representative Barr."
"Representative Barr. Bob Barr. Chairman Barr. Is the Gentleman in the chambers? How is the Gentleman recorded? Oh, he's in back. He's in the back."
"Hiding. Representative Wikoff."
"Representative Wikoff is in his chair."
"Representative Bradley."
"Representative Bradley. Jerry Bradley. Is the 357 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Gentleman in the chambers? How is the Gentleman recorded?"
"The Gentleman's recorded as voting 'aye'."
"Remove him."
"Representative Bell."
"Representative Bell is over here by the aisle."
"Representative Alstat."
"Representative Alstat is by his chair."
"Was Representative Zwick verified?"
"Representative who?"
"Zwick."
"Zwick is directly in front of you."
"Representative Birkinbine."
"I know those downstaters all look alike don't they? Representative Birkinbine."
"There he is. There he is. Representative Leverenz."
"Representative Leverenz is by his chair. Further questions?"
"No further questions, Mr. Speaker."
"What's the count, Mr. Clerk? 88 'ayes', 70 'nos'. Amendment #7 is... What do you want, Mr. Ewell?"
"I want to vote with the prevailing side so you change me to 'aye'."
"Change Representative Ewell from 'no' to 'aye'. Representative Johnson."
"Mr. Speaker, having voted on the prevailing side..."
"Wait a second. Wait a second. Let me announce it first, Representative Johnson, and then I'll recognize you. Representative John Dunn." Dunn, John: "Mr. Speaker, switch me back to 'present' will you please?"
"Change Representative John Dunn from 'aye' to 'present'. Representative Leverenz."
"Record me 'present' despite of the 'BBM'." 358 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Representative Leverenz from 'aye' to 'present'. Representative Griffin. Record Representative Griffin from 'present' to 'no'. Alright, further changes? Mr. Clerk, give me the count. 87 'aye', 70 'nos'. Amendment #7 is adopted. Representative Johnson moves to reconsider the vote by which Amendment #7 was adopted. Representative Reilly moves to lie it upon the table. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. Further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #8, Jones."
"Representative Jones, on Amendment #8. Jones, Amendment #8."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Throughout the State of Illinois we have hundreds of thousands of students in the public school system who depend on public school finances for their education. The State of Illinois in its infinite wisdom in 1973 created a resource equalizer formula and included in that formula a weighting factor for the disadvantaged students in the public school system. Amendment #7(sic) increases the weighting to a 1.65 for the disadvantaged students in the public school system. This Amendment does not conflict with the previous Amendment because this is for elementary as well as high school students. This is the same weighting factor that Representative Hoffman and the school problem Commission came up with when we passed out of here more than one month ago a weighting of 1.65 for disadvantaged students. I solicit an 'aye' vote from both sides of the aisle on this very critical issue. We have witnessed here today a continually rating on the disadvantaged people in the State of Illinois. You tried it with the Public Aid and now you're working on those other helpless individuals, the poor students in the public 359 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 school system. I want an 'aye' vote on this issue because we cannot afford to let the elephant, the elephant on the other side of the aisle and some of my misguided friends on this side of the aisle who think that riding the elephant is in the best interest of the people. You are very consistent, Representative Reilly, in your efforts to hurt the poor but now you are picking on the children of the State of Illinois. And as Representative Ray Ewell said, 'this is child abuse, not child neglect but child abuse.' And I ask for an affirmative vote on Amendment #8."
"Representative Hoffman."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Let me make sure that everyone understands the Amendment that's being proposed. The Amendment being proposed by Representative Jones merely returns the weighting to the level it was in the original Bill. He didn't address the elementary student weighting at all. He merely has returned the weighting for Title 1 back to the level that we agreed to when we passed the formula or the House version of the formula Bill out. This affects the poorest districts in the state. It would effect unit districts, elementary districts, high school districts, anyplace where you have this high concentration. I would guess that the 48 elementary districts which are losing under Amendment #7 would gain enough out of this change to come in as a winner. For that reason I would support Amendment #8."
"Representative McGrew."
"Would the Gentleman yield?"
"He indicates he will."
"Representative, could you explain to us how the Title 1 got in the funding formula anyway?"
"Representative Jones." 360 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Yes, will you repeat that? I didn't hear you."
"Would you explain to us how the Title 1 weighted factor ever arrived into the resource equalizer."
"It arrived in 1973 when we came up with the resource equalize formula. And at that time I sat on the Elementary Committee for one day and we passed the resource equalize formula. And it was put in there, the weighting for disadvantaged students to meet their needs in the public school system. It was explained then by the School Problems Commission that the higher cost of educating students were from disadvantaged families, carry a ... of the burden on the public school system. As a result we put this additional money in there to meet their educational needs."
"I submit to you, Sir, that your memory doesn't serve you quite as well as you suggest. The Title 1 weighted factor was put on as a result of a deal in 1973. We passed a Bill on a very very partisan Roll Call with 89 Republicans and zero Democrats. It went to the Senate. Chicago says, but boys you cut us out. We've got to be in. And the way they got you in was through a weighted factor Title 1. Now, Sir, where does a Title 1 program funding come from? Is that state or is it federal money?"
"I'm talking about state Title 1 dollars."
"Sir, there is no such thing."
"Excuse me. Representative Hoffman, for what purpose do you rise, Sir?"
"Mr. Speaker, and as Representative McGrew well knows, I sponsored that Bill in 1973. The Title 1 weighting was put in in the Commission. It was not part of any deal. That was done when that Bill came out on the floor and there's been excellent dissertation written on it that you might like to read sometime." 361 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Representative McGrew."
"As I was about to say. The Title 1 program was put in with a deal to make sure that Chicago got their share. It is a 100% federally funded project. As a matter of fact I submit to you the best thing we could do is really look at this and why not say the number of ag students you have. I suspect that that might be a good way to look at it. It costs a little more to have those kinds of programs. It makes just as much sense. We could weight it that way. It's a bad Amendment and I suggest you vote 'no'."
"Representative Reilly."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We fought this fight, those who are offering this Amendment lost. You win some you lose some but make no mistake about it what this does is undo what we did with Amendment #7. There are no printouts available to show the exact effect this would have but while it is true that this would help some of the other districts other than Chicago, very few districts other than Chicago. The simple fact is if by taking this out of the proposal which we just passed and with the substantial majority in which we just debated is simply to gut the proposal. You don't have money to move unless you make this change in the Title 1 cap. We debated the issue. We had a verified Roll Call. We took a long time on it. You lost. Let's defeat this Amendment and get on with the Bill and get on with other matters that we have to consider. All those who voted for Amendment #7 should vote against Amendment #8 because it exactly undoes the effect of that."
"Representative Schneider."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker Members of the House. The previous speaker is also the one who's dealing in logic who gained us the vote for collective bargaining and then spoke on the initiatives for management. So with that kind of 362 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 logic I can't imagine why we would want to spend a lot of time considering his remarks. What I would suggest to you is that when we hear the notion that the .65 has no relationship to the education of the disadvantaged child I think we err. Representative McGrew's comments about there's no logic to that and that there's some proported relationship to a deal some eight years. And his memory, I'm sure, has not failed him but I suggest to you that talking about deals is getting a bit fuzzy when we have to deal with it in print. What I suggest to you also is that we weight high school students and there's a rationale behind that in terms of the cost of educating a high school student because of the expense. The logic of the last Amendment, not explained by the Sponsor, was that there was no logic for an elementary weighting. Where is the study. Why did the State Board abandon its efforts in '79 for FY '81 to deal with that question of logic tied to weighting elementary kids. There's a dramatic shift in the nature of the population. There's a reality that we have to face in terms of dollars that are needed for a child under the 'Oshanski' formula. I think this is a good Amendment and I hope you support it."
"Representative Mautino. Representative Mautino. Representative Braun."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Sponsor."
"Indicates he'll yield."
"Representative Jones, what are determining factors for Title 1 eligibility?"
"The determining factor is students that are from poverty families whom are described in the federal Title 1 as educationally disadvantaged students."
"Are factors other than income considered?" 363 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Yes, the school lunch program is another factor."
"Representative, does the degree to which a school system has to deal with the incremental problems caused by the concentration of low income students, is that considered in determining the allocation of Title 1 dollars?"
"No question about it. And to clarify a point that was raised by a previous speaker, sure there's a Title 1 program on the federal level but we in the State of Illinois use those same students to generate the funds. So yes, there is a tremendous financial impact on the local schools throughout the State of Illinois. They are impacted with students from poverty level families."
"Representative, to what extent do the Title 1 dollars follow the children who generate those dollars?"
"Well, this is an issue that we debated two years ago and this General Assembly in its wisdom passed legislation to direct that the students who generate the Title 1 funds more than 55% of those funds go directly to meet the educational needs of those students not only in the City of Chicago but throughout the State of Illinois. And they are to meet the educational needs of the students because they impact on the school district so that they need the financial help such as tutors, counselors, remedial courses so that they can prepare themselves to enter on into college."
"Representative, I understand that the legislation passed that..."
"Mr. Speaker, could you get it a little quiet in here because I can't quite hear the Representative."
"May the Lady please have some order? Will you please bring your questioning to a close?"
"Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that these questions are pertinent to this Amendment and they raise issues which may 364 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 or may not have been brought out in the discussion of the previous Amendment. One of the difficulties is that with the rancor in the chamber it's sometimes difficult to follow the debate. And sometimes I think that the people pay more attention.."
"To the Amendment, Ma'am."
"..when there is actually a question and answer. Representative, to what extent has the, as I understood it, the agreement of a couple of years ago provided for a phase-in of the tracking of the Title 1 dollars over a period of years. Is that correct?"
"That's right and beginning the school year FY '82 more than 55% of all those funds generated by Title 1 students will be spent directly on those students in the attendance centers, in the attendance centers in proportion to their enrollment."
"Does the.. does that legislation provide that at any point 100% of the dollars generated by those children will follow them into the schools where they attend?"
"No, it does not but the percentage would be somewhere around 75% because the remaining 45% is spread throughout the entire school system for all children and as a result the Title 1 students will benefit from that as well as the targeted funds."
"Representative, when will the 75% mark be reached under that agreement?"
"Beginning in FY '82, the school term coming up this fall."
"And what if..."
"You have one minute left, Ma'am on your questioning."
"What effect, Representative, if any, does the previous Amendment, Amendment #7 have with regard to the legislation 365 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 passed by this General Assembly two years ago?"
"Well, the previous Amendment that was adopted by this Body would, in effect, take money from the disadvantaged students in the public school systems. Now, as Representative Schneider pointed out, there is an additional cost for high school students and they are weighted, I believe, in a .25 but what the previous Amendment that was adopted does is take money from those poor school districts throughout the State of Illinois and as a result they would have less money, less money to meet the educational needs of the students. And another point I want to point out on this very issue is that we have a 90% hole harmless factor built in to Section 18A of the school code. And the previous Amendment would.. (cut off)."
"Alright, Representative Vinson."
"Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question."
"Yes, Ma'am, you had ten minutes for your debate and the timer was on and it just cut it off. Representative Vinson has moved the previous question. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', opposed 'no'. Alright, the 'ayes' have it. Representative Jones, to close. I heard it. Representative Jones, to close. Do you wish to close, Sir?"
"Mr. Speaker, point of order."
"You may close, Sir."
"A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Point of order. I was responding to a question to give the questioneer a correct answer. In my nine years in this Body, Mr. Speaker, never have I seen the Sponsor of any Amendment on any Bill cut off during debate and especially when he's answering a question. Now, you can arbitrarily jump up there and use that gavel but one day, Mr. Speaker, you will be in the Minority again in the not too distant future..." 366 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Yes, Sir. Do you wish to close, Sir?"
"Yes, I do wish to close."
"Alright, Representative Jones, to close."
"But you didn't respond to Representative Ray Ewell before I close. Do you wish to do that, Mr. Speaker, or do you want me to close?"
"You may close, Sir, if you desire. Representative Jones, do you desire to close or do you not, Sir?"
"Say it to it, Mr. Speaker, that you've failed to see as well as you don't hear too well. I will attempt to close on this very critical issue. It was pointed out that weighting is necessary in the high schools because in the high schools you have many programs that you do not have in elementary schools. And the weighting in the school formerly is a .25. That is to meet the educational needs of high school students throughout the State of Illinois. The weighting for disadvantaged students were put there for one purpose. To meet the educational needs of disadvantaged students in the public school systems in the State of Illinois. Sure we use the same students that the federal government use in it's federal Title 1 program. As a result, we call it state Title 1. The federal dollars follow the students who generate the funds and state Title 1 funds are designed to follow the students who generate the funds. But ever since those monies have been there my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and some misguided Democrats on this side have been constantly chipping away at the poor children in the public school system. I suggest to each and every one of you that if you are concerned about education, if you are concerned about welfare, if you are concerned about penal institutions, you might as well send the money where it was designed to go. 367 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 To go to those children who need those funds in the public school system. And, Mr. Speaker, as the Sponsor of this Amendment I ask for a verified Roll Call on this Amendment."
"The Gentleman's moved for the adoption of Amendment #8. All those in favor will signify by voting 'aye', opposed by voting 'no'. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Representative Currie, to explain her vote. The timer's on, Ma'am."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. The recommendation of the School Problems Commission reduced Title 1 weighting from .65 to ... .675 to .65 was one I objected to originally. But at least that proposal which was adopted by this House when we dealt with House Bill in this chamber was one that had some merit to it. To have reduced that Title 1 weighting further is only a money grab. That's all it is. There's no equity involved in that proposal at all. Representative Jones is giving us an opportunity to restore the equity that was lost in House Elementary and Secondary Education Committee and I think those of you who have looked to the School Problems Commission for guidance in these areas should only be voting 'yes'."
"Representative Levin, to explain his vote. The timer's on, sir."
"I personally was not happy with the compromise reached by the School Problems Commission. It took money away from Chicago and from the school kids. But I'm willing to live with that because that's the best we can do but I think without this Amendment it's going to be hurting all of the poor school kids not only in the City of Chicago but East St. Louis and everywhere else in the state. And, you know, 368 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 that's not fair. That's not common justice. Those people who don't have the resources should be getting the resources. Those that have them should not be asking for more. So I think this is a good Amendment. I think it should be adopted and if it is not I would ask for a verification of the negative Roll Call."
"Representative Henry, to explain his vote. The timer's on, Sir."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, it's strange to me to hear the people talking about law and order in this chamber and yet when it comes to the poor people that's need I see a lot of lights against those type of people. Now, it's strange to me, Mr. Speaker, that once you talk about education I hear the people on the floor get up and talk about education in the State of Illinois, education throughout the communities. But when it comes to the young people that need it the most you turn your back on them and I hope that you understand that you are only pouring and only growing those who will be in the penal institution that will cost you three times as much money and you will not gain a damn thing from it."
"Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Representative Ewell, to explain his vote. The timer's on, Sir."
"Mr. Speaker, I sit here and I watch some things that distress me. First of all, you change the statute, we accept the statutes as they are. We think the formulas are good. We think the statutes are good. They're good for how long. What you do to us is tell us when we agree to these statutes we sit down and hammer out decisions. You tell us you'll have these statutes as long as the river shall long and as long as the grass shall grow. To us it means forever. Same thing it meant to the Indians. But to 369 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 you it only means come to Spring, the water thaws and the grass doesn't grow again, the grass starts to grow again and again. So if you can't change the statutes you change the money. When you can't change the money you change the formula. I ask you, 'is there any end to your injustice?'"
"Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record. On this issue there are 86 'aye', 79 'no'. Representative Reilly."
"I asked for a verification of the negative Roll Call. If people are going to make decisions without consulting the people who put these kinds of proposals together then we can just sit here all night. I ask for a verifica... excuse me, of the affirmative Roll Call."
"The Gentleman has asked for a verification of the affirmative Roll. The Gentleman, Representative Jones."
"Yes, Mr. Speaker, just a point of order. I resent the remarks made by the previous speaker. If he wants to ask for a verification let him ask for a verification."
"Do you wish a poll of the absentees, Sir? Do you wish a poll of the absentees?"
"Will you wait, Mr. Speaker. If he's going to ask for a verification, ask for a verification but don't talk about people who do not know what they are doing on this House floor when your talking about putting the package together. We know when you're trying to rob the poor kids of the State of Illinois, Representative Reilly. When you..."
"Representative Jones. Representative Jones, the Gentleman did not use your name in debate. You are out of order, Sir. Representative Reilly, your name was used in debate."
"It's a ... makes a point to Representative Jones that I'm not talking about anything you've done. I'm talking 370 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 about the leadership on my side."
"Poll of the absentees, Mr. Speaker."
"The Gentleman, Representative Jones, asks for a poll of the absentees. The electronic equipment is temporarily broken down so we have to get a printout before we can proceed. Representative Lechowicz."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Maybe if the machine... is the machine functioning now?"
"It is now, Sir."
"Maybe to expedite matters instead of delay the House we can have an oral verified Roll Call."
"Thank you for your suggestion. Okay, now we have a number of changes so let's get the changes first. Representative Tate wishes to be changed from 'aye' to 'no'. Representative Darrow wishes to be recorded as 'no'. Representative Wolf, J.J. Wolf, from 'aye' to 'no'. Representative Peters from 'aye' to 'no'. Representative Stearney from 'aye' to 'no'. Representative Bell from 'aye' to 'no'. Representatives Ropp and Ackerman from 'aye' to 'no'. Representative Virginia Frederick from 'aye' to 'no'. Representative Daniels from 'aye' to 'no'. Representative Vinson from 'aye' to 'no'. And remove the Speaker from the Roll. His switch was accidentally pushed. Okay, any other suggestions? Any other changes? Gentlemen, control yourself. We'll be with you in a second. Okay, Representative Jones."
"I will ask for a verification of the ...."
"You'll have your opportunity, Sir."
"Point of order, Mr. Speaker. You cannot remove the Speaker from the Roll. I don't whether or not he was there to push his button. If he wants to verified also but you cannot arbitrarily remove his name."
"Okay, we'll leave him on your side, 371 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Representative Jones. If you want to leave him on your side we'll leave him there."
"We will take him at this time only."
"Okay, Representative Deuchler from 'aye' to 'no'. Representative Fawell from 'aye' to 'no'. Representative Carey from 'aye' to 'no'. It was Carey. Representative Deuchler and Representative Fawell. Representative.. any other changes? What's the count, Mr. Clerk? 73 'aye', 93 'no'. Representative Jones requests a poll of the negative Roll. Is that correct? Representative Barr from 'aye' to 'no'. Alright, proceed with a poll of the negative Roll. Verification of the negative Roll."
Clerk Leone: "Poll of the negative. Ackerman. Alstat. Barkhausen. Barnes. Barr. Bartulis. Bell. Bianco. Boucek. Bower. Bradley. Breslin. Brummer. Carey. Conti. Daniels. Darrow. Davis. Deuchler. Deuster. Donovan. Ralph Dunn. Ebbesen. Fawell. Findley. Virginia Frederick. Dwight Friedrich. Giorgi. Griffin. Grossi. Hallock. Hallstrom. Hannig. Hastert. Hoxsey. Hudson. Huskey. Johnson. Kane. Karpiel. Jim Kelley. Klemm. Kociolko. Koehler. Matijevich. Mautino. Mays. McBroom. McClain. McCormick. McGrew. McMaster. Ted Meyer. Roland Meyer. Miller. Mulcahey. Murphy. Neff. Nelson. O'Connell. Ozella. Pechous. Peters. Polk. Rea. Reed. Reilly. Richmond. Rigney. Robbins. Ropp. Saltzman. Satterthwaite. Schraeder. Schuneman. Slape. Irv Smith. Stearney. E.G. Steele. C.M. Stiehl. Stuffle. Swanstrom. Tate. Topinka. Tuerk. Vinson. Watson. Winchester. J.J. Wolf. Sam Wolf. Woodyard. Yourell. Zito and Zwick."
"Questions of the negative Roll. Representative Jones." 372 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Representative Zito."
"Representative Zito. Is the Gentleman in the chambers? How is he recorded?"
"The Gentleman's recorded as voting 'no'."
"Remove him."
"Representative Bradley."
"Representative Bradley. Is the Gentleman in the chambers? How is he recorded?"
"The Gentleman's recorded as voting 'no'."
"Remove him. Further questions?"
"Representative Carey."
"Representative Carey. Is the Gentleman in the chambers? Representative Carey. How is he recorded?"
"As voting 'no'."
"Remove him."
"Representative Hallock."
"Representative Hallock. In the chambers. He's here."
"Representative Hoxsey."
"Representative Hoxsey. Representative Hoxsey. Is the Lady in the chambers? She's here. She's here. Further questions?"
"Representative Kane."
"Representative Kane. He's here."
"Representative Kociolko."
"Representative Kociolko is in his chair as always."
"Representative Rea. Rea."
"He's in his chair."
"Representative Reed."
"Representative Reed. In her chair."
"Representative Schraeder."
"Representative Schraeder, he is here." 373 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Representative Slape."
"Representative Slape. Representative Slape is in the back."
"Representative Stearney."
"Representative Stearney is here."
"Representative Stuffle."
"Representative Stuffle is here."
"Representative Bianco."
"Representative Bianco. Representative Bianco. How is the Gentleman recorded?"
"As voting 'no'."
"Remove him."
"Representative Bower."
"Representative Bower. He's over here. He's over here."
"Representative Zwick."
"Representative Zwick is up front. In her chair, as usual."
"Oh, there you are. Representative McBroom."
"Representative McBroom is in his chair."
"Representative Ozella."
"Representative Ozella. Is the Gentleman in the chambers? How is he recorded?"
"As voting 'no'."
"Remove him."
"Representative Mautino."
"Representative Mautino. Representative Mautino. Is the Gentleman in the chambers? How is he recorded?"
"As voting 'no'."
"Remove him."
"Representative Dunn."
"Representative....which Dunn? John Dunn?" 374 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Ralph Dunn."
"Ralph Dunn. He's here."
"Representative Bell."
"Representative Bell. Representative Bell. Is the Gentleman in the Chambers? How is the Gentleman recorded?"
"As voting 'no'."
"Remove him."
"Representative Darrow."
"Representative Darrow. Is the Gentleman in the chambers? How is he recorded?"
"As voting 'no'."
"Remove him."
"Representative Dwight Friedrich."
"Clarence Darrow is here, return Representative Darrow to the Negative Roll. Dwight Friedrich is here."
"Representative Hannig."
"Representative Hannig. In the center aisle."
"Karpiel."
"Karpiel. Is the Lady in the chamber? Is Representative Karpiel...how is she recorded?"
"As voting 'no'."
"Remove her."
"Representative Klemm."
"Representative Klemm. By his chair."
"Representative R. Meyers."
"Representative Roland Meyer. Roland Meyer, is in the back."
"Representative Mays."
"Representative Jeff Mays, is by my chair. Over on your right, Sir."
"I'll look around. Representative Vinson."
"Representative Vinson is in his chair." 375 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"You know it's hard to see when so many of these guys stand up..."
"Return Representative Karpiel to the Negative Roll."
"Mr. Speaker, if you have them sit down I won't be calling their names because it is very difficult for me..."
"All Members please be in their seat. Further questions, Sir."
"Representative J. J. Wolf."
"In his seat."
"Representative Schuneman."
"Schuneman is over here."
"Representative Irv Smith."
"In his chair."
"Can you please tell me what the count is now?"
"Do you have any further questions, Sir?"
"Yes, I do but I want to know where I stand."
"I would like to have you finish your poll first. No further questions?"
"Yes, I do have some further questions if you want to give me the count so I would know how many more I want to take off. I know you, he done it for Representative Stiehl, from Southern Illinois and I'm quiet certain you'll do the same for me. I want to know what the count is at this time, Mr. Speaker. I do have some more names, I don't want to be calling their names if I have pulled off enough negatives."
"Representative Karpiel, you were returned to the Negative Roll."
"Representative Joe Ebbesen."
"Representative Ebbesen. In his seat and return Representative Bell to the Negative Roll. Further questions?" 376 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Yes, Representative Pechous."
"Representative Pechous. He's here."
"Representative Griffin."
"Representative Griffin. He's here."
"I was checking the list. I can't tell all these names...Harry will you sit down so I can check something, Harry. Will you please sit down."
"Further questions, Sir?"
"Yes, Sir. Representative.....I did not say, they all look a like, Representative Matijevich."
"Further questions? Remove....change Representative Ryan, Speaker Ryan from 'aye' to 'no'. He's in the back. Further questions, Sir?"
"Yes. Representative Hallstrom."
"Change Representative Collins, 'aye' to 'no'. Hallstrom is in her seat. Representative Ewell."
"Never mind, never mind."
"Okay. Further questions, Sir? Further question. Further questions, Sir. Representative Jones, further questions?"
"Thank you. Representative Giorgi."
"He's here."
"Alright. Did I verify....did I call Representative Pechous?"
"Alright you have two more questions, Sir."
"No, I have as many as I want to call, Mr. Speaker."
"Sir."
"Representative Boucek."
"Representative Boucek is in his chair as usual. Further questions?"
"One more. Representative Mautino."
"Representative Mautino. Has been removed already. What's the count?" 377 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Representative Bus Yourell."
"Representative Yourell is in his...."
"Before I say, I don't have anymore, Mr. Speaker, could you tell me what the count is?"
"70 'aye' and 90 'no'."
"Are you sure, because he added..."
"70 'aye', 90 'no', the Amendment is lost. Further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #9, Hoffman. Amends Senate Bill..."
"Representative Hoffman. Withdrawn. Further Amendments?"
"Amendment #10, Birkinbine. Amends Senate Bill..."
"Representative Birkinbine, withdrawn. Further Amendments?"
"No Further Amendments."
"Third Reading. Senate Bill 1193, read the Bill, Mr. Clerk." Clerk Leone: "Senate Bill 1193, a Bill for an Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act. Second Reading of the Bill, Amendment #1 was adopted in Committee."
"Senate Bill 1193, a Bill for an Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act. Second Reading of the Bill, Amendment #1 was adopted in Committee."
"Any Motions filed?"
"Motion, I move to table Amendment #1 to Senate Bill 1193, Representative Ted Meyer."
"Representative Ted Meyer, Motion to table." Meyer, Ted: "Yes, Mr. Speaker, Amendment #1 was defective because it wasn't drawn by the Reference Bureau. I have a substitute Amendment later on. I move to table Amendment...."
"The Gentleman moves to table Amendment #1. All 378 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 those in favor signify by saying 'aye', oppose 'no'. The 'ayes' have it, Amendment #1 is tabled. Further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #2, Collins. Amends Senate Bill 1193 as amended."
"Representative Collins Amendment #2."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Amendment #2 is...."
"Representative Meyer. Ted Meyer." Meyer, Ted: "Point of order. I believe Amendment #2 is...is out of order because there is no Section 39.1 in the Bill."
"Representative Meyer." Meyer, Ted: "Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my objection and urge the adoption of Amendment #1...2."
"Representative Cullerton."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would be happy to renew the request that he just made. That is clearly out of order, Amendment #2...Amendment #1 was perhaps properly drafted, Amendment #2 was not. If there is no such Section and there is no such Section 39.1 in the Bill. It's clear and the Amendment should be ruled out of order."
"Amendment out of order. Further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #3, Ted Meyer. Amends Senate Bill..."
"Representative Meyer, Amendment #3." Meyer, Ted: "Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Amendment #3 is the Legislative Reference Bureau Enrolled and Engrossed proper form Committee Amendment #1. I urge its adoption."
"The Gentleman moves the adoption of Amendment #3. Representative Braun."
"What does the Amendment do, Mr. Speaker?"
"Representative Meyer." Meyer, Ted: "It is Committee Amendment #1, it creates a landfill 379 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 siting authority, gives the power back to local municipalities to site landfills."
"Representative Meyer. Representative Braun."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I mean, this is a fairly controversial area of the law and there's been a lot of public debate about it and, Representative Meyer, I think that at a minimum we're entitled to an explanation of specifically what the many provisions of this long Bill do. We've got a Bill....Amendment as far as I can tell, it's got at least fifteen pages and I for one would appreciate knowing what it is we're being called upon to vote on on Amendment #3. And would appreciate from the Sponsor a detailed explanation of what the Amendment does." Meyer, Ted: "Thank you. Mr. Chairman....Mr. Speaker, has the Clerk read this Bill a second time? I want to make that perfectly clear."
"He has." Meyer, Ted: "You're sure?"
"Yes, Sir." Meyer, Ted: "What time its? What time is it?"
"11:45." Meyer, Ted: "Okay."
"Wait...wait...wait...wait...wait...wait...wait....Mr. Speaker. Come on. Mr. Speaker." Speaker Daniels: "11:55, is that you like? Now, Representative Braun you have Members on your side of the aisle that want to move their Bills. It's fine with me if you want to delay past midnight, I could care less. Now if you want to talk ask your question, you'll get to ask all you want."
"I'm not on. Oh, now it is. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I was serious about asking for...."
"I understand you are, go ahead ask you question." 380 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Serious about asking for an explanation of the Amendment, thorough explaining, it's not just enough to say it's a Committee Amendment or that it's, you know, Representative Meyer's nice Amendment. I would like to know what I'm voting on. But that notwithstanding, even though I'm a product of the Chicago public schools, I can tell time and it looks to me to be about two minutes of midnight. And I would like for the record, Mr. Speaker, to at this point make a motion to adjourn at midnight."
"Representative Mulcahey."
"Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question."
"The previous question has been put. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', oppose 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. Representative Meyer." Meyer, Ted: "Amendment #3..."
"Hold it, Representative Meyer. Okay, now listen. You're all going to get an opportunity to do all the talking you want, we can work until 3, 4, 5, in the morning. We'll stay here as long as you want, past midnight. Representative White was one of the individuals up here asking for movement of his Bill and because of some of the delays here, his Bill will not be moved. It doesn't matter. So, if you want a Roll Call, you're entitled to it. If that's what you'd like. The question on the main question is put. Representative Mulcahey, do you want to withdraw that so we can go on with further discussion?"
"Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that motion."
"Alright, Representative Breslin. You had the loudest voice, Ma'am."
"Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, a question of the Sponsor."
"You do have a loud voice. The Sponsor indicates he will yield." 381 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Meyer, Ted: "Yes, Ma'am."
"Representative, does Amendment #3 in substance take Senate Bill 172, that is already passed out of this House, Sponsored by Representative Oblinger and myself and put it into your Bill?" Meyer, Ted: "About 80% of it, not in it's entirety, as you know, Ma'am. There are some differences."
"What changes have you made?" Meyer, Ted: "Well, I haven't, you know, what changes have I made. I'm not really sure what's in 172, I am sure what's in this Bill. I...you know, I don't have a copy of 172 with me."
"Why have you taken our Bill, substantially and put it into your Bill if you don't know what's in our Bill?" Meyer, Ted: "Ma'am, this was a Committee proposal and I don't...I'm a Chairman of the Committee and I don't claim any pride of authorship for the Committee proposal. Now, if you think the Committee proposal is your Bill, I think maybe you're mistaken because it was a product of the Committee on Energy and Environment which I don't believe you are a Member of."
"Representative, I don't think we care about that, we just don't know why at the eleventh hour we are working on a Bill that has already passed this Assembly 158 to 0." Meyer, Ted: "Yes, Ma'am, I voted for you Bill. Will you vote for mine?"
"You already voted for my Bill." Meyer, Ted: "Yes, Ma'am, will you vote for mine?"
"I intend to vote 'no'."
"Further questions?"
"He already said, he doesn't know."
"Alright. Further discussion? The Lady from DuPage, Representative Karpiel." Meyer, Ted: "Previous question." 382 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Move the previous question."
"Do you want to hold that please. Representative Henry."
"Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield?"
"He indicates he will."
"Yes, Representative Meyers, on page 4, line 30. Could you explain to me or the Body how can a contest demonstration conducted in accordance to standards and ruled the endorsement of the United States Automobile Club and for stock car auto racing. How does that fit into this Amendment?" Meyer, Ted: "Sir, that's not in the Bill, that's existing law."
"My question was, Sir, to the Amendment..." Meyer, Ted: "Nothing to do with the Bill. That's existing statutory law that was passed, I believe last Session. It's not new language."
"For the Members edification, it is passed midnight and so you all understand how the system works, the tapes that record the proceedings record the time as well. So, if you all want to relax now because we may be here a long time tonight, it is pasted midnight. Alright, further discussion? Representative Henry."
"Representative Meyers, are there any inspections within this Amendment conducted by the State of Illinois?" Meyer, Ted: "Pardon me, Sir. Are there any inspections?"
"Yes, Sir." Meyer, Ted: "I don't understand the question, Sir."
"In the Amendment it points to waste dumping." Meyer, Ted: "What page, what line?"
"On page 3, line 21, open burning, page 3, line 26." Meyer, Ted: "Those are all... that's existing statutory law, Sir."
"Are there any public hearings on this?" 383 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Meyer, Ted: "Provided for in the Bill, yes, Sir."
"Thank you."
"Further discussion? Representative Mulcahey. Representative Bullock, I'm sorry. Representative Bullock first."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ted, this regional pollution control facility which in some ways reflect...affects the Chicago Metropolitan Sanitary District but again excludes them. Representative Henry asked you a question about hearings, I'd be interested in your response as to how the hearings will be conducted and when the hearings will be conducted relative to hazardous waste." Meyer, Ted: "The hearings would be conducted on siting a landfill, if it's an un incorporated area it would be....the hearing authority would be County Board, if it is a municipality it would be the municipality. The hearings would be after thirty days, after notice is give to all the Members of the General Assembly, adjacent land owners and public notice in newspaper of general circulation. Thirty days after that notice."
"Thirty days after the General Assembly has been notified?" Meyer, Ted: "The Members of whose district the facility would be."
"Yeah. And does the state mandate Act apply?" Meyer, Ted: "No, Sir, it does not."
"Who pickets the cost? Who incurs the cost?" Meyer, Ted: "The local municipality."
"Would incur the cost." Meyer, Ted: "Yes, Sir."
"Okay, now one other question here, Ted. As I read or according to the staff analysis....portions of this Amendment exempt City of Chicago or municipalities over a 384 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 million..." Meyer, Ted: "Yes, Sir."
"From applying to the facility within the corporate limits. Could you explain that for me and why that's included." Meyer, Ted: "The City of Chicago felt that they didn't want...wish to be included into the Bill."
"No further questions."
"Further discussion? Representative Mulcahey."
"Would the Sponsor yield?" Meyer, Ted: "Yes, Sir."
"Representative Meyer, you said, this is probably about 80% of what the Committee Bill was. What is the 20% that's not there...generally?" Meyer, Ted: "You mean 172?"
"172, that's correct. 172 obviously been amended, but what has been changed? The 20%." Meyer, Ted: "To be quiet frankly with you, Representative, House Amendment #1 to Committee Bill 17...I mean to House Bill 172, I don't understand. They're talking about homerule and non homerule, I think as it applies to the County of Cook and this is only my interpretation. I've talked to Mr. 'Genure' of the County Board, he feels that maybe this doesn't apply but I think the situation in Cook County would be that the County Board would be doing siting for landfills in non homerule municipalities only in Cook County."
"Okay, how does this apply to non homerule units or lets say, how does this apply outside of Cook County?" Meyer, Ted: "Outside of Cook County...non homerule municipalities would have their own siting authority."
"Which means homerule..." Meyer, Ted: "Also has their own siting authority." 385 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"Alright, now, does homerule unit municipalities that have their own siting..." Meyer, Ted: "Yes, Sir."
"What is the involvement of the County Board as originally proposed?" Meyer, Ted: "That would an un incorporated areas. If you went to site a landfill in an un incorporated area you would have to get the Siting Board Authority which is the County Board to approve that site."
"There was a provision one time about a mile and half limitation, has that been changed?" Meyer, Ted: "No, Sir. I never had that in the Committee proposal nor in this Bill. I'm not really....I don't even think it's in 172. If I'm not mistaken."
"Let me ask this, Representative Meyer, strickly on a personal bases. Does this take care of the problem, maybe you can't answer this, does this take care of the problem that I talked to you about a number of times concerning the people in Winnebago County and Cherry Valley? Does this resolve their problem?" Meyer, Ted: "Specifically, I can't remember their problems but I remember the Cherry Valley case. The City of Rockford when out in an un incorporated area of Winnebago County and sited a landfill. If this were the case, before that landfill could, a permit, could issue, the Winnebago County Board acting as a siting authority would have to approve that site."
"Under this Amendment?" Meyer, Ted: "Yes, Sir."
"Thank you."
"Further discussion? Representative Mautino."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the Gentleman yield to one question?" 386 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Meyer, Ted: "Yes, Sir."
"Ted, when I first saw this Amendment come across my desk and I'm looking for it real quick again. I noticed that there was one provision in there that basically, correct me if I'm wrong, basically said, those sites that are in existance now, in my estimation as I read the Amendment, could possibly become the regional sites if no new sites anywhere were approved. Is that correct?" Meyer, Ted: "This only applies....prospectively, it does not apply retrospective. Those sites that are already permanent would remain permanent if a site that is not a hazardous waste site, applies for hazardous waste permit the Siting Authority mechanism would be triggered. If an old siting...physically enlarged its acreage, the siting mechanism would again triggered."
"Okay, I hate to take...I just want to clear up it. Can I use specifics? Okay, example. The 'Sheffield' site in Bureau County is the only site, if there were no other regional sites approved then would the 'Sheffield' site become the regional site by virtue of the fact that it is in operation now, under this Amendment." Meyer, Ted: "Is 'Sheffield' in operation now?"
"It is in operation as hazardous waste, not any longer for low level nuclear." Meyer, Ted: "Okay. That site is grandfathered in, now if they want....it is a hazardous waste site?"
"There's both low level which is now not in operation and then there is a hazardous waste site there, chemical site there..." Meyer, Ted: "They wouldn't have to apply for a new permit. If they physically expanded the facility they would have to get....they would apply for the permit and then fall under...under the definition of a regional pollution 387 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 control..."
"That means...what you're saying to me then, if there were no others originally that site would become the regional site." Meyer, Ted: "No, Sir. That...it doesn't make that a regional site it make it an old permitted site."
"Oh. An old permanent site." Meyer, Ted: "Permitted."
"Permitted." Meyer, Ted: "It doesn't make it a regional pollution control facility."
"Thank you, Ted."
"Further discussion? The Gentleman from Cook, Representative Yourell."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I don't want to ask any questions of the Sponsor, I think it's very clear what's happening here. I was a Member of the Committee and the Minority Spokesman on Counties and Townships for House Bill 10...172 was heard. I was told by several individuals that this was an agreed Bill, House Bill 172 with the EPA, the Illinois Municipal League and those who were interested in creating waste disposal sites throughout the State of Illinois and that everybody could live with House Bill 172. Now, I don't know what happened between that time and this point in time but I can suggest to you that something did indeed happen. Now, I don't know why at two minutes till twelve we started to consider a Bill that would completely changes what we decided was proper for the citizens of the State of Illinois as provided for in House Bill 172. I know the Sponsor of House Bill 172 came out of this House with a vote of 158 to nothing, not one dissenting vote and here we are...here we are after some kind of a deal has been made 388 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 with somebody to provide a different kind legislation to provide for siting for garbage disposal sites in this state. I think it's in bad taste, I it's not good legislation and I think it violates good principles and good legislation and it violates the word that I was given by the EPA, Municipal League and those people dumping garbage in the State of Illinois. I think you ought to defeat the Amendment and defeat the Bill."
"Further discussion? Representative McBroom."
"I move the previous question."
"Alright. Representative Ted Meyer's to close." Meyer, Ted: "Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, I can't say what other people who said that they may have been supporting this Bill or may have been supporting House Bill 172. But I can say safely that the administration and the director of the EPA is in support of House Bill 1193 as amended. That the state metropolitan sanitary district of greater Chicago is in support of House Bill 1193 as amended. I don't know who's in support of that other Bill, I voted for the other Bill. I offer this Bill and urge the adoption of Amendment #3."
"The Gentleman moves for the adoption of Amendment #3. All those in favor will signify by voting 'aye', oppose by voting 'no'. The voting is open. Representative Schraeder to explain his vote. The timer is on, Sir."
"Well, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. This piece of legislation is a piece of legislation that was developed by the entire Energy and Environmental Committee and I don't know what all the rhubarb is about. And I see nothing wrong with it.....party that had a Bill that dealt with this subject matter was given the opportunity to partake in the discussion and the Amendments and the final 389 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 conclusion and during the debate and the liberation, final vote came out of the Committee without a dissenting vote. So, I don't know what this is all about but I know I'm going to vote green like I did in Committee."
"Have all voted who wish? Representative Leverenz to explain his vote."
"Well, I diffently think there is an impact on local government and I ask for a mandates Act on this with the Amendment as amended by Amendment 3."
"Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record. There are 85 'aye', 50 'no', 3 voting 'present', Amendment #3 is adopted. Further Amendments? Representative Yourell."
"An inquiry of the Chair. What is the status of this Bill since it received...this Amendment since it received the votes necessary to put the Amendment on the Bill at sixteen minutes after midnight."
"The Bill was read a second time on Thursday, June 25."
"Has this Bill been advanced to Third Reading yet?"
"Not yet, Sir."
"And when that take place will it be....will it take place after the hour of midnight?"
"Yes, Sir."
"Thank you."
"Mr. Clerk, any further Amendments?"
"Further Amendments..."
"I'm trying to lull you all to sleep with a solf modus voice."
"Amendment #4, amends Senate Bill 1193 as amended. Ted Meyer."
"Representative Meyer on Amendment #4." Meyer, Ted: "Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Amendment #4 is a personal 390 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Amendment to me, I was previously involved in litigation against Cook County and I don't want anybody to think that that this would have anything to do with it so we've exempted Cook County out of this, local zoning still would apply for Cook County."
"The Gentleman moves for the adoption of Amendment #4. Is there any discussion? The Gentleman from DuPage, Representative Schneider."
"Did....thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is it Cook County or Metropolitan Sanitary District you're exempting?" Meyer, Ted: "Cook County."
"Thank you."
"Further discussion? Representative Yourell."
"Would the Gentleman yield?"
"He indicates he will." Meyer, Ted: "Certainly."
"The Village of Worth, tell me about that, Sir." Meyer, Ted: "This would make sure that the county zoning would be unchallenged or unquestioned by this Bill."
"Now, wait a minute. How does the county zoning take precedent in the corporate municipal boundaries of the Village of Worth?" Meyer, Ted: "Oh, pardon me, I was thinking of a subsequent case that the Village of Worth. I mean, Worth is gone, I mean..."
"What do you mean, it's gone? It was there when the last time I looked." Meyer, Ted: "Okay, what is the specific problem..."
"Well, I asked you a question, Sir. I want to know, you said that this would not interfere with county zoning and local...locally. Now does that mean that in the corporate municipal boundaries of a municipal corporation that county zoning will prevail? Or do they have their own zoning 391 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 ordinances that prevail?" Meyer, Ted: "If in this Bill, assuming that this Bill becomes law, the Siting Authority of the Village of Worth would site landfills within the Village of Worth."
"I didn't hear that, Sir, there were people yelling in the back here." Meyer, Ted: "If assuming this Bill becomes law the Siting Authority of the Village of Worth would site landfills within the Village of Worth."
"And that....that of course is in direct opposite to the Worth - Carson case that came out of Supreme Court with a four to three decision." Meyer, Ted: "Yes, Sir."
"What happened to that?" Meyer, Ted: "That was overturned by the Sexton case."
"So, now we're back to a local zoning ordinances that prevail in the siting of landfill sites within the corporate municipal boundaries of a municipal corporation. Is that correct?" Meyer, Ted: "The existing case law right now?"
"No, your Amendment, Sir, that's what we're talking about. Not case law, your Amendment. You said that local control would prevail in Cook County, now is that county zoning that prevails in the unincorporated parts of Cook County?" Meyer, Ted: "Yes, Sir."
"How about in the Village of Worth?" Meyer, Ted: "The Village of Worth siting authority would prevail."
"What is that? What's the siting authority for the Village of Worth, is that zoning ordinance that has been adopted by the Village of Worth?" Meyer, Ted: "No, Sir. It's the siting authority as prescribed by 392 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 this Bill."
"And what is that, Sir?" Meyer, Ted: "It's criteria and standards as established by the Bill."
"Let me ask this simple question. If the Village of Worth adopts an ordinance and the Village of Worth is not a homerule unit, suppose they adopt a zoning ordinance that prohibits the siting of landfills in the Village of Worth. Would they be permitted to do that under your Amendment and this Bill?" Meyer, Ted: "No, Sir."
"Thank you. So the Amendment doesn't do a damn thing for landfills as we like to view them in our local communities. Is that right?" Meyer, Ted: "No. This Amendment is a one line Amendment that says, any county having a population over three million or within. That's all this Amendment says."
"That's only...that only takes care of the unincorporated parts of the county, is that right?" Meyer, Ted: "Yes, Sir."
"Has nothing to do with the corporate municipal boundaries of a municipal corporation, is that right?" Meyer, Ted: "Sir, in the Village of Worth, assuming this Bill becomes law the siting authority which is composed of the City Council of Worth would site landfills within the corporate limits of the Village of Worth. The specific problem I'm trying to get around is, is I don't want anybody, especially you, to interpret that I'm fooling around with the County of Cooks case against Harry A. Carlson on a hundred and forty-third street in Orlin Township. I want to make it clear, this Bill does not have anything to do with the County of Cook power to zone."
"Well, Sir, may I remind you that that case has already 393 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 been decided by the Cook County...Cook County Zoning Board of appeals and also was upheld by the Cook County Board of Commissioners. That has nothing to do with that site in Orlin anymore." Meyer, Ted: "Presently there is a case pending in front of Judge Murray. It was the Supreme Court case as remanded to the Circuit Court for further hearings. There is a case in front of Judge Murray, right here, right now, today."
"That does not have anything to do, Sir, with the Amendment #4 to this Bill through. Mr. Speaker, to the Amendment. I think..."
"Proceed, Sir."
"I think this is a sham, I think the Amendment doesn't do anything except to personally sue the feelings of the Sponsor of this Amendment to Senate Bill 1193, to make him perhaps sleep better tonight."
"Further discussion? Representative Ted Meyer to close." Meyer, Ted: "I urge its adoption."
"The Gentleman moves for the adoption of Amendment #4. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', oppose 'no'. Roll Call. All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', oppose by voting 'no'. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record. Amendment #4...Amendment #4 there are 81 'ayes', 34 'no', none 'present', Amendment #4 is adopted. Further Amendments? Representative Piel, 'aye'."
"Floor Amendment #5, Breslin. Amends Senate Bill 1193 as amended."
"Representative Breslin, Amendment #5."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. A short time ago in our legislative district we had 394 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 a disastrous fire, started in a warehouse at a fertilizer plant."
"Excuse me, Representative...sorry about that, Representative Breslin. Representative Vinson for what purpose do you rise?"
"Mr. Speaker, I would make the objection that Amendment #5 is out of order. On line 7 and 8, of the first page of the Amendment it suggests the insertion of 22.2 in the introductory paragraph of Section 1, after the number 3,. I would respectfully submit that if you look at the introductory paragraph, Section 1, you will not find any place where there is the language 3, and therefore, the Amendment is out of order, improperly drawn and I would urge that it cannot be considered by the House at this time."
"Representative Breslin."
"On that Motion, Mr. Speaker. I think that you should note that the title has been deleted and that the new title has been inserted. And I think that makes the Motion in order. The Amendment in order rather."
"Mr. Speaker."
"Representative Vinson."
"I would also make the point. I believe on line 9, the Amendment suggests inserting something after Section 3 and I don't believe there is such a thing. But I think the first objection is the most important one."
"Representative Breslin, his point is well taken. We can't find a #3 in introductive paragraph of the Bill and the Amendment is out of order. Representative Breslin."
"And you're looking at the whole Act, Chapter...."
"No, we're looking at the Bill with your Amendment 5." 395 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981
"With the title deleted?"
"The way the Amendment reads, Ma'am. The Amendment is out of order. Any further Amendments?"
"Mr. Speaker."
"I'm sorry. Representative Breslin."
"I move to overrule the Chair."
"Representative Breslin, would you tell me where the #3 is in introductory paragraph of the Bill and I will rule in your favor."
"Mr. Speaker, I have moved to overrule the Chair."
"The Lady....the Gentleman, Representative Vinson has raised a point of order on Amendment #5 in that, he goes to the point that there was not a #3 in the introductory paragraph of the Bill. The Lady, Representative Breslin on the ruling of the Chair that the Amendment is in fact, Amendment #5 is out of order moves to overrule the Chair."
"It's not debatable is it?"
"The question is, 'Shall the Chair be overruled.' Representative Breslin your unfortunate part is that even if the Chair is overruled your Amendment is still out of order. We've ruled your Motion is dilatory because your Amendment is still out of order on its face, Ma'am. Yes, Ma'am."
"You're ruling that my Motion to overrule the Chair is dilatory, is that correct?"
"You point out where the #3 is in the introductory paragraph of the Bill and we will rule in your favor, Ma'am."
"In light of your ruling...."
"You may have your vote, Motion overruled. The Lady moves to overrule the Chair. All those in favor of overruling the Chair signify by voting 'aye', oppose by 396 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 voting 'no'. Have all voted who wish? Take the record. The Ladies Motion to overrule the Chair fails. Further Amendments? Representative Breslin."
"On Amendment #5 I would now move to strike, on its face, line 7, 8 and 9."
"The Amendment is out of order, Ma'am. Representative Vinson."
"Mr. Speaker, I made a...."
"Representative Vinson."
"I object to the Ladies Motion and I believe it requires unanimous consent."
"The Gentleman is correct. Further Amendments?"
"Floor Amendment #6, Ted Meyer. Amends Senate Bill 1193 as amended."
"Representative Meyer, Amendment #6." Meyer, Ted: "I withdraw Amendment #6."
"Withdrawn. Further Amendments?"
"No further Amendments."
"This Bill having been read a second time on June 25, is now moved to Third Reading. Representative Leverenz filed a fiscal note request. Representative Leverenz there is a fiscal note filed on the Bill and the Bill is moved to Third Reading. Representative Leverenz."
"That says, as amended by Amendment 3 and it says mandates Act Note because you're putting something new on local governments."
"This fiscal note is pursuant to Amendment 3 and it complies with the requirements Bills on Third Reading. Representative Breslin."
"Can you tell me how many votes this Bill takes to pass?"
"When the Bill is called on Third Reading, if it's called on Third Reading we will resolve that question, 397 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 you may ask it then. Representative Collins."
"Allowing whatever time the Clerk needs for perfunctory business, Mr. Speaker, I move that the House stand adjourn until today, June 26, at the hour of 10:00 A.M."
"Representative Madigan."
"To night...tonight, Phil, I think we have to recess."
"We'll recess or adjourn whatever the Minority Leader wants or whatever is correct."
"I'm just suggesting, I think that it is a recess until 10."
"The Gentleman moves with ten minutes for perfunctory, that the House stands in recess until 10:00 A.M., this morning. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye'....what's your Motion? Tell me your motion and I'll put it, Sir. You want to adjourn until 10:00 this morning? The Gentleman moves to adjourn until 10:00 this morning. All those in those....Sir."
"Don't we have to adjourn to take an Attendance Roll Call for today? I don't care about the semantics of it but I think some of the Members might be interested in getting on the Attendance Roll Call for today the 26th."
"The Gentleman moves to adjourn or recess, whatever is appropriate until 10:00 in the morning with ten minutes for perfunct. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', oppose 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. The House will stand in adjournment or recess until 10:00 tomorrow morning. And thank you all for being very patient today. Have a good nights sleep."
"Messages from the Senate. A Message from the Senate by Mr. Wright, Secretary. Mr. Speaker, I am directed to inform the House of Representatives that the Senate has concurred with the House of Representatives in the passage of House Bills of the following titles. House 398 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 Bills 77, 93, 109, 137, 209, 284, 270, 289 and 293, together with attached Amendments hereto; in adoption which I am instructed to ask concurrence with the House towit. Passed the Senate as amended, June 25, 1981. Kenneth Wright, Secretary. A Message from the Senate by Mr. Wright, Secretary. Mr. Speaker, I am directed to inform the House of Representatives the Senate has concurred with the House in passage of Bills with the following titles towit; House Bills 270 and 1444. Passed by the Senate June 25, 1981. Kenneth Wright, Secretary. A Message from the Senate by Mr. Wright, Secretary. Mr. Speaker, I am directed to inform the House of Representatives that the Senate has concurred with the House of Representatives the passage of House Bills of the following titles. House Bills 1029, 1041, 1045, 1081, 1127, 1144, 1157, 1168, 1179, 1189, 1236, 1263, 1273, 1297, 1359, 1364, 1365, 1391, 1409, 1415, 1421, 1135, together with attached Amendments in the adoption in which I am instructed to ask concurrence of the House towit, passed the Senate as amended June 24, 1981. Kenneth Wright, Secretary. A Message from the Senate by Mr. Wright, Secretary. Mr. Speaker, I am directed to inform the House of Representatives that the Senate has concurred with the House in the passage of Bills with the following titles towit, House Bills 1036, 1082, 1117, 1139, 1145, 1146, 1175, 1246, 1262, 1277, 1280, 1281, 1323, passed the Senate June 25, 1981. Kenneth Wright, Secretary. A Message from the Senate by Mr. Wright, Secretary. Mr. Speaker, I am directed to inform the House of Representatives that the Senate has concurred with the House of Representatives in passage of House Bills of the following titles. House Bills 1531, 1578, 1591, 1816, 1719, 1678, 1661, 1619, 1608, 1435, 1489, 1451, 1487, 1497 and 1505. Together with attached Amendments hereto, in 399 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 71st Legislative Day June 25, 1981 adoption to which I am instructed to ask concurrence of the House towit; passed the Senate, as amended, June 25, 1981. Kenneth Wright, Secretary. A Message from the Senate by Mr. Wright, Secretary. Mr. Speaker, I am directed to inform the House of Representatives the Senate has concurred to House with the passage of Bills of the following titles towit; House Bills 1377, 1417, 1419, 1420, 1439, 1449, 1450, 1558, 1570, 1592, 1682, 1694, 1863, passed the Senate June 25, 1981.Kenneth Wright, Secretary. No further business, the House now stands in recess till later today at 10:00 A.M." 400 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DAILY TRANSCRIPTION OF DEBATE INDEX PAGE 1 JUNE 25, 1981 SB-0088 2ND READING PAGE 317 SB-0230 3RD READING PAGE 173 SB-0231 3RD READING PAGE 174 SB-0232 2ND READING PAGE 206 SB-0233 2ND READING PAGE 213 SB-0234 2ND READING PAGE 217 SB-0235 3RD READING PAGE 169 SB-0236 3RD READING PAGE 170 SB-0237 2ND READING PAGE 223 SB-0238 2ND READING PAGE 242 SB-0271 2ND READING PAGE 243 SB-0310 3RD READING PAGE 175 SB-0313 3RD READING PAGE 176 SB-0320 3RD READING PAGE 187 SB-0326 2ND READING PAGE 188 3RD READING PAGE 196 SB-0344 2ND READING PAGE 270 SB-0345 2ND READING PAGE 279 SB-0892 2ND READING PAGE 113 SB-0954 2ND READING PAGE 338 SB-0999 2ND READING PAGE 4 SB-1008 2ND READING PAGE 50 SB-1016 2ND READING PAGE 159 SB-1028 2ND READING PAGE 59 SB-1037 2ND READING PAGE 76 SB-1051 2ND READING PAGE 77 SB-1052 2ND READING PAGE 91 SB-1081 2ND READING PAGE 92 SB-1095 2ND READING PAGE 100 SB-1104 2ND READING PAGE 101 SB-1107 2ND READING PAGE 142 SB-1127 2ND READING PAGE 161 SB-1160 2ND READING PAGE 162 SB-1168 2ND READING PAGE 165 SB-1177 2ND READING PAGE 328 SB-1182 2ND READING PAGE 333 SB-1183 2ND READING PAGE 333 SB-1184 2ND READING PAGE 334 SB-1186 2ND READING PAGE 334 SB-1187 2ND READING PAGE 338 SB-1193 2ND READING PAGE 378 SUBJECT MATTER HOUSE TO ORDER - SPEAKER RYAN PAGE 1 PRAYER - REVEREND WORTON PAGE 1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PAGE 1 ROLL CALL FOR ATTENDANCE PAGE 2 POLL OF ABSENTEES PAGE 29 REPRESENTATIVE WOLF,JJ IN CHAIR PAGE 30 POLL OF ABSENTEES PAGE 65 HR435-ADOPTED PAGE 88 RECESS PAGE 89 MESSAGE FROM SENATE PAGE 89 REPRESENTATIVE DANIELS IN CHAIR PAGE 91 POLL OF ABSENTEES PAGE 132 SUSPENSION OF RULE PAGE 157 REPRESENTATIVE PETERS IN CHAIR PAGE 178 SUSPENSION OF RULE PAGE 196 REPRESENTATIVE DANIELS IN CHAIR PAGE 273 SUSPENSION OF RULE PAGE 305 POLL OF ABSENTEES PAGE 353 CHANGE OF VOTES PAGE 371 RECESS PAGE 398 STATE OF ILLINOIS 82ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DAILY TRANSCRIPTION OF DEBATE INDEX PAGE 2 JUNE 25, 1981 SUBJECT MATTER PERFUNCTORY SESSION PAGE 398 MESSAGE FROM SENATE PAGE 398 RECESS-PERFUNCTORY SESSION PAGE 400