Illinois House Floor Debate — January 26, 1983

"The House shall come to order. The House shall come to order. The Members shall be in their chairs. Would the Members please go to their chairs? Representative Keane, would you go to your chair? The House shall come to order. We shall be led in prayer today by Reverend William Peckham from the Contact Ministries of Springfield, Illinois."

"Let us bow in prayer. Our Father, God, although we call you Father, we are all too often tempted to live like orphans. Remind us that we need not and ought not to try to flounder in prideful independence, when we can trust in Your willingness to help us. We pray for these men and women who are called upon to be expert politicians, economists, arbitrators, social workers and business managers and are all too seldom allowed to simply be people. The task of representing and deciding the destinies of countless people is overwhelming. Grant that these, Your children, will have the patience, wisdom and compassion to fulfill their duties. Above all, our Father, protect them from the pressures and celebrity which can rob them of their humanity. Help all of us ordinary people to fulfill our human potential and guide us to contribute toward a more humane, moral and responsible society. In the strong Name of Christ, we pray. Amen."

"We shall be led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Representative Ropp."

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

"Roll Call for Attendance. Mr. Daniels. Mr. Daniels, do you have any excused absences? The Chair 1  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 recognizes Mr. Daniels. Mr. Daniels."

"Let me get back to you on that, okay?"

"Sure. Mr. Greiman, for the Democratic absences."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative John Vitek is absent due to illness, and Representative William Laurino is absent due to illness."

"Let the record show that those Members have been excused because of illness, and let the record show that we will receive any excused absences from the Republican Members at a later time. The Chair recognizes Mr. Daniels."

"We'd like to have the record show that Joe Ebbesen is excused due to illness."

"Would the record show that Representative Ebbesen is excused because of illness, and the Chair recognizes Representative Johnson."

"Mr. Speaker..."

"Mr. Johnson."

"I have several inquiries of the Chair, but I wonder if I could just have a little bit of order, so the Membership, if they're interested, would have the opportunity to hear what our inquiries are. You may, Mr. Speaker, may want to obtain the assistance of the Clerk in response to these inquiries, but let me ask you first. There are Amendments that are now numbered, I guess, as Amendments #7 through 21 to House Resolution 14 that are all Amendments sponsored by Republican Sponsors, and I would have been... would inquire of the Chair as to when those Amendments are marked as filed in the Clerk's Office, and if, in fact, there's a time stamp on those Amendments."

"Mr. Daniels."

"I'm sorry to interrupt the Gentleman, but I wonder if 2  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 you could bring the House to order? I think the points he's making are very, very important to the operation of this General Assembly for the next two years."

"If the Membership would give their attention to Mr. Johnson, because Mr. Daniels tells us that Mr. Johnson has some very significant questions to ask which will impact upon our operations for the next two years. So I think it incumbent upon all of us to give our attention to Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson, you have propounded one question to the Clerk relative to certain Amendments, and I believe the Clerk is prepared to answer that question. Mr. Clerk."

"Yes. The Amendments that are numbered one through... What's your first number? Seven?"

"Our first number is seven."

"Seven. One through six were the Amendments that came from the Democrat staff that they asked that we number those and we were waiting to receive them when your numbers seven through... what, fourteen?"

"That response..."

"Right."

"... To my, I guess, to my second question, and that is apparently that those Amendments as they were offered by Republican Sponsors did not have numbers attached to them right away. Is that right?"

"We held them until we received the first six Amendments."

"Which were all Democratic Amendments?"

"That came from Democrat staff."

"Let me ask, then, and again, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your attention and the attention of the Body. And again, I can address this question either to the Chair or to Mr. O'Brien. Is it the normal practice, or do you intend it to be the normal practice, and has it been in the past, to 3  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 assign numbers immediately to Bills and Amendments as they are presented, or is it now going to be the normal practice to delay assignation of those numbers until other things happen?"

"Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson."

"Yes."

"I would like to respond to your question. It shall be the policy of the Clerk's Office to number Amendments as they are received. However, I am told that in this instance, there were certain technical Amendments which it could reasonably be anticipated would be adopted without any controversy and; therefore, it was thought that it would be good to consider those Amendments first. It was reasonable to anticipate that they would become part of the Resolution, SO that when the Body moved to a consideration of Amendments which might be more controversial, they would be considering a Resolution which had been put in proper technical form. I would simply suggest, Sir, that the Clerk was attempting to provide for a more intelligent consideration of this question."

"Then I am correct in saying, ㄷ. O'Brien, that Republican Amendments that are now numbered seven through twenty-one were first filed with the Clerk, and that Democratic Amendments that are now numbered one through six were later filed with the Clerk, but that those latter Amendments had the numbers first attached to them prior to attaching numbers to the Republican Amendments. Is that true?"

"Amendments one through six arrived in the Clerk's office later, yes."

"After the Republican Amendments."

"Correct."

"Okay. That was our understanding. Let де then 4  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 conclude, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, by inquiring of the Chair, whether, (A) it's the intention of the Chair to continue in the future to use that discretionary policy in the Clerk's Office with respect to assigning numbers and, (B) whether it's the intention of the Chair to use the Office of the Clerk, which is a neutral office and I think designed for the use of all the Members, to favor one political Party over the other, in terms of the legislative process?"

"Mr. Johnson, it would be my direction to the Clerk's Office that if in the future there is any circumstance similar to what occurred recently and where there is a desire on the part of the Clerk's Office to hold certain Amendments and not give those Amendments numbers until other Amendments are filed, that the Clerk should confer with the Assistant Clerk in that regard and receive the consent and the approval of the Assistant Clerk before a procedure such as that would be employed. I would further point out to you, Mr. Johnson, and, for purposes of the record, that in response to the second part of your question regarding the operation of the Clerk's Office, your leader, Mr. Daniels, can provide you with very good evidence, as a result of our discussions over the last two weeks, which will clearly show to you that it is my intent to operate the Clerk's Office in a bipartisan manner."

"We appreciate that, and we also think the policy that you've designated with respect to Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Leone is a reasonable policy, but I think we certainly wanted and still want to clarify what happened today. Thank you."

"Sure. And let me just thank you for bringing this to our attention. Mr. Vinson."

"In that regard, would it be your intention, given the fact that those first six Amendments might well be adopted, 5  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 4th Legislative Day to use that as any basis for declaring our next seven technically out of order just because of their earlier adoption?"

"Mr. Vinson, I would suggest that in light of the fact that both Democrats and Republicans will be going to Party conference, that Mr. Getty could confer with Mr. Webb, and could reconcile that problem before we return."

"Thank you."

"Thank you. Is there any further inquiry? Mr. Johnson? No further inquiry? Mr. Friedrich."

"Mr. Speaker, I would like permission for the House to recess for 20 minutes for a Republican conference in room 118, if that's agreeable with you, Sir."

"Thank you, Mr. Friedrich. And Mr. Yourell. Representative Yourell."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Democratic majority requests time for a Democratic caucus."

"Fine. Is there any further business to come before the Body at this time? If there is none, the Clerk would like us to declare that there is a quorum present and, he would like to take the Attendance Roll Call. Proceed, Mr. Clerk. Let the record show that there are 111 Members present and that that does constitute a quorum. At this time, we are prepared to go to Party conference. I would like to advise the Members that if they wish to eat lunch they should do it now, because we will return to the floor for a Special Order of Business at one o'clock. After the completion of the Special Order of Business, there may be some minor items to be considered by the Body, but nothing major. During the last two days, my staff surveyed the Bill Sponsors of the Bills which have been introduced to date. That survey indicated that there would be no more than five Sponsors prepared to move ahead with 6  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 the consideration of their Bills next week. Therefore, in light of that small number of Bill Sponsors prepared to move ahead with their Bills next week, it is my intention not to come into Session next week, but to schedule Session for the following week, and to advise all Bill Sponsors of Bills which have already been filed that they should be prepared to move ahead with the consideration of their legislation at that time. Are there any questions? There being no questions, the House shall stand in recess for the purpose of Party caucus and lunch, and return precisely at one o'clock. Thank you."

"The Democrat caucus is in room... 114, Mary? 114. Democrat caucus in room 114, immediately. The Speaker requests all the Democratic Members please go to the conference immediately. The camera to take Members' pictures for I.D. cards is available in the east aisle, if anyone hasn't had their picture taken yet."

"The House... Ready? The House shall come to order. The Members will be in their chairs. Unauthorized personnel shall leave the floor of the House. Mr. Getty. The hour of one o'clock having arrived, the Special Order of Business is hereby called to order. The Special Order of Business will be consideration of House Resolution 14, which would provide for permanent rules of the House for the 83rd General Assembly. Mr. Clerk."

"House Resolution 14, Committee on Rules."

"The Chair recognizes Representative Matijevich on the Resolution."

"Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, the Rules Committee has met and I think we've worked long hours, and I think we have come through with a very good product. That is incorporated in House Resolution 14. I will briefly go over what the changes are in Rule 14 as to 7  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 our temporary rules, which we adopted the first day of the Session. Under Rule 5, we now have the duty of the Clerk to keep the Committee records to supervise the Committee Clerks and to supervise the form as to the Committee tape recordings and the possession of the tape recordings. Rule 7, we add under the Daily Order of Business the Short Debate, Second and Third Reading, designating it as a Daily Order of Business. We don't have that in our temporary rules. Under Rule 8, the Daily Calendar, we delete the requirement that the Clerk announce the distribution of Supplemental Calendars and add the requirement that the Clerk record the time of distribution of the Supplemental Calendars in the journalize, so that it is a matter of record in the Journal. Under Rule 9, we reduced the number of Members needed to object and remove a Bill from the Consent Calendar from six to four. In other words, we keep about what we think is the proportion that we had now because of the cutback Amendment. Under Rule 10, we... under the Short Debate, we provide that the Speaker shall allow a reasonable time for questions from the floor and answers to these questions. That is the same provision that we have for the Consent Calendar. Very often, only one simple question and answer can satisfy the Members, rather than taking a Bill off of Short Debate. We leave that latitude to allow the Speaker to do that. We reduced from ten to seven the number of Members needed to take a Bill off of Short Debate Calendar. That, again, we think conforms to the proportion, because of the cutback Amendment. Under Rule 16, we abolished the Service Committee on Certificates of Appreciation, and also we make the State Government Organization Committee a standing Committee. We need that, because if the Governor does come in with an Executive reorganization. Rule 17, we provided 8  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 that the Minority Leader shall appoint the Minority Spokesmen. Rule 20, we require written notice to the Clerk of Committee meetings in the last week of June. As you often know, we sometimes, as Chairmen, rise on the floor as far as suspending a posting notice, but this requires the written notice to the Clerk. We provide a one day notice to a Sponsor before a Committee may put his Bill on Interim Study. In other words, the same notice that one has when his Bill may be referred to Subcommittee. We make the requirement that Motions to suspend the posting requirement be in writing, be non-suspendable. This is so the Clerk can make sure that there is that record of it. Under Rule 26, we make the 'do pass' of a Bill recommendation and the 'be adopted' of a Resolution recommendation and the Consent Calendar and Short Debate recommendation be separate issues. In other words, it conforms to our practice that if you have a unanimous vote of a Committee on a 'do pass', then you have a separate Motion to put that on the Consent or Short Debate Calendar. We allow Resolutions to be placed on the Consent and Short Debate Calendar. We... The Rules Committee felt that we waste a lot of time on floor debate on Resolutions that is unnecessary, and we can take advantage of the Short Debate and Consent Calendar on Resolutions. On Rule 28, we require that Committee tapes... tape the recordings and turn the tapes over the House Clerk who has control of the tape recordings. Under Rule 34, we incorporate the references to the state debt impact notes, just as we do to fiscal, judicial, and pension impact notes. Rule 37, we require that LRB stamps on technical clean-up Amendments be on a Bill, for example, where the LRB proposes an Amendment. For example, there may be certain Amendments that have been adopted, then the Reference Bureau realizes that you have to have a clean-up 9  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 Amendment. This Rule says where they propose the Amendment, it must have an LRB stamp on it. Under Rule 38, we change the Speaker's declaration that a Bill failed to pass; instead, that it be declared lost. This is so that there is no doubt about it. Sometimes it's hard to, when you look back in the court proceeding, to find out in a tape recording of the proceedings, whether a Bill did pass, was announced as passed, or failed to pass. This way, it's clearer. It is declared lost. We provide that a Sponsor may not be added after a Bill has finally passed. Under Rule 43, we delete the limit of five congratulatory Resolutions. The Clerk's Office has said, and we know that this is a law that nobody recognizes anyhow, and we'd best do without it. We provide that the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, with regards to Joint Resolutions, that they not be assigned to a standing Committee but be placed on the Speaker's Table. This conforms to the statutory requirement that it not be sent to a standing Committee and; therefore, we put it onto the Speaker's Table. Rule 45, Certificates of Appreciation we renamed that to what it really is, a Certificate of Recognition. And we provide that certificates be signed by a Member and attested by the Clerk and delete the role of the Committee on Certificate of Appreciation. Rule 60, we prohibit changes of votes. Rule 64, this is a sort of a compromise. The Minority had recommended that TV filming be totally open anywhere in the gallery at any time. We feel that the Speaker should have some latitude that TV cameras be operated from all galleries except when otherwise designated by the Speaker. Rule 79, we changed the reference from June 30th to adjournment of Spring Session. This is because there are times when we do go past June 30th, and we should change that reference to 'after 10  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 adjournment of Spring Session'. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, I want to commend the Members of the Rules Committee in their deliberations. I want to commend the Parliamentarian, Mike Getty, our good friend who helped us so much, and Ray Becker, who helped me as a... the head of the Democratic staff on this issue, and I would urge the Members to support House Resolution 14. There are some Amendments that we are going to consider at this time also."

"Is there any discussion? Mr. Daniels."

"Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, two weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, you were elected to an office that I have always regarded as the second most powerful position in Illinois government. And when you were elected, you gave a speech outlining how you would handle your duties in that position, and your view of the future for this chamber. I regarded that speech as a sound blueprint for all Members of this House. I felt that speech was fitting justification for the unprecedented step I had taken earlier that day in asking Members of this chamber to elect you as Speaker by acclamation. One of the highlights of your fine speech was that you called for a new era in the Illinois House and for an end to the antics which too often characterized the old Illinois House. One week ago you made that speech. One week after you made that speech, the House Rules Committee assembled to deliberate on permanent rules for the 83rd General Assembly. You had indicated, and I had strongly supported, the need for quickly approving permanent rules for this Body and for the governance of this chamber in an orderly, efficient fashion. Unfortunately, your duties as Speaker kept you away from the first House Rules Committee meeting, and I sincerely believe that, had you been there and had you not 11  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 been taken away from that meeting by your other duties, that the outcome of that meeting would have been quite different. To acquaint you with what had occurred in that first House Rules Committee meeting, it is important today because today the full House acts on adoption of the permanent rules the permanent rules that we, too, have joined with you in an effort to adopt. In that first meeting, the House Republican Leadership made a series of rule change proposals designed not for partisan advantage, but for the true public purpose of making this House more orderly and more efficient. Mr. Speaker, the only way in which a legislative Body of this size can efficiently operate is if a strong and expert Committee system is created. It is essential that chaos on the House floor not be permitted to destroy the work product of these very efficient and expert Committees. It is essential that back-room deals operating throughout late night Conference Committees not be permitted to thwart the will of the Membership or the expertise of the Committee system. And, Mr. Speaker, it is essential that we bring this chamber into the full spotlight of public media attention, not just part of the time, but all of the time, SO that each and every person that is a resident of the State of Illinois is able to watch carefully the actions of its elected Body and its elected Leadership. Mr. Speaker, when the Republican Leadership offered these Amendments, ve recognized that because of your numbers on this House floor, they would operate frequently to our partisan disadvantage. As, for example, our proposal that ve would require a Constitutional Majority of 60 votes to amend legislation on the House floor, It is only with rules like this that we can have a strong Committee system where the Bills themselves must be heard carefully in Committee. But, Mr. 12  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 Speaker, in that very important first House Rules Committee meeting, one of your able Members, Mr. Cullerton, suggested that when... what you intended when you called for a new era in Illinois politics was only the partisan reality that Democrats have 70 Members on this House floor, and Republicans, 48. When Mr. Cullerton made that remark in an open, public meeting, I hoped he was in jest. Sadly, the actions at the conclusion of that day by the Rules Committee confirmed that Mr. Cullerton's spirit of partisan advantage and not your spirit of good government was at work. When the House Rules Committee acted last week in that fashion, I resolved to appeal to you today to think about the future of government in this House. I still believe that you want a new era, and not just a confirmation of the past. Today we will offer each of those proposals to strengthen the Committee system, to encourage the participation of all people in the process, and to open it up to the taxpayers and the citizens and the voters who sent us here. We will offer those proposals because, if they are adopted, they will create a House where all of our Members can cooperate to solve the people's problems, not to seek partisan advantage or aggrandizement or the perks of the individual office. That is the spirit in which I appeal to you today, to reverse the cynical actions of that very first House Rules Committee meeting last week, and I believe that you, Mr. Speaker, the elected Member of all of the Members of this House, have the vision and have the ideas of good government to respond to the appeals that I make to you on behalf of all the Members on this side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, after you're done with your telephone call. Mr. Cullerton, you said 70 Members on your side and 48 on this side." 13  4th Legislative Day

STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 "Mr. Daniels, you have my attention."

"Okay. Thank you, Sir."

"Proceed" "Now that you're off the telephone. And Mr. Speaker, we know that you are, Sir, the real Speaker. And we know that you intend to operate this House on a nonpartisan basis with good government in mind. And it's because of that that I appeal to you today, Sir, not to repeat the actions of your House Rules Committee meeting in that very, very important first meeting. Thank you."

"Thank you, Mr. Daniels. Is there any further discussion? Representative Pierce."

"Mr. Speaker, I take it we're on Representative Matijevich's House Resolution 14, which he's offered. Will he yield to a question?"

"Mr. Pierce, I had asked if there was any discussion on the Resolution, and Mr. Daniels sought recognition and spoke to the Resolution. Did you wish to state for which purpose you arise at this time?"

"On that Resolution."

"Proceed, Sir."

"I thought he was speaking to some Amendments that hadn't been offered yet, that's why I was somewhat confused. On the Resolution, Mr. Matijevich, I notice in Section 2, that you carry into effect a temporary rule adopted by us in the first week of the Session that didn't exist in any previous Session, and that is, allowing the Speaker and the Minority Leader to appoint the Conference Chairmen of those Parties. Can you tell me what the rationale for that change in our rules from the previous Sessions is?"

"Mr. Matijevich."

"I believe the rationale was, Representative Pierce, under the old rule, the Republicans appointed their Caucus 14  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 Chairman and we had Party conference rules that allowed the Democratic Members to appoint their Conference Committee Chairman, and so we thought there should be some uniformity and we felt that the proper rule ought to be that the leaders of both Parties be allowed to appoint theirs. And it has nothing to do with the performance of Al Greiman."

"So I see. I see. So what you're doing is, your being magnanimous in adopting the Republican previous practice of having the leader appoint the Conference Chairman, and so Mr. Daniels, I suppose, should be happy with that decision, right?"

"That's right. Plus, we have a statutory post of the Caucus Chairmen within the statutes as a leadership post; and therefore that's why we have brought about this uniformity."

"I see, and as you said, it wasn't due to a dissatisfaction with the performance of the Conference Chairmen the Democrats had elected in the past."

"Not at all. No, some have grumbled about Al Greiman, but most of us thought he did a hell of a job."

"Thank you."

"Is there any further discussion on the Resolution? If there is no further discussion on the Resolution, we will go to the question of Amendments. Mr. Clerk, are there any Amendments?"

"Amendment #1, Matijevich. Amends House Resolution 14 on page 11 by deleting line 27, 28, and so on."

"Mr. Matijevich."

"Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, Amendment #1 deletes the... this is Rule 15, old Rule 13. This deletes the limit of Members serving on more than four Committees. Because of the cutback Amendment and lesser Members here, 15  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 we felt it necessary to change the rule. So, I would offer and move the adoption of Amendment #1 to House Resolution 14."

"The Gentleman moves for the adoption of Amendment #1. Is there any discussion? There being no discussion, the question is, "Shall Amendment #1 be adopted?". All those in favor signify by saying 'aye, all those opposed by saying "no". In the opinion of the Chair, the 'ayes' have it. The Amendment is adopted. Are there any further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #2, Matijevich."

"Mr. Matijevich."

"Yes, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, Amendment #2 is Rule #16, old Rule #14. This refers to the new Committee names, and I'll go over it quickly. We add Appropriations II as a Committee. We have I and II now, as we used to have. We delete the Conservation and Natural Resources Committee, and make the Energy and Environment Committee now the Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee. We delete the Health and Family Services Committee and add instead the Human Services Committee. We delete Judiciary II Committee and now have one Judiciary Committee. We delete the Motor Vehicles Committee and now the Transportation Committee becomes Transportation and Motor Vehicles. We delete the Veterans' Affairs Committee from Personnel and Pensions and Veterans' Affairs now becomes one of six select Committees: Aging, Economic Recovery, Local School District Reorganization, Small Business, Urban Development and Veterans' Affairs, and we delete the Certificate of Appreciation Committee as a Service Committee. I move for the adoption of Amendment #2 to House Resolution 14."

"The Gentleman moves for the adoption of 16  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 Amendment #2. Is there any discussion? Mr. Friedrich."

"Mr. Speaker, we have an Amendment which deals with this same Section, Amendment #26, which we think is preferable because it spells out the duties and the kinds of Bills that should be assigned to the various Committees, and I don't know if you'd want to defer to that or just let us vote this one down, and, hopefully adopt the other one. I believe that's sponsored by Representative Vinson. I would yield to him. Representative Vinson."

"Mr. Vinson, do you seek recognition?"

"Yes, I have a question to propound to the Sponsor of this Amendment."

"Mr. Vinson wishes to ask a question. Does the Sponsor yield? The Sponsor indicates that he yields. Mr. Vinson."

"Your Amendment #2, Mr. Matijevich, lines 22 and 23, does not have any reference to the current Committee on Public Institutions and Social Services. If you'll look at page 12 of the Resolution that you're seeking to amend, you have such a Committee created. It would seem to me that for your Amendment to be in order, you would have to either retain the Committee or dispose of the Committee, and under the rules - the temporary rules, I believe we have specific ways in which you have to draft Amendments to do that. Now, would you elucidate that point for me, please, Sir?"

"Mr. Vinson, were you attempting to make a point of order?"

"Well, I'm just asking the Sponsor what his intention is with regard to that and if, in fact, he can explain that to me, I won't make a point of order."

"I see. All right."

"If he cannot, then I would propound a point of order."

"Mr. Matijevich." 17  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983

"Yes, we are... we are going to follow up with another Amendment later on. You are right. There is a technical error, but we are going to clean it up by adopting this Resolution, and then coming in later with an Amendment to clear up that technicality. We appreciate you calling our attention to it, as you always do."

"Thank you, Mr. Vinson. Mr. Friedrich had asked if the Sponsor of this Amendment wished to defer consideration of this until another Amendment would be considered. Mr. Matijevich, what is your pleasure?"

"I have a better idea - that we adopt this Amendment, and then we'll come to that... we'll cross that bridge when we come to it."

"Fine. The Gentleman moves for the adoption of Amendment #2. Is there any discussion? The question is, 'Shall the Amendment be adopted?'. All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', all those opposed by voting 'no'. The Clerk shall take the record. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, there are 63 'ayes', 44 'nos'. The Amendment is adopted. Are there any further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #3, Matijevich."

"Mr. Matijevich."

"Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, Amendment #3 is Rule 17, old Rule 15. It deletes the prohibition on the Members serving as a Chairman or Vice-Chairman of more than one Committee. I would move for the adoption of it."

"The Gentleman moves for the adoption of Amendment #3. Is there any discussion? There being no discussion, the question is, 'Shall the Amendment be adopted?'. All those in favor of the adoption of the Amendment signify by saying 'aye', all those opposed 18  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 signify by saying 'no". In the opinion of the Chair, the 'ayes' have it. The Amendment is adopted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #4, Matijevich."

"Mr. Matijevich."

"Yes, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, Amendment #4 is a rule with regards to deadlines. These are Rules 27, 29 and 37 - old Rules 25, 27 and 35. These revise the deadlines to conform with the Senate deadlines, and I think that's a very good idea. I might remind the Members that the first deadline under this rule that we have to remember, in addition to your income tax on April 15, remember April 15 is the deadline for introduction of House Bills. Mr. Speaker, I move for the adoption of Amendment #4."

"The Gentleman moves for the adoption of Amendment #4. Mr. Johnson."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It was my understanding that there was some questions raised about this proposition earlier. It's also my understanding now that an agreement has been reached, and that the Republican side of the aisle has no objection to this Amendment."

"Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Is there any further discussion? There being no further discussion, the question is, 'Shall Amendment #4 be adopted?'. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', all those opposed by saying 'no'. In the opinion of the Chair, the 'ayes' have it. The Amendment is adopted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #5, Matijevich. Amends House Resolution..."

"Mr. Matijevich."

"This Amendment #5 is technical. Rule 45, old Rule 19  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 43 conforms the rule title to the fact that Certificates of Appreciation shall be changed to Certificate of Recognition purely a title change. I move for the adoption of Amendment #5 to House Resolution 14."

"The Gentleman moves for the adoption of Amendment #5. Is there any discussion? There being no discussion, the question is, 'Shall the Amendment be adopted?'. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', all those opposed signify by saying 'no'. In the opinion of the Chair, the 'ayes have it. The Amendment is adopted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #6, Jaffe."

"Mr. Jaffe. Would the Membership please give its attention to Mr. Jaffe?"

"Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, Amendment #6 deletes the prayer from the daily Order of Business. Let me say first of all that earlier this month we took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Illinois. And I would tell you that when we start a Session with an invocation or a prayer, we violate our oaths because we are going contrary to the principles and the statements of both those Constitutions. The very first Article of the Bill of Rights of the Federal Constitution deals with the separation of church and state. It deals with the separation of church and state first, because out of this concept comes many other principles which are basic to American life principles such as freedom of speech, the right to assemble, etc. If you take a look at Section 3 of Article I of the Illinois Constitution it becomes very obvious that a invocation is in direct conflict with Section 3 of Article I. In part, in the latter portion of Article III, Section 1, says that no person shall be 20  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 required to attend or support any ministry or place of worship against his consent, nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship. In addition thereof, it says the free exercise and enjoyment of the religious profession and worship without discrimination shall be forever guaranteed and no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege or capacity on account of his religious opinions. I would submit to the Membership of this House that this House does not only belong to the Members, it belongs to the people in the galleries. And that when people come here, when we are forced to start a Session with a prayer, we start in violation of the Constitution of the State of Illinois. We start in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and it really is unseemly for a Body such as this General Assembly to start each and every Session with an unconstitutional act. I realize that this is a change that will evoke some emotion amongst the Members, but if you look at the Constitution, I'm sure you'll come to the conclusion that it's a correct change and we ought to do it. I therefore urge that you would vote for Amendment #6 to House Resolution 14."

"The Gentleman moves for the adoption of Amendment #6. Is there any discussion? Mr. Friedrich."

"Mr. Speaker, I think the adoption of this Amendment would be a very serious mistake. Even back in the founding of this country when they were having trouble putting together a Constitution, they stopped and asked the blessing of Deity and the thing went forward from that point forward. I don't know if there's any athiests on this floor or not, or in this Membership, because I've never inquired because I think a person's religion's his own business. I do know that we have people of the Jewish 21  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 faith. We have Catholics. We have Protestants. And I would be a little upset if I found out that there was anyone here who did not believe in a supreme being. I think the prayers for the most part have been non-denominational, and we have had those of every faith ask the blessing. So, all I can say is, let's don't make this mistake. We took the prayer out of schools and they've gone downhill ever since, and I think it's time to put it back, but let's don't make the same mistake here."

"Mr. Matijevich."

"Yes, I understand Representative Jaffe's feeling about this on the church-state issue. As one of the Members with Gordy Ropp and Ginny Frederick and a handful of us that are here every day of the Session when we give the prayer and the Pledge, I don't think we ought to change that procedure. I would hope that the Members not get into... this can stir up emotional debate. I don't think it's necessary. I think the overwhelming majority of us want to keep the prayer in the opening of our deliberations, so I would urge the Members, in spite of my good friendship with Aaron Jaffe and knowing of his feelings, I would urge your opposition."

"Mr. Davis, do you seek recognition?"

"Well, I simply wanted, Mr. Speaker, to... I realize that our distinguished colleague from Skokie is in deadly seriousness, and it pains me to see that happen. I thought that the Democratic Majority was large enough and that God probably existed on our side and did not cease to exist when we came in. I think Representative Matijevich is right. In the spirit of my namesake from your side of the aisle, Deacon Davis, I think an overwhelming rejection of this proposed Amendment is in order."

"Mr. McGann. Mr. McGann." 22  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day McGann: Mr. Speaker January 26, 1983 and Members of the Assembly, we have taken the dear God out of too much of our life. We must return Him. We must vote down this Amendment. If we are in violation of the Federal Constitution, then the President of the United States was so, also in violation last evening when he closed with a form of prayer to God. Please vote down this Resolution."

"Mr. Ropp."

"Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, in all due respect to the Sponsor of this Amendment, I really think that in our country is based on faith and confidence in a creator and in the previous prayers and invocation that we have, they certainly have been given in the true spirit of various and different religious groups. I find them to be a real uplift and an inspiration each morning, to come in and have a prayer of thanksgiving, of support of our Creator, in addition then to following wit the Pledge of our allegiance to our great country. I think these are things that provide with strength of character within our country, and by the people for which we represent. I urge you to reject this Amendment. It certainly would not be in the best interest of strengthening and bringing together the American people and people who need more faith in mankind and womankind as well as our Creator. I urge a 'no' vote on this Amendment."

"Mr. Preston."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I'm not completely in agreement with this Amendment. When I first came to the House of Representatives in 1979, and having heard the invocation at the beginning of each daily Session of the House, I had privately addressed then Speaker Redmond regarding the nature of that prayer, because too often, I was unable to 23  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 gain the inspiration that I would have liked because of the nature of the prayer that was given at the beginning of each Session. One of the previous speakers talked about the ecumenical nature of the prayer. He is occasionally correct, but all too often, the prayer that is recited is not one that is ecumenical in nature. It is one that is non-secular, one that certain Members, whether it be Jewish Members of the House, whether it be athiests, whether it be people who believe in whatever ideas they believe in of a supreme being, could not necessarily gain inspiration from. It was of concern to me. Speaker Redmond had indicated at that time that he had never heard a complaint being made about the nature of the prayer that was said day after day. My answer to that was to stay out of this chamber until the daily prayer was said, not because I don't believe in prayer. I do believe in prayer. I am a parent of children who attend an Orthodox Jewish day school where four hours of every single day are spent in prayer and in studying the Bible and the Talmud. I believe greatly in prayer, but I believe, as a public Body, as a minimum that prayer should be one that all Members of this Body can enjoy, and from which they can gain inspiration. That has not been the case in the prayers that have been delivered in this chamber. I regret that because of that, I join with Representative Jaffe, and Im going to vote for this Amendment. I think it's important that either the rules of the House preclude prayer or the rules of the House establish a prayer... or establish a procedure whereby whoever's giving the invocation, gives one that can be enjoyed by all, not just the majority of the Members. Thank you."

"Is there any further discussion? Mr. Jaffe, to close." 24  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day

"Yes, Mr. Speaker, January 26, 1983 Members of the House. You know, my father was a tailor who came here from the old country and I can recall that every morning he used to get up very early. He used to get up about five o'clock in the morning and used to go to the synagogue. And by and large, I would say to any Member here, that if you really want to go to your place of worship, you can get up a little bit earlier in the morning and go to your place of worship. However, everybody here acknowledges that we can't have prayer in the public school. Well, if you can't have prayer in a public school, and that's been the constitutional rulings, certainly you ought not have it in a House of Representatives. If you want to change the Constitution, try and change the Constitution, but the truth of the matter is that prayer in this Body, at the beginning of a Session, is contrary to the Constitution of the United States. Now, one of the prior speakers talked about athiests. I happen not to be an athiest, but perhaps there are people in the audience, or people in this chamber, or visitors who are athiests and do not want to hear a prayer of any denomination. I certainly think as citizens of this state, they should be able to come into this Body and not be subjected to a prayer of any denomination if they do not want to do that. I agree with Representative Preston. The prayers in this House, by and large, have not been non-denominational. They have been sectarian. But, regardless of that, I think that when we stand up here, and when we vote, if you vote to retain the prayer, you're voting against the Constitution of the United States and you're voting against the Constitution of the State of Illinois, and you should realize that that's what you're doing. Again, I would urge a vote, a 'yes' vote on House Resolution... on Amendment #6 to House 25  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day Resolution 14." January 26, 1983

"Thank you, Mr. Jaffe. The question is, Shall Amendment #6 be adopted?*. Mr. Vinson."

"I just wonder if we might have a Roll Call on this issue."

"That was the plan. Thank you. The question is, Shall Amendment #6 be adopted?". All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', all those opposed by voting 'no'. Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, there are 10 'ayes', 100 'nos'. The Amendment fails. Are there further Amendments?"

"Amendment #7, Hoffman. Amends House Resolution 14 on page 59, by deleting line 15 through 20 and so forth."

"Mr. Hoffman."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to withdraw Amendment #7, and we will be replacing it with a later number."

"Amendment #7 shall be withdrawn. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #8, Dwight Friedrich. Amends..."

"Mr. Friedrich."

"Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, a few years ago, we very carefully went over the rules, and we were in the minority at that time, and one of the things we found was that there was an abuse of the Resolutions which were introduced. And those things are very expensive, because they have to go through the same procedure as other Resolutions, the Congratulatory Resolutions. So, at that time we were able to put into the rules a provision that no Member could introduce more than five Congratulatory Resolutions in any one Session. I can tell you that a Resolution costs about fifty dollars by the time you get 26  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 through with all the paperwork, and I imagine that's a... I'm not even sure that's adeguate. We had 1,019 last year. That's $50,000 of money which could be used for other purposes. Now, the argument was used in the Rules Committee meeting, 'Well it's not enforced, so let's do away with it. There are still murders. Shall we do away with the law against murder? I guess that's the same line of reasoning. I know that it can be enforced, and I know that it would save this Body and the taxpayers of Illinois at least $25,000. I think it's a good rule, and I think even if it isn't enforced, it least is there to remind those people that they're violating the rules. So I would move the adoption of the Resolution... or the Amendment."

"Hr. Matijevich."

"Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, in opposition to Amendment #8, I would urge the Members to oppose it on a couple of grounds. One, he changes the rules with regards to the requirement of the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules that the Joint Resolutions go to the Speaker's Table rather than a standing Committee. That is, we are now under this proposal, are going to meet the statutory requirement. Two, with regards to the Congratulatory Resolution limit, I think he exaggerates as to cost. For example, there wouldn't be one person from the Reference Bureau cut at all, we know that. Some Members write their own Resolutions. Also, we have the cutback Amendment. We know that there are going to be lesser numbers. Now we have an example last Session, where the Leadership had more than five Resolutions, because they had Congratulatory Resolutions for those Members who were either retiring or not coming back. It... We think that there will be lesser numbers of them, but we think we ought to do away with a rule that hasn't worked. So, I would urge the Members to 27  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 oppose Resolution #8."

"Is there any further discussion?"

"Amendment 8."

"Mr. Davis."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Congratulatory Resolution problem speaks in and of itself. It's a much abused and much maligned and overworked principle, and I thought that the idea of the five limit was extraordinarily good and could be policed effectively by you, Sir, by the Speaker's Office and deny that privilege over five by simple calculations from the Reference Bureau and it should be an enforced rule. That speaks for itself. That's just good practice here in the House. For Representative Yourell, who is now sitting down, I think he should pay attention to what's going on on the Joint Committee on Administrative Rule language, that we seek to delete on page 38 lines 16 and 20. It is our feeling on this side of the aisle that that is an extraordinary Committee created through the action of Representative Yourell and others during the last... two bienniums ago. and that the Committee is working extraordinarily well, and that the Veto Resolutions that emanate from that Committee are rare indeed. And when they occur, there's bound to be a great deal of controversy that surrounds those particular Veto Resolutions. And it's Our feeling that in opening up this process, and that keeping the integrity of that Veto Resolution, that to introduce that Resolution directly to the Speaker's Table puts far too closed an effect on the process itself. It is our feeling that that Resolution should be treated as any other Resolution that is not agreed that would come into the stream of process and introduction, be assigned to the Committee on Assignments, and then, indeed, be assigned to a Committee for another hearing the benefit of the for 28  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 agency itself and for the benefit of those who oppose the rules. So that the Legislators and the legislative Bodies that are standing in the area of expertise that the rule affects, have an opportunity to hear in full discussion, what the reasons were for the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules. We fear that this is a closing safeguard, that this language does not need to be in there, that absolutely, that the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules Veto Resolution should have an additional and full hearing by a standing Committee of expertise in this House, again, to strengthen the Committee system and open up this House to public scrutiny at every juncture and every turn. So I recommend to you very highly, Representative Yourell and others who think the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules is one of the finest creatures of this General Assembly, to certainly vote 'aye' on Resolution... on Amendment #8 to Resolution 14, for good government and openness in government, which is our theme and should be, Sir, your theme in this new era in which we've embarked."

"Is there any further discussion? There being no further discussion, the Chair recognizes the Sponsor of the Amendment to close the debate. Mr. Friedrich."

"Mr. Speaker, this... we think this is certainly not partisan. It's a good government Amendment, and I cannot understand why anyone would want to oppose it. We think it should be part of the rules."

"The question is, 'Shall Amendment #8 be adopted?'. All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', all those opposed by voting 'no'. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, there are 47 'ayes', 61 'nos'. The Amendment fails. Are there further Amendments?"

"Amendment #9, Vinson." 29  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983

"Mr. Vinson."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Amendment #9 seeks to undo one of the relatively few bad things that were done to the rules by the Rules

Committee last week. In in... In in... Speaker Madigan: "Mr. Vinson, would you move to another microphone? Maybe to Mr. Daniels'."

"He might have something to say about that if he were here, Mr. Speaker. As I said, Amendment #9 seeks to undo a negative thing that was done by the Rules Committee last week. What the Rules Committee chose to do last week, over our objections, was to change the language in one of the House rules in a fashion so that the termination date for consideration of Conference Committee Reports is the end of the Spring Session, rather than June 30. The purpose for that was so that... or the announced purpose for that was to enable Committee Member... House Members to have the same protections in regard to having Conference Committee Reports on their desks for required periods of time at the end of the Session on July 1st that they would have on June 30th, because we frequently go over the June 30th deadline. And we have no quarrel with that. What the problem is, though, the rules change in that respect had a double entendre. There are two meanings, two purposes, two effects of that rules change."

"Would you turn on Mr. Daniels? Mr. Vinson at Mr. Daniels' station?"

"In addition to that end of Session change, it made it unnecessary for a Sponsor to take a Conference Committee Report from the table, changed the number of votes required to act on Conference Committee reports on July 1st and 2nd as Democrat staff explained in the Rules Committee. Now, Mr. Speaker, one of the things we do to try to assure that 30  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 the end of the Session will be on June 30th, as the Constitution requires, is to require certain extraordinary majorities after June 30th for action. That means that there will be an end to the Session. It is an incentive to bring this thing to a close and to make the Legislature operate in an expeditious fashion. I believe any relaxation of the rules requiring that is a mistake. I think we ought to try to create a more efficient Legislature, as you have indicated you want to do. So, by making this change, by adopting Amendment #9, we avoid moving away from those extraordinary majorities. We avoid an incentive to continuing in Session all year long, and we return to an incentive to have quick expeditious action and to conclude our business by June 30th. I would think, Mr. Speaker, that is certainly something you want to do. I would consider it a marked accomplishment of your term as Speaker of this House if we could accomplish the end of business by June 30th. And for those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I move for adoption of Amendment #9 and certainly hope that you will join me in so voting."

"The Gentleman moves for the adoption of Amendment $9. Is there any discussion? Mr. Cullerton."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. The purpose of this rule change that we made was to indeed do what Mr. Vinson wishes; that is, to bring about the end of the Session in a quicker fashion. After June 30th, we frequently have to have two Roll Call votes, first to suspend a rule requiring that the Conference Committee Report be on the desk for one hour, and then secondly, we have to go to vote on the substantive manner. That is the purpose of the change. All Representative Vinson's Amendment will do will be to require that we take two votes after June 30th. The Constitution still requires 31  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 a three-fifths vote for substantive Bills after June 30th. There is only a minor exception if the effective date is going to be July 1st of the following year. So, what Representative Vinson's Amendment will do will simply delay the proceedings even longer and defeat the stated purpose that he has given for the purpose of his Amendment. So, I would ask that we vote against his proposal."

"Mr. Davis."

"Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think you younger Members on the Democrat side and others on the Democrat side better pay very close attention to this, as all Members should. I think Representative who spoke just prior to me, the new Michael Getty, the smaller Michael Getty, is indeed quite wrong. We're seeking to retain the constitutional provisions, while at the same time providing a disincentive for staying in Session. And let me just explain to you why, for a moment. The Representative from Chicago briefly touched on it, and I don't think wish to elucidate, but listen to me very carefully over there, and on this side, when I tell you simply that what we seek to do is to put another extraordinary majority vote roadblock into place as a disincentive to staying in Session so that Bills without an effective date can continue to be heard with simple majorities, without the extraordinary vote requirement provided in the Constitution. Now, that safeguard was there for the Constitution, but what we're doing is removing all the extraordinary vote safeguards so that every piece of legislation on June 30th that gets caught up that doesn't have an effective date can then be considered the next day, the day after that, the week after that, the week after that, ad nauseum. What we would seek to do is put a rule of extraordinary vote in front of that procedure so that only those that are necessary, only those 32  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 that are agreed upon by both sides, or only those that have merit will be considered in some timely fashion yet that... at the end of that Session or in the Fall Session. So, I'd recommend to you very strongly, very strongly for your own protection, for your own protection, all of you as Members have rights here to be protected on both sides of the aisle that you vote for Amendment #9 to Resolution 14."

"Mr. Matijevich."

"Mr. Speaker, Representative Cullerton has articulated the position of the majority Members of the Rules Committee, and I might only add to Representative Vinson that the new Constitution has no reference to June 30th as the close of the Session. So, I would urge the Members to oppose the Amendment."

"Is there any further discussion? There being no further discussion, the question is, 'Shall Amendment #9 be adopted?'. All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', all those opposed by voting 'no'. Mr. Vinson, to explain his vote. Mr. Vinson, would you move to Mr. Daniels' chair. Mr. Vinson, to explain his vote. Mr. Vinson."

"Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the rules provide for the Sponsor of a matter to have the opportunity to close on the matter, but be that as it may, I will do that in explaining my vote. And I would simply ask for a favorable vote on this; because, as Mr. Davis said, it is very important that we not permit the Session to go on day, after day, after day, when the Constitution seeks to bring it to an end on June 30th. That's not what I believe you want to stand for, Mr. Speaker. It's not what we want to stand for, and I would ask you to consider changing your vote from red to green."

"Yes. Mr. Vinson, I apologize for not recognizing you to close. It was an error. Is there any 33  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 further explanation of vote? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, there are 47 'ayes, 66 'nos'. The Amendment fails. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #10, Pullen. Amends House Resolution 14 on page 7 and so forth."

"Representative Pullen."

"Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, this Amendment seeks to restore to the rules Resolution language which is in the existing rules, which requires the Clerk to announce to the House the distribution of any Supplemental Calendar at the... at the time it is being distributed. It does include the added language in the rules Resolution proposal, that the fact of the distribution shall also be recorded in the Journal, and the time given. Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I believe that the language that is being stricken in the rules proposal requiring the Clerk to announce the distribution of a Supplemental Calendar is a problem that is going to cause difficulty for the average Member. Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen, it is important to the Membership that we know when a Supplemental Calendar is being distributed, that we be advised of that fact. Those who have served here in previous General Assemblies know full well that there are many instances where a piece of paper has not been deposited on the desk of one or more Members, inadvertantly, or perhaps, advertantly in some cases. And, the protection for the Members in the Clerk announcing that a Supplemental Calendar being distributed is very important so that the average Member knows that there is something coming up that is not on the Daily Calendar. Now, it may be that some will argue that it is up to the average Member, that it is his responsibility to know that something is going on, but Ladies and Gentlemen, I ask you 34  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 how the average Member can find out if he does not have a Supplemental Calendar distributed to hin inadvertantly, when the Clerk is not announcing that that distribution is being made. The language that is being added to record the time of distribution in the Journal is a good addition, and we are happy to accept that language, but the recordation of the time in the Journal is simply by human action. If the announcement is not made over the public address system at the time that the Journal is being distributed, the announcement to the House, because the tapes are time dated as the proceedings go along, is a check and a guarantee that the time recorded in the Journal is indeed the accurate time, and that situation can be important in legal implications in the passage of legislation. I do not understand, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen, why the language requiring the Clerk to announce the Supplemental Calendar should be stricken from the rules. It does not take up any time of the House for the Clerk to simply state a Supplemental Calendar is being distributed. It is a protection for the Members that this announcement is required in the rules, and so it is a removal of Members' rights to take that announcement from the rules, and I urge you to adopt this Amendment to protect the rights of the Members. Thank you."

"The Lady moves for the adoption of Amendment #10. Is there any discussion? Mr. Matijevich."

"Yes, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, the Clerk did tell the Members of the Rules Committee that the fact of the matter is that in those very hectic days in the closing of a Session, very often because of very serious deliberations that are going on, that they don't interrupt the Members. That is a fact, but by the requirement that they record the time in the Journal, ve feel that where 35  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 there is court attack, they can go into the Journal to find out when the Supplemental Calendar is distributed. So, last Session he said it was very rare that they did announce the time of the distribution of the Calendar. I think that this is really not a problem; that we make much more of it than we have to. So I would urge the Members of the House to oppose this Amendment. We think that we have, by our change, made a better change in the rules and, therefore, oppose this one."

"Mr. Vinson."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. After having heard the previous speaker's response in regard to the Lady's proposal for change on this Amendment, and having seen the iron grip of discipline of the velvet hammer on previous votes this afternoon, I would propound an inquiry to the Chair. Since it's very likely, given the previous record on these Amendments, that this one will be defeated, in regard to Article IV, Section 8 (d) of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, that Section requires that the Speaker of the House certify that a Bill which has passed the House has met the procedural requirements of action in the House before it goes to the Governor. Are you familiar with that Section, Sir?"

"Yes, I am, Mr. Vinson."

"My inquiry is that since the rules... If Mrs. Pullen's Amendment is defeated, since the rules will continue to require that Calendars be on the desk - Supplemental Calendars, for an appropriate time period, but since the Members will not know when those Calendars are distributed, but since you will have time recorded in the Journal to make that determination, will you, on each and every Bill, check the time in the Journal when the Supplemental Calendar was distributed and ensure that it was distributed 36  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 on time and that the Bill was acted on after the requisite time period, before certifying the Bill?"

"Mr. Vinson, it is my plan to ensure, as best I can, that all of the procedural requirements, both constitutional and statutory, be met before I certify a Bill to the Governor."

"Now, in the event that a mistake, an inadvertant mistake, might be made in that regard, is it... with this Amendment, would it be your opinion that the Supreme Court, in reviewing a Bill, would be able to penetrate the veil of certification, determine that an error had been made, since the data is all there, and consequently hold that the Bill was unconstitutional because it had been improperly certified?"

"Mr. Vinson, I'll decline to answer that question, because I feel it goes beyond the purview of my function as Speaker of the House."

"Would Mr. Justice Getty have an opinion on that?"

"Maybe on an informal basis."

"Would the Sponsor of the Resolution that would do this have a question... have a response on that?"

"No, I think that he would like you just to permit us to move to a vote on this question."

"Well, given the fact that I can't get answers from any of those people, I wonder if Representative Pullen might indicate whether or not, if this Amendment fails, it would be the legislative history that it would be the proper function of the court to so penetrate the veil. She might be able to cast some light on that."

"Representative Pullen, do you wish to participate in this discussion?"

"Mr. Speaker, I do believe that, as the Gentleman discussed, without a verifiable time of distribution of the 37  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 Supplemental Calendar in the record, it would cast a cloud on any Bill that might be passed on a Supplemental Calendar."

"And, Mr. Vinson, do you seek recognition again?"

"Yes, I'd just asked a question, and I appreciate the Lady's answer. And I'm glad to know that, as a result of the legislative history on this Amendment, that it will, in fact, be the function of the court now to penetrate the veil of certification and, if an inadvertent mistake were made, to find that the Bill were illegally certified and not a ... not a matter of law. Thank you, Mr. Speaker."

"Let the record show that the Chair has not rendered a ruling in this regard, and there is no further discussion or at least there is no one else seeking recognition. Representative Pullen, do you wish to close?"

"Yes, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I do believe that the Clerk of the House is an officer of this House and can be directed by the House, either from time to time or in the House rules, to take an action which would protect the rights of the Members of this House. I believe further that the announcement of a Supplemental Calendar being distributed, because it is so important both to the verification of the validity of legislation and also because it is so important to the rights of Members, should be considered at least as important as any debate which might be taking place at any given time. If the Clerk has not been announcing the distribution of Supplemental Calendars because he felt uncomfortable about making such an announcement during debate, I believe that, nonetheless, the Clerk, because the rules direct him to, should not feel uncomfortable to do so and that it is indeed stripping of the rights of the average Member to remove this provision 38  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 and its direction to the Clerk from the rules. I urge favorable consideration of this Amendment, and I think that we'll all remember it as the Session goes forward. Thank you."

"The question is, 'Shall Amendment #10 be adopted?. All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', all those opposed by voting no. Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question there are 48 ayes, 61 'nos". The Amendment fails. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #11, Vinson, amends House..."

"Mr. Vinson."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. One of the tragedies which occurred in the Rules Committee last week was that the Rules Committee vote... the Rules Committee voted for censorship. We offered an Amendment in Rules Committee to permit the media, at any time, to film, to broadcast, to photograph from any place in this House chamber. We offered that Amendment, because we believe that one of the safeguards the public has is the access to information, the knowledge that the media is not being censored and the ability, when they look at their television news, when they listen to the radio, to understand what's going on, not to just have the actions of the House presented in the most favorable light, not to have somebody with a button who can cause events, which that person might not like to be seen on television, to be cut off. We believe that's an important protection for the people; and, in fact, we believe that those spotlights that the televisions use to film with, those spotlights are not he lights of the press. Those are the lights of the public, Mr. Speaker. We believe that unless you have that safeguard in this chamber that the people are never really 39  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 going to know what's going on in this chamber. And very frequently, Mr. Speaker, it's when politicians least like to be seen that their actions can be most understood and appreciated back home. That's when the public probably really most needs to understand these things. Now, Mr. Speaker, we would hope, on this Amendment particularly, that you would reconsider the action of the Rules Committee last week and that you would permit an uncensored press, an uncensored electronic media in this House. We believe that's important. We believe it's a keystone of our system of government, and we would ask you to support the adoption of Amendment #11 to these House rules."

"Is there any further discussion? Mr. Matijevich."

"Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I urge the Members to oppose this. The Sponsor of the Amendment would lead you to believe that the media would be opposed to the Resolution as drafted. Kelly Smith indeed did come in Committee and testify in favor of our proposal, our Amendment. As drafted, they would have access to the galleries, any part of the galleries, and to film at all times except when otherwise designated by the Speaker. I think the Speaker ought to have that latitude. The fact of the matter is I think that there will be a very, very rare occasion when the Speaker would say that filming would not be allowed. My friends in the print media tell... tell me that, if the public really wants to know what's going on, they would read the newspapers rather than watch television. I would urge the Members to oppose this Amendment. We feel we've done the job through our Resolution."

"Mr. Winchester."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of 40  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 the House. I think that, while Kelly Smith is a respected individual, he doesn't speak for all members of the press, and I happen to be an owner of a radio station. And I'm in the process of negotiations to buy a newspaper, and I'm looking at the possibility of a television station. And I've had the opportunity... I've had the opportunity now, as a Legislator and as a member of the media, to see both sides of the issue, and I just happen to believe that we really haven't been fair, adequately fair, to the fourth branch of government. And I think that we should allow our television cameras, our photographers for the print media to have more access to this House. I think the people in our home districts throughout the State of Illinois want to know more, in depth, as to what we're doing in the General Assembly. After all, it's their money that we're spending. I'm surprised that Representative Matijevich, representing the Democratic Party who have always been for... for, I thought, free press, open press, less censorship and so forth, would be in support of this type of Amendment; but, yet, now that they're in control of the House it seems that they want, not only the same type of censorship that we've had in the last eight years, perhaps even more censorship. But I'm wearing two hats here today as a Legislator and a member of the press, the free press, and I don't particularly care very much for censorship. And I think that people back home, including all of our media, are going to be watching how each and every one of us vote on this issue, and I would ask that we vote 'yes'."

"Mr. Pierce, do you seek recognition? Mr. Davis."

"Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago today, when the ship of state embarked on a sea of tranquility and conciliatory new eras in oceans of new eras with the benevolent and 41  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 conciliatory Speaker on the bridge at the helm, we thought he meant it, a new era, brand new era, openness in this House, openness in government. The ship foundered on some rocky shoals last Wednesday, and we thought, Mr. Speaker - this is partially addressed to you. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. I certainly am... really, seriously am addressing some of this to you. We thought perhaps when the Rules Committee met that there was a miscommunication, Mr. Speaker, from your office, and that the government... open-government proposals that we were going to be making to you would certainly fall on receptive ears as the captain and benevolent captain on the bridge of this sea of tranquility and this ship of state that it sailed two weeks ago. It appears as if, from the action already taken, it appears as if this Amendment probably will fail. It appears as if the rest of ours will fail, because the benevolence is not any longer benevolent. I'm sad to see that. It appears as if we are now foundering on that same sea in this vessel of state of which you, Sir, are on the bridge. I'm a little disappointed in that our Amendment in Committee did not succeed, and I'm really disappointed in the testimony and in the response from your Members and, in fact, indeed coercion, it would seem to me, of the press - coercion to accept partially and to accept not free open First Amendment rights that the people of this state certainly deserve. I'm embarrassed for the working press who have to settle for less than they deserve. I'm appalled, Mr. Speaker, at your Rules Committee Members who forced that coercion on them with Amendment 4(a) last week. So, I simply say to you, Sir, take a look at the rest of these Amendments and this one. There may be some here that even you, captain of this ship of state, can support."

"Mr. Greiman. Mr. Greiman." 42  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day

"Thank you, January 26, 1983 Mr. Speaker. Before the previous speaker drowns in a sea of metaphores, I hope that Representative Telcser will come back to give basic training on excoriating the opposition. The truth of the matter is that the majority position in the Rules Committee expands the position of the press, of the electronic press. It expands their rights to roam in this... in the upper chamber, in the upper heights, if you will. It is a direction and a statement by this House when these rules are adopted that, as a matter of fact, the lights will be on. As a matter of fact, television will be welcome in this chamber, except in the most extraordinary circumstances that would be within the discretion of the Chair. Deliberative bodies give the Chair a great deal of discretion in maintaining order, in determining those kinds of decisions, and I happily and freely support the position of the Rules Committee."

"Is there any further discussion? Mr. Johnson."

"Well, in addressing this, I would ask, and I know that Representative Matijevich certainly has the option not to respond since we're on the order of an Amendment, but I think the Members of this side of the aisle would ask Representative Matijevich and those of the Majority Party who join with him in opposition to this Amendment several questions. One is, what are the extraordinary circumstances where you would have us believe that the press and the... and the photographic media are not to be allowed to photograph, and to videotape, and film and broadcast in this House? What are the situations where you believe that censorship ought to be imposed, and why do you believe that Amendment #11, in light of the pronouncements that you've made and your Party's made with respect to the openness of this process, wouldn't meet all those 43  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 objectives? All we're saying by this Amendment is that, in this open process, the democracy that we all give lip service to and some of us really believe in that the eyes of the public being honest ought to be honest in a full way. And I would... I would address this... my other comments and perhaps Representative Matijevich's response, to the Membership and particularly the new Membership, because this is a two-edge sword. Not only is there a benefit to the public in terms of their ability to see and in terms of their ability to view the legislative process, but there's also a protection to each and every Member of this chamber in that degree of openness. It's very easy to misconstrue. It's very easy to summarize. It's very easy, in some cases, for the print media to print things - I'm not suggesting that they do, but it's easy to different from what actually happens in here. And I am suggesting that the Membership of this House being viewed in what really happens here, with all the blemishes and all the medals of honor, is the best way for not only the public, but for each and every one of the 118 Members of this House to make the process work for us and for the public. And for those reasons and for the reasons that I think have been so well articulated by Representatives Winchester, and Vinson and Davis, I would think that everybody ought to join in opening this process up and giving reality to the lip service that so many of us have given over the course of the past years, and particularly during the course of the campaign."

"Is there any further discussion? Mr. Vinson to close the debate. Mr. Winchester to close the debate."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. After my comments a few minutes ago, it was brought to my attention that when Mr. Smith came before the Rules Committee and gave his 44  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 testimony in regards to this Bill he actually was in support of our Amendment, the Republican Amendment #11 that we're addressing right now, but he felt to a certain extent that the press feels intimidated; that if he did not support the proposal that the Democrats were presenting, that there might not be any, I repeat, any type of relief offered to the media as far as being able to provide accurate and fair coverage to its readers, and to its listeners and to its viewers. Now, I'm surprised. Something appears to be going on here that we're going to probably have to face many times over the next several months, but the Democrats are not sticking to their positions that they had in the last couple of years. Now that they've got a little power, they don't want to be fair. They must have something that they want to hide, something that's necessary to hide that they would not allow... that they would not permit the freedom to the press to publish and to show those things that's important to our constituents to see back home. I don't understand this censorship that the Democratic Party is trying to place on to the people of the State of Illinois. I hope each and every one of the members of the press, if this Amendment is not adopted, use their facilities, their media, to let our constituents know that the Democratic Party is supporting censorship in this House. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is one Amendment that I definitely, and I believe many others, feel should be adopted, and I think we need to quit playing games. We're making fools out of ourselves in the eyes of the media, and we need to support this Amendment right now."

"The question is, 'Shall Amendment #11 be adopted?". All those in favor signify by voting aye, all those opposed by voting 'no". Have all voted who wish? 45  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day The Clerk shall take the record. January 26, 1983 On this question there are 49 'ayes, 65 'nos". The Amendment fails. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #12, Ebbesen."

"Mr. Ebbesen. Does someone wish to handle the Amendment for Mr. Ebbesen? Mr. Davis."

"Well, yes, Mr. Speaker, pardon me. I was up trying to get an interview with somebody. The problem that we've had in the past in this House is that we get to the Order of Motions infrequently and at the whim of the Chair, and this affects every Member's rights to have his Motions heard. The change that we propose in rule... Amendment 12 or Amendment 12 to the Resolution is that at least once, at least once in every ten Legislative Days that the Speaker proceed to the Order of Motions and that every item on that Calendar have an opportunity to be heard. It's simply a device to protect the rights of the Members and to protect the rights of what they seek to do for their districts, for their constituents, and for all the people of Illinois, and I think it's a very good change, a very necessary change in light of past practice, both in the last biennium and the ones preceding that since I have been here to avoid going to the Order of Motions for partisan advantage or for some purpose that is less than open in government. So, I offer to you this very good government proposal and hope that you adopt it, Mr. Speaker."

"Is there any discussion? Mr. Matijevich."

"Yes, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, I believe that Speaker Madigan, when he talked about a new era in this House, really was talking about what he believes will be efficient operation of the business of the House. If we adopt this Amendment, we would completely tie up the hands of the Speaker and, not only that, we would open the door 46  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 to the possibility and even probability of complete chaos. I could conceive of the situation where the Minority Party, if it so wishes, could use this proposal to add all kinds of Resolutions and demand that within the prescribed time limit those Resolutions be called within that ten-day limit. Just all kinds of silly Motions could be proposed. So, I would urge the Members that they vote against this Amendment. I think it's a horrible Amendment."

"Is there any further discussion? Mr. Davis to close."

"Well, in simple response to that, Representative, it would seem to me that... that the true nature now of what is going on in this chamber is coming out, since you touched on it; that the minority is intended to be kept from any device to press its point home, including this one. I don't think Republicans offer silly Motions. In fact, I've seen a great number of silly Motions eminating from the other side of the aisle. However, your probably going to take this one down as well, but I can only say to you that now the true nature of what this is all about, for the benefit of the media, is obvious, is to gag the Minority Party."

"Mr. Friedrich."

"Well, Mr. Speaker, if there's anything I've learned through the years of having been here is that each Member of this House has a constituency. There are people back home who have a right to be represented and be heard on this floor. Absent this Amendment, there will be the opportunity of the Speaker of this House or whoever is presiding at the time to actually prevent those 100,000 people from having a voice on this floor. I think that's what self-government is all about. Every constituency, every part of this state and every Member of this House has 47  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 a right to be heard on whatever he proposes. I suggest to you on the other side of the aisle that this is also for you, because there are times when you might want your constituency to be heard on something that is not necessarily popular with the Speaker. So, I urge you to vote 'aye'."

"Is there any further discussion? There being no further discussion, the Chair will recognize Mr. Davis to close. Thank you, Mr. Davis. Therefore, the question is, 'Shall Amendment #12 be adopted?". All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', all those opposed by voting 'no". Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question there are 48 'ayes', 66 'nos', The Amendment fails. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #13, Vinson, amends House Resolution 14 on page 11."

"Mr. Vinson."

"Mr. Speaker, would you recognize Representative Zwick who is a Cosponsor? And she can open, and I will close."

"The Chair recognizes Representative Zwick."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. In past years, there has been this strange practice of assigning Bills to Committees that may be related to the subject matter of the Bill and, on many cases, are clearly not related to the subject matter of the Bill. The practice is frequently used so that a Bill will go to a friendly Committee, if those that are making the assignment want the Bill to have a successful resolution, and it will be designated to go to a so-called unfriendly Committee if the Bill is desired to be killed at that time. What this Amendment would do is define the jurisdiction of each House Committee so that it would, within certain parameters, limit the ability of the Committee on Assignments to move 48  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 these Bills back and forth. For those of you that are freshman, let me assure you that this practice is used constantly and what it really tends to do is weaken the power of those Committees, because you will not always get the Bills in the Committee that you have recently been assigned to that deal with the nature of that Bill. In fact, I would go so far as to say, if we're not going to designate Bills to go to the appropriate Committee, why we even need names on the Committee. Why don't we start calling it Committee A, B, C, D, E and F, and then we can just send Bills to any Committee that we want? If we don't want to do that, if we want to clearly limit the expertise of the nature of those Committees to the related subject matter, then we should limit the authority of the Committee on Assignments to send Bills to any Committee indiscriminately. That is what this Resolution would do, what this Amendment would do, and I would ask for your support on Amendment #14. Thank you."

"Mr. Matijevich."

"Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, let me give you just one quick example to show you how, if we follow this Amendment, we would completely open up so much of what we pass in the matter of legislation, open it up to court attack. Let's take, for example, a Bill that passed last year that Representative Ted Lechowicz sponsored regarding to persons over 55 and over where they could get a discount on their insurance if they took a course. Now, if we follow the rules, that Bill should have gone through the Committee on Human Services under one provision of your Amendment. Under another provision of your Amendment, that Bill should go to Insurance compan... Committee. Now, where do you send that Bill? This Amendment is totally unworkable and would open every... many Bills... open them 49  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day up to court attack. this Amendment." January 26, 1983

I would urge the Members to oppose Speaker Madigan: "Representative Nelson, you seek recognition? Is there any further discussion? The question is... Representative Vinson, do you wish to close? Representative Vinson."

"Mr. Speaker, some time ago today at the outset of this discussion in relation to the rules and the Rules Committee action, Mr. Daniels, our leader, addressed you and you specifically in regard to what you want this House to become, whether you want this House to realize its potential as a deliberative Body. Mr. Speaker, he was asking you whether you want, in your heart, to really preside over a deliberative, orderly, efficient Body or, Mr. Speaker, whether you want, despite your rhetoric, to compound the errors of the past. Now, Mr. Speaker, your actions are going to speak louder, both now and in history, than your words ever will. Your fine speeches will never be remembered if, in fact, you confirm the errors of the past and refuse to recast them and to realize the future where this House becomes a truly deliberative Body. Mr. Speaker, this Amendment is perhaps the cornerstone Amendment of our proposals, because it would define the jurisdiction of the Committees of this House. It would make it clear that the purpose of this House is to create a strong Committee system with expertise and professionalism, that the purpose of this House would not be partisan advantage, back-room deals. In short, the history of the past, but rather that the purpose of this House would be to deal with the problems of the future, the problems that confront Illinois and to resolve them. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a critical vote for you, and I have no doubt but that your vote will be followed by many Members on your 50  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 side. But even, Mr. Speaker, if you decide that you're going to confirm those errors of the past and not try to save a future for this House and for this state, I would appeal to your Members who can, and I hope will, think on their own and who will realize that it's important that their members sent them down here to this, the first House in Illinois history elected from single-Member districts, to do something different than has been done, to dispose of, in your words, the antics of the past. Mr. Speaker, I hope your Members, even should you not choose to act on the basis of your words, will act on the basis of your words and that their actions will fashion a House that can do something other than protect the perks of office and protect partisan advantage. I hope that they will, in their vote on this one, and I'm sure the people will be watching their vote on this one, I hope that they will demonstrate in their votes on this one, even if you don't, Mr. Speaker, that they're anxious to solve the problems of Illinois. And, for that reason, I move for the adoption of Amendment #13." I

"Is there any further discussion? The question is, 'Shall Amendment #13 be adopted?'. All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', all those opposed by voting 'no'. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question there are 46 'ayes', 67 'nos'. The Amendment fails. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #14, Johnson - Davis, amends House Resolution 14."

"Mr. Johnson."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. I think this is an Amendment that particularly some of the new Members should pay careful attention to, because I'm 51  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 not sure that you'd realize, unless you've been through the process, what a terrifically influential and powerful Committee the Committee on Assignment can be."

"Mr. Johnson."

"This Amendment ought to be ratified, ought to be approved from two standpoints. One is from a strictly constitutional legal standpoint and the other is from a practical standpoint for the protection of each one of the Members of this House. I'd refer the Members of the House, Mr. Speaker, to Section 7 of Article IV, the legislative Article, and Subsection (A) thereof which states, and I quote, 'Committees of each House, Joint Committees of the two Houses and Legislative Commissions shall give reasonable public notice of meetings, including a statement of subjects to be considered'. The Committee on Assignment is a Committee of this House. There is no provisions in the Constitution distinguishing a Committee on Assignment, which has three Members, from the Judiciary Committee or Appropriations Committee, which has more Members. And I would suggest to you that it's our constitutional, our legal mandate to incorporate that constitutional provision in our rules. But completely aside from that, any one of you who has had a Bill in the past or will have one now that's particularly important to you or your constituents, you don't realize what a Committee on Assignments can do to the future of that legislation and to the people that you represent. Just bringing your attention to two or three Bills that have been fairly widely publicized over the last three or four years where this has been significant. I would suggest to you that the optometric drugs Bill which went from Health and Human Service to R & R to Health and Human Services and back again; the collective bargaining for teachers Bill that went from Labor and Commerce to 52  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 Elementary and Secondary Education and back to Labor and Commerce; the capital punishment and other criminal justice Bills that shuttle between Executive and Judiciary II and even the Equal Rights Amendment that went to Judiciary, or Executive or somewhere else, according to whoever was in power wanted it to go. I would suggest to you that the future of those pieces of legislation, those Constitutional Amendments, weighed not only directly, but absolutely according to what Committee they went to. If a Bill is going to be, by the powers that be, tabooed - they don't want it to pass, all you've got to do, rather than to beat it in another Committee is send it to Committee where it either won't get called; or, if it does, you know you haven't got the votes. I would suggest to you that the openness that the people expect from us and that we've tried to implement, at least from this side of the aisle and I would hope from the other side of the aisle, is absolutely crucial. For what this Amendment does is to require all meetings of the Committee on Assignment to be open to the public and to require a two day posting of notice requirement to inform the Members and the public when and where the Committee will meet. This gives public input, public impact, public knowledge and a real effect to the ability of the public, to witnesses, to determine, in a deliberative way, where their legislation goes. And I would suggest to you that to allow a Committee on Assignment to meet in a back room with three Members, and in some cases less than that, and to decide the future of the Equal Rights Amendment, or collective bargaining, or capital punishment or other issues is the very antithesis of the form of government we're down here to represent. And, for those reasons and for the reasons that I think perhaps my Cosponsor of this Amendment will articulate, I 53  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 would ask that the Members of this Body join me in approving Amendment #14 to House Resolution 14."

"Mr. Matijevich."

"Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I overheard someone saying something to the effect that the Minority Party must be looking at everything that they did last Session and is now trying to write a rule to make sure that we don't do it to you like you did it to us. I would say to you that that's not going to happen. I would also concede that the Assignment Committee is a powerful Committee. We appreciate the fact that the electorate in the State of Illinois now has, through their judgement, placed this, quote, 'power', in our hands. We promise to you that we're going to handle it in a very responsive and responsible way, but we feel that your Amendment goes too far. We feel that there will be no probles; that the Assignment Committee, in the able hands of the Chairman, Alan Greiman, will be handled responsible... responsibly, and I urge the defeat of this Amendment."

"Mr. Davis."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm a little confused. I didn't hear the rationale, of course, for not supporting this Amendment. I've heard tell from some of your staff that the rationale is that the Committee on Assignments is a service Committee and, therefore, is exempt from the posting rule. Is that your rationale, Mr. Parliamentarian, if I could inquire of the Chair?"

"Mr. Davis, the Chair is offering no rationale or explanation to that response."

"You're offering none today. Tomorrow perhaps."

"Well, Mr. Matijevich has spoken to this Amendment; and, if you wish to a pose a question to Mr. Matijevich, I would suggest that that would be the proper 54  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day avenue." January 26, 1983

"Well it, of course, is our Amendment, and we're posing a question to our own Amendment. It's rather unusual, but I will. Representative Matijevich, what is your rationale for not having a two day posting rule and public meetings for the Committee on Assignments? Representative Matijevich. John."

"Mr. Matijevich."

"The Committee no... took... took nor now takes any position on that question at all. My rationale for opposing the Amendment is that, evidently, you feel that, by your Amendment, that you are going to be mistreated as a Minority Party, and I'm saying to you that the Majority Party has no intent to mistreat the Minority. We feel that we ought to operate the Assignment Committee as it has been done historically, and we will handle it responsibly."

"Mr. Davis."

"Well, thank you, Mr. Matijevich. And, Mr. Speaker, if I may address our Amendment now I would simply say to you that, in the new era, we're back to that point again. Here we are, faced with a constitutional question of posting of Committees and of public access to Committees; and, as Representative Johnson has so dramatically pointed out how the Committee on Assignments abuses that power time in and time out - yes, under our control and under yours since I've been here and for ad nauseam, I suppose, in the last ten years. But the truth of the matter is, Representative Matijevich, if you treat the Rules Committee, which is a service Committee, under your Amendment #2 and the Assignment Committee under your Amendment #2 the same, then you will have public notice, and you will indeed have a posting rule to fulfill the constitutional requirement of openness in government. We're not afraid you're going to 55  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 mistreat us. We know you're going to mistreat us. The problem is... the problem is, when are you going to become constitutional? When are you going to become open, and when are you going to become fair to the public, not to this minority?"

"Mr. Vinson."

"Inquiry of the Chair, Mr. Speaker."

"State your point."

"Article IV, Section 7 (A) of the Constitution of 1970 imposes certain requirements on Committees, specifically, that they publicly post and have public meetings. Is it your intention that the Committee on the Assignment of Bills will operate pursuant to that rule?"

"It is... Mr. Vinson, it is my presumption that the Members of the Committee will operate pursuant to any constitutional or statutory requirements that exist in Illinois law."

"Mr. Speaker, carrying on just one more question in that vein. Will the public have the opportunity to testify at those Committee hearings which are held in public?"

"Again, Mr. Vinson, it's my presumption that if any member of the public wish to appear before that Committee that the Members would accord the members of the public that opportunity."

"Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Just one last question then. If that is your intention, and I felt certain it would be, then what's the problem with simply adopting this rule?"

"I have not spoken to the Amendment, Mr. Vinson, and you may recall I'm not a Member of the Rules Committee."

"Yes, I do recall that."

"Yes. Thank you, Mr. Vinson. Is there any 56  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 further discussion? Have we closed the debate? The question is, 'Shall Amendment #14 be adopted?". All those in favor signify by voting 'aye, all those opposed by voting 'no". Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question there are 46 ayes', 67 nos. The Amendment fails. Are there further Amendments?"

"Amendment #15. Vinson - Johnson, amends House Resolution..."

"Mr. Vinson. Mr. Johnson."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. Either today or in the very near future, I presume already today, probably every Member of this House has been appointed to one or more Committees. I guess in most cases up to four Committees."

"Mr. Vinson. Mr. Vinson. Excuse me. I'm sorry. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson."

"Is there some... No, he's not here. You're having a problem with the electricity, I assume. Okay. And over the course of the next four or five months, and I guess in a good many cases already, you'll have occasion I think, if no other reason than simply repetition, and I think the other reason is a lot of study, Subcommittees and so forth, to become experts in particular fields, whether it's agriculture, or financial institutions or the matters that come before the Judiciary Committee. And you'll really come, I think, you new Members and many of us who've been here already, to have a great deal of pride in the subject matter of your particular Committee, and in the expertise of the Members of your Committee and in the ability of that Committee to deliberatively consider legislation and vote on legislation 'yea' or 'nay' in the best interest of the people of Illinois. And I think everyone would concede, I 57  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 hope they would, that that Committee system not only ought to be strong, but that it ought to be strengthened. And one of the problems ve have now is that it's possible, under the existing rules of the House, and it's possible under House Resolution 14, as it was voted out of Committee and as I assume the Majority Party wants to keep it, to simply bypass Committee... strike that - to discharge Committee, to take a Bill out of Committee without ever having had the opportunity of a vote on that Committee. And I would suggest to you that that submits the whole process of our Committee system. It now takes three-fifths vote to advance a Committee... advance a Bill without reference to Committee. It takes a three-fifths vote to discharge a Bill after it's been voted 'do not pass' in that Committee, but it still only requires 60 votes to simply discharge the Committee from total consideration of that legislation and allow it to be considered by the full Membership of the House. And I would suggest to you that that's absolutely a total violation of the sanctity of our Committee systes. As a matter of fact, this Amendment, if it were approved, would clearly work to the disadvantage of this side of the aisle. We only have 48 Members and it's... unless we can get 12 votes from somewhere else, we're not going to be able to discharge Committees. And so, this Amendment would clearly work to the advantage of the Democratic Majority in the Illinois House, but more important than that it would say to each Member of this House, to the Committee Chairman, Vice Chairman, the Spokesman and Members of that Committee that you who have the expertise to consider legislation, to hear witnesses, to consider the pros and the cons of legislation, ought to have some respect accorded you by the Membership of this House. And that rather than simply have a Bill there and 58  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 have no consideration in Committee and one vote at the end of a day, or the start of the day or somewhere else, to be able to allow that Committee to be discharged and totally bypassed in the process really subverts your role as a Legislator and the Committee's role in the course of this process that we have a democratic government. And for those reasons, I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, that this Amendment, Amendment #15, serves us all very well and ought to be adopted."

"Is there any further discussion? Mr. Matijevich."

"Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, Representative Johnson, we appreciate your trying to help the Majority Party; but, at this time, we'd rather not accept it. We oppose the Amendment. We feel that this has been historic that either a take from the table or discharge Motion, one or the other, ever since I've been here long, long before, one or the other has taken a simple majority. We feel that the rule ought to stay as it is; that it be a simple majority to discharge Committee, and I would urge opposition to the Amendment."

"Is there any further discussion? Mr. Johnson, did you wish to close? The question is, 'Shall Amendment #15 be adopted?'. All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', all those opposed by voting 'no'. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question there are 46 'ayes', 68 'nos'. The Amendment fails. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #16, Nelson - Johnson, amends House Resolution 14..."

"Representative Nelson."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. House 59  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 Amendment 16 to House Resolution 14 refers to Conference Committee Reports, and I'd like to explain just briefly to some of the new Members what transpires at the end of our Session. Conference Committee Reports occur when different Amendments have been attached to a Bill in the House and in the Senate and there is a discrepancy in the form... the final form of a Bill between what we have done here and what the Senate has done. Sometimes different Amendments are attached on purpose and sometimes one or the other of the two Houses will fail to recede or will refuse to take back their action so that a Conference Committee Report... so that a Conference Committee can be appointed. And then, near the end of the Session, late at night, it is possible for us to find on our desks long, 30-page, sometimes, Conference Committee Reports that may or may not be business that we have previously seen either in Committee or on the floor, and sometimes it is a proposition that's never even seen the light of day. What this Resolution would do, Amendment 16 prohibits Conference Committee Reports from adding matters that are unrelated to the original Bill or from increasing any pension benefits which were not the subject matter of the Bill as it passed the House. This proposal actually deals with the most special of the special interest legislation that goes through this Body. It deals with the most secret of the secret deals. The kind of pension abuse that occurs in Conference Committee Reports works like this. A Bill is drafted that, for a very brief period of time, opens a window for one individual to get into the pension system, and the Bill is drafted in such a way that that particular proposal only describes one individual. It may be so specific as to say someone who served as a bailiff from June of... June 8th of 1946 until some other specific date. They have a certain 60  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 number of weeks in which they can pay into and get into the pension system and then the window is closed again. It's very, very highly specialized special interest legislation. I would like to see us do better than that in this Body. I would like to see us bring out Conference Committee Reports that at least have been some business that this Body has considered before that time late at the end of the Session. And, Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to yield some Thank you." time to my Cosponsor, Representative Johnson.

"Mr. Johnson."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, Representative Nelson. I guess I'd like to address my comments to everybody in the House, and I will, but I particularly address my comments to legislators on both sides of the aisle, perhaps the Democratic side of the aisle, whose newspapers pay attention to what they do and who print their votes and how they cast their votes in this Session not only now, but down the line. I guess some people are afforded the luxury of not being subject to that kind of scrutiny. But, for those of us who are, who get to the end of a Session and find out that we have a pay raise Bill, that find that we have a pension increase that's going to cost the taxpayers millions of dollars for legislative benefit in terms of their pensions and whose newspapers write about it, I would suggest to you that if you've indicated to your newspapers and to your constituents that you're opposed to that kind of practice, and I imagine most of you have during the course of the campaign, this is a perfect Amendment for you. And I would suggest to you, too, and I've been around different districts around the state and panel discussions of candidates where the subject matter of Christmas tree legislation comes up, constituents always say, "What 61  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 happens at the end of the Session when you... when you vote on so many Bills at once or at least that you have a Conference Committee Report - although they don't call it that - 'that introduces totally new subject matter that there's never been any debate on?". And the reponse always is, at least it has been in our area and I think in other areas adjoining ours, we've got to do something about that. We've got to have some reform of the process. Well, this is that reform. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, and particularly again new Members, that six Members of the House and the Senate have the absolute ability to override the will of 177 Members or 171 Members by coming out with a Conference Committee Report that's totally unrelated to anything we've ever discussed the entire Session, that there's never been any debate on at the Amendment stage, that's never been considered at the Third Reading stage in either the House or the Senate, that's never had witnesses present testimony on, that's never gone to Committee, that's never gone to Subcommittee, that can totally change the criminal justice system, can enact a capital punishment Bill, can enact a collective bargaining Bill or modify that, can vote a pay raise for Legislators or a pay raise for anybody else without any opportunity for discussion at 3:30 in the morning on June 30, or July 2nd or whenever it might be when we're sitting in here and half the people are hardly awake when we can make dramatic changes in the law that affects 12 million people because six people sign a Conference Committee Report and have absolutely no consideration of what is in the best interest of the people of Illinois, the other Members of this Body, or anything related whatever to good government. And I'd suggest to you that of all the Amendments that have been presented today and those that 62  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 will be presented in the future that Representative Nelson's and mine Amendment strikes to the heart of this whole process. And if you allow us to continue to go on in the pattern that has, at least, periodically marked this chamber in the past when we can come in here on June 30th and totally change the laws of the State of Illinois with not one drop, not on ioda of debate and, at the same time, we can come in here at the end on June 30th and vote pensions for 50 lame duck Legislators or... or vote pension increases that are going to cost us millions, and millions and millions of dollars without any public debate, without any public input and, for that matter, without even the input of the people that are elected to represent the general public, then I would suggest to you this whole process really isn't worth a whole lot. And for those reasons, I would suggest to you, all of you, to look at this, because this is going to be a Roll Call. This is going to be a vote that your people, that your citizens back home are going to look at. And, if you vote no on this Amendment, you might as well go back and tell then, "Well, I didn't really mean it. We really shouldn't reform the process. There's nothing wrong with subverting the Committee process. There's nothing wrong with coming in at the end of the Session with a Bill that totally changes the laws of the State of Illinois, and there's nothing wrong with voting for pension increases and pay raises for Legislators because this is the way it gets done." And I would suggest to you that if you vote no on this Amendment that you can't go home the next election and fool the people again."

"Mr. Matijevich."

"Mr. Speaker, if we keep going in this vein, the last rule proposed... or last Amendment proposed is going to be 63  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 that no Legislator, no House Member can introduce a Bill. And maybe that's what the people want, but that looks like the direction we're going. And if people... if this Roll Call means anything and they vote on... they're voting on a Motion, maybe you'll get some print, but we who serve in the Legislature know that we ought to vote on the substance of what's before us. And that's really what we're voting on. And this Amendment really would inhibit the passage of virtually anything through the use of Conference Committee Reports, and it would really open up so much of what is done here to court attack. And I really don't think that's what any of us want. Evidently, this Amendment was purely drafted for somebody's PR, and I can see what you're getting at, but you don't do anything responsible by this type of an Amendment at all. And I would urge the Members to oppose it."

"Mr. Stuffle."

"Yes, Mr. Speaker and Members, I read this Amendment #16 some time ago and reread it a couple of times. I know what Representative Johnson's trying to get at. I think it's laudatory that he's trying to reform the process, but it seems to me, if you look at the Amendment closely, it singles out a separate item, pensions, for special attention. That special attention, number one, may be necessary here, but I think if he's going to do that he ought to go all the way and talk about pay raises and all the other things. It seems to me that the opposite of some of what he said is true. A few weeks ago we were here and we had to put together a Conference Committee rapidly to take advantage of some federal money or lose it. We had to deal in an emergency situation with a Bill in a Conference Committee. There would have been no other vehicle at the time if we hadn't have done so, and it would have violated 64  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 this rule had this rule been in effect. This rule is also a very vague rule as an Amendment. Who's going to determine what falls within the subject matter area? Who's going to decide whether or not we have a situation where we have a Conference Committee that fits into the germaneness of the subject matter with regard to the original Bill? I think we're paid to know what's going on here in the General Assembly. Representative Johnson, I think you always know what's going on. You've always caught those pension problems. So have I. So have the other Members. I think people are going to look at this. They're going to judge us on an individual basis, but this is too vague, I think, to have a reasonable chance of being able to be implemented. And, as well, I submit to you - you know what will happen as well as I if this were ever to pass. It would simply be either taken off the books at some future time or the Chair, I doubt this Chair, but in the past the Chairs have ruled things not to fit within the new rules, and I think what would happen, too, is this rule would be suspended if it were passed. But, mainly, I think it's vague. I think it lacks for any specifics. I think it lacks for credibility. I think it would kill that situation where we have an emergency when we must act. And for those reasons, we ought to defeat Amendment #16."

"Is there any further discussion? There being no further discussion, Mr. Johnson to close."

"I simply ask... request a Roll Call vote and ask for an affirmative vote."

"The question is, 'Shall Amendment #16 be adopted?'. All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', all those opposed by voting 'no'. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question there are 52 'ayes', 61 'nos'. The 65  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 Amendment fails. Are there further Amendments? Before we get to further Amendments, the Assistant Clerk, Mr. Leone, would like to make an announcement. So, would the Members give their undivided attention to Mr. Leone?"

"Any Members who have not had their I. D. cards, the pictures taken, would you please go to the east corridor? There are just a few Members that have not had their I. D. cards taken yet. We'd like to finish that up today. Thank you very much."

"Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #17, Koehler, amends House Bill... House Resolution 14 on page ten and so forth."

"Representative Koehler."

"Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I would like to propose an Amendment that would prohibit the Speaker from adjourning or recessing the House after a successful Motion to change the Order of Business. Amendment #17 reads, "If the Order of Business is at any time changed pursuant to Rule 11(b), no Motion to adjourn or recess shall be in order until the Bill, Resolution or Motion to be considered pursuant to the Motion carried under Rule 11(b) is disposed of. The Subsection may be suspended only upon an affirmative vote of 71 Members." In the past, the Speaker, by adjourning or recessing, has been able to prevent the consideration of legislation after the Members have voted to go to that Order of Business. This rule would require consideration of the matters pursuant to a Motion to change the Order of Business prior to adjourning. What this Amendment does, it prevents the arbitrary actions by the Speaker. A few years ago, you may recall that the House voted, on several occasions, to consider Totten, Representative Don Totten's tax limitation Constitutional Amendment; but, because the 66  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEВАТЕ January 26, 1983 Speaker at that time did not want to have this legislation considered, the Speaker would arbitrarily adjourn and then the next day take up on another Order of Business. I think this is an important Amendment, and I would appreciate your favorable consideration."

"Is there any discussion? Mr. Matijevich."

"I think all of us have heard it said at one time or another a Motion to adjourn is in order any time. I would say to you, Representative Koehler, we've got the majority over here and, if by our majority or by the Speaker's action we change the Order of Business, you can bet we're going to stay in business. So, don't worry about it. We... You know, we don't need this rule and you won't need it either. So, I would urge the defeat of this Amendment."

"Is there any further discussion? Representative Koehler to close."

"Thank you very much. I am reminded of the words of the Speaker when he was having his address at the time of his swearing into office when he assured us that he would be participating in a new era in the House of Representatives. And then, when I was proposing this Amendment in the Rules Committee, one of the Representatives said, 'Well, Representative Koehler, you know what the Speaker really meant when he said we are having a new era. He meant that there are 70 Democrats and 48 Republicans.' Well, the Representative... former Representative's comments certainly align themselves with that way of feeling, and the more I listen today the more I have less and less faith in the Speaker's words during his address upon taking Office as Speaker. However, another Representative, a Democrat Representative, spoke in the Rules Committee and said, 'Well, in the House of Representatives we have democracy and democratic action is what this business is 67  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 all about'. And this is certainly an advocation of democratic action, and I would certainly hope that I would have support on both sides of the aisle for this Amendment."

"The question is, Shall Amendment #17 be adopted?". All those in favor signify by voting aye, all those opposed by voting "no". Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question there are 47 'ayes', 67 'nos". The Amendment fails. Are there further Amendments?"

"Amendment #18, Koehler, amends House Resolution 14..."

"Representative Koehler."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Along that same vein and along the line of thinking of Representative Nelson when she proposed Amendment #16, I an proposing Amendment #18. Amendment #18 reads that no Floor Amendment is in order which increases any pension benefits which were not the subject matter of the Bill as introduced. This Subsection may be suspended only upon an affirmative vote of 71 Members. During the past two years, in which I was a freshman Representative, it always made be very nervous to see the last minute pension Bills come along, because we would have a pension Bill that would end up with maybe three or four Amendments all amending different Sections of the Pension Code. I think it is important to point out particularly to our freshman Members that this is appalling to the people back home when they see any Bill that is left alive at the end of the Session being a Christmas tree Bill that is amended to reflect several pension groups. Therefore, I think that it is important that we not allow this, and I would appreciate your favorable consideration of this Amendment." 68  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day

"Mr. Matijevich." January 26, 1983

"Yes, this Amendment is similar to one we just defeated, only it's narrower because it refers to pension Bills only. However, I oppose it and I oppose it vigorously, because it would open up any... virtually any pension Bill to court attack. I think that we have the right to put on Floor Amendments to a Bill. By this Amendment, it could be the same subject matter; yet, because the original Bill may not have had a benefit to it but the Floor Amendment does, it would be prohibited. I don't think we ought to prohibit deliberation by rule. We ought to vote up or down on matters that are brought before us and not be bashful about the fact that we have that responsibility to vote up or down. So, I would urge your defeat of this Amendment."

"Mr. Cullerton."

"Yes, would the Lady yield for a question?"

"The Sponsor indicates that she will yield."

"Representative Koehler, I wonder if you would tell me how would... you might define an increase in any pension benefit? For example, if there was an Amendment that increased my contribution to our retirement fund, and I retired from the General Assembly before I would obtain that benefit, wouldn't that be... would that be considered a pension benefit for me?"

"Representative Koehler."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No, that would not be considered a benefit. It would be a taxpayer funded."

"Are there further questions? Mr. Cullerton."

"So that if I had introduced that Amendment, we could consider it; but, if somebody else had introduced that Amendment, we couldn't consider it. Is that right? The Floor Amendment... My Floor Amendment would be in order 69  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 because it wouldn't be a pension benefit for me, but somebody else for whom it might benefit they could not introduce the Amendment. Is that what you're trying to say here with this Amendment?"

"Representative Koehler."

"Thank you. No, I am not trying to say that."

"Is there any further discussion? Mr. Vinson. Hello. Mr. Vinson."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. People can belittle these Amendments, at least Legislators may want to belittle these Amendments. Legislators may want to try to find all of the reasons these Amendments shouldn't pass. I suspect you're going to find that voters and taxpayers understand the need for these Amendments. I suspect you're going to find that rather than trying to locate some exceptional situation where the Amendment causes an inconvenience to whatever your personal plans are for a particular Bill, you're going to discover that what voters and taxpayers care about is some general protections against the antics that this General Assembly has practiced in the past. And I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is a very good protective measure for the public, and it's a very good protective measure, Members are going to discover, when Amendments are adopted in fast order, when you don't know what the subject of Amendments are because they're fifty and sixty pages long and when they're discussed in terms that are so broad and so general that you're just not sure who's covered by a pension benefit. Mr. Speaker, we ought to adopt this Amendment, because the reason why the cutback was implemented by the people, the reason why it was adopted was to try to protect against pension rip offs, pay rip offs and so forth by the Legislature. That was the real 70  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 motivating force behind the adoption of the cutback Amendment. Now, we have a chance to implement that in the rules of this House, and Mrs. Koehler has come forward with an Amendment which will provide that kind of protection. And we ought to give purpose to that public call for change, and we ought to do it right now by adopting this Amendment."

"Is there any further discussion? Representative Koehler to close the debate."

"Thank you..."

"Excuse me. I have just seen that Representative Brummer is seeking recognition. Representative Brummer."

"Yes, will the Sponsor yield?"

"The Sponsor indicates that she will yield."

"Is this Amendment restricted to pensions dealing with the General Assembly, or is it all pensions that we deal with?"

"Representative Koehler."

"All pensions, Representative."

"Representative Koehler. Mr. Brummer."

"That would include policemen, firemen, any of the municipal pensions. All of them would be included? And why did you include all of those?"

"Representative Koehler."

"Representative, the reason for my including all of those is because many times we would have a Bill that would amend the Policemen's Code and would end up also amending the Downstate Teachers' Pension Code, the General Assembly Pension Code, perhaps the Illinois Industrials Association Commission's Pension Code. We would find that one particular piece of pension legislation would end up being amended by various other pension groups." 71  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 4th Legislative Day

"Yes, but your prohibition addresses only the issue of Floor Amendments. Could you not have restricted those Floor Amendments to only those Amendments dealing with legislative pensions, if that was your desire?"

"Well, Representative, I not only am concerned about the General Assembly pension ... pension problems, but also those associated with the major groups."

"Okay."

"Seven percent of all the legislation that ends up on the Governor's desk has to do with pensions, and it involves millions, and millions and millions of dollars. The pension problem is the one that we are experiencing the most often. Therefore, I think that it is important to strengthen the... the... the rules that deal with pension Bills."

"Okay, one final question. There's nothing in this Amendment that deals with increases in legislative salaries, is there?"

"There is nothing in this Bill that does that."

"Thank you."

"Is there any further discussion? Representative Koehler to close the debate."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I had indicated to Representative Brummer, the reason why I am sponsoring this piece of legislation is because I am concerned about an area that has been opened to the most abuse during the past several years. The public is appalled at the manner in which the Legislature has taken these Bills and have amended them with all kinds of Amendments that have nothing to do with the germaneness and do not fit the original intent of the Bill. And, as the Speaker very candidly pointed out in his address to us when he was sworn into office, he talked about the cutback Amendment and how the 72  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 voters were saying to the Legislature, "We don't like what you're doing; and, because you won't change yourself, we will change you'. And therefore, it is important to show to the people of Illinois that we are willing to change ourself and that, under our new leadership, that we are going to take giant strides forward. And I think that it is important that we pass this Amendment and show the people of Illinois that we have listened to them and that we are willing to strengthen our rules ourself. Thank you very much."

"The Lady, having closed the debate, the question is, 'Shall Amendment #18 be adopted?". All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', all those opposed by voting 'no'. Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question there are 48 'ayes', 64 'nos'. The Amendment fails. Are there further Amendments?"

"Amendment #19, Mays, amends House Resolution 14 on page 35 and so forth."

"Mr. Mays."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. Amendment #19 is... does not have a multi-dimensional scope. It's not something that's going to have twelve million... You're not going to have constituents calling you about this and everything like that. We've heard previously, in the last two and a half hours, arguments pointing out openness, reason, constitutional questions. This is not one of those. This is a merely Amendment. It merely requires the Clerk to specify on our daily Calendars at which point... the point at which the Order of Business was left. Now, with the kind of Calendar we got today there's no problem. When we get on into Session, get 14, 15, 20 page Calendars, for your convenience to know where 73  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 that Bill is and when it's going to be call as Members, as well as for your constituents' convenience. When they give you a call and they're interested in a particular Bill and they want to know when it's going to be coming up, I propose this rule. I would ask that, you know, if there's no discussion that everybody please put their affirmative votes up there for this reasonable, merely Amendment."

"Mr. Matijevich."

"Mr. Speaker, I don't have a lot of difficulty with this Amendment at all. However, there is that time that could happen where the Clerk, for no reason at all, may have just forgotten to put the time or the place... to note the place on the daily Calendar where we left off on a certain Bill. Now, the prohibition of... or by violating that rule, do we open up the... to court litigation that particular Bill that we may consider after that. That is a possibility. So, for that reason, I don't think we really have a problem. Ordinarily, the Clerk always does denote where we leave off, and I think we ought to realize... Do you know who violated that particular rule that we had more than anybody? The guy that every one of us considered the fairest Speaker that we've ever had, Bill Redmond. So, it isn't a matter of a violation of the rules. It's the matter of the spirit in what you're trying to do, whether you're trying to trample on the rights of the Membership. I don't think we have to worry. We don't have a problem. So, I would urge the Members, because of that pro... possibility of a technical flaw, that we oppose this Amendment."

"Mr. Johnson."

"I think Representative Mays has presented the chamber with a... a good idea and, I think, a necessary reform. I'm not sure everybody understands exactly what he's 74  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 referring to, but whether we're on the regular Calendar or on a priority of call, particularly towards the deadlines and towards the end of Session, it's very difficult for anybody, whether you be leadership or Sponsor or otherwise, to know exactly where we are on the Calendar. And, at that point of the Session not only with constituents being here, but with all the various responsibilities of this chamber, to be able to know where we are with some kind of a simple notation, I think, makes all of our jobs a lot easier. It makes the whole process work better. And, with all due respect to Representative Matijevich, for whom I have the real highest personal regard, there's no court in the world, there's no lawyer in the world who is going to look behind the... the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House verification that a Bill was duly passed and use this as a basis for challenging the legality of a law. This is House rules. This isn't a statutory enactment, nor is it a constitutional mandate. And that simply, with all due respect, is something that there is no one chance in a million that a court is going to use that as a basis for throwing a law out. This simply makes the process more workable, more understandable and, for people on both sides of the aisle, to be able to deal with their legislation and legislation of particular interest to them and their constituents in a responsible manner and, at the same time, be able to carry on their function as a Legislator in the most expeditious possible way. I think it's good. It's not a major change, but it's something that I would think everybody would join with Representative Mays and support him."

"Mr. Mays to close the debate."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, as the previous Representative indicated, this is not an earth-shattering 75  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 change. Current rules provide that the point at which an Order of Business is left - these are the current rules - and regardless of what else happens, this is the way it is. The current Order of Business is left at the point at which that business will be resumed. We still leave the discretion as to which Order of Business for the Speaker to pursue at the given point; but, for the convenience of the Members, for the study of the Bills, for the convenience of those groups that might be back home on June 15th wondering where their Bills is, whether it's agriculture, mining, whatever, this is a good, simple Amendment. There's no political partisan advantage to be gained in any way, and it would just be my hope that the reason will prevail on this particular Amendment."

"The question is, 'Shall Amendment #19 be adopted?'. All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', all those opposed by voting 'no'. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, there are 45 'ayes', 65 'nos'. The Amendment fails. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #20, Mays, amends House Resolution 14 on page 51 and so forth."

"Mr. Mays."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. This rule goes a little bit further, but it's in the same vein as... It's in the same vein as trying to help the decorum of the House, trying to help expe... expedite procedures of the House. In this particular Amendment, we prohibit the explanation of votes and person... points of personal privilege during the recording of Roll Call votes. Explanation of votes and points of personal privilege can still be made after the Roll Call has been completed. This rule is similar to one that is already used in the Senate. 76  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 By eliminating the explanation of vote, we would make the House more efficient, as I said, and lessen the amount of time given for consideration of given Bills."

"Mr. Matijevich."

"Through the years, I've heard a lot of people speak against the procedure of explanation of vote. I'm going to tell you that I have changed my vote at times by listening to someone who explained their vote and because that person, I thought, made a logical argument of why he voted a certain way. I think all of us, all of us here have done that on occasion. So, I think, in the interest of decorum, I don't think we have to go overboard; that that's the time to explain your vote. I think it's good that people get up, express their viewpoint and have that ability to express themselves to such a degree that they can change votes. That's good. I think that's what the legislative process ought to be all about. So, I think this is a bad Amendment. I think it's terrible. I think, if you can't make up your mind by listening to somebody, well then, you've got a problem, but don't take that right away from me. I listen to everybody, including you, Representative Mays. And I'll continue to, and I respect you. So, I would urge the Members to vote against this Amendment."

"Mr. Mays to close the debate."

"Yes, thank you very much, John, for your great expose there. We do have a debate procedure within the House right now, if someone feels strongly about a given Bill, that they can get into the debate, sway minds at that point. An interesting point that I brought out before the Rules Committee last week, it was a four-hour marathon Committee, and I admit that. Over 23 minutes on only 9 of these Amendments was taken up through explanation of vote, and every one of the votes came out a partisan, you know, 77  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 right down the line as if explanation of vote wasn't required at all. I have spoken against explanation of votes. I feel that this is the proper time to try to do something about it, and I am, therefore, putting this for the Members' consideration. I would request a favorable vote."

"The question is, 'Shall Amendment #20 be adopted?. All those in favor signify by voting 'aye, all those opposed by voting 'no'. Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, there are 48 'ayes', 65 'nos'. The Amendment fails. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #21, Mays, amends..."

"Mr. Mays. Mr. Mays."

"Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Amendment #21 amends Rule 58 now. It was Rule 48. It would require the Clerk to handle the verification process by removing the names of absent Members as the Clerk calls the Roll. Thank you. This deletes the requirement that the Member asking for the verification must challenge each name prior to it being removed. It would also, and this is pretty important, prohibit any changing or adding during the verification process. Now, the reason I put this in, I've been involved in a number of verification procedures. I'm sure each of those that have returned to the chambers this year have also, and we know that there's running around. There's trying to drum up the votes necessary all over the place, and what I am trying to do through this is bring some order to that procedure. It's really kind of a comment on the House when you have constituents up in the balcony waiting for a Committee to convene, but they've got about three Bills, and every one of them is a verification and the delay and all of the different maneuverings that are going 78  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 on. So, I just felt this is a reasonable proposal. It's similar to what is already taking place in the Senate under the Democrat Leadership over there, and I would ask for your favorable support."

"Mr. Matijevich."

"Well, let's get down to practice again. Let's say your name is Alexander, and you're... you voted on a Bill. Then somebody asks for a verification, and they go through that Roll Call verification. They start with Alexander. You're not here. You know, so you're... you may be in the back room there, you know, doing whatever you have to be...have to be doing. And then, you know, you penalize somebody like Alexander and those at the top of the Roll Call, and yet somebody like Zwick at the bottom, they know there's a verification and they're going to be right here. The whole reason for a verification is to make sure that the Body is here... the Body is here and let the Body vote the way that Body wants to vote. That's what a verification is for. If they're here, let them vote. They've been... They've been sent here. Nobody's going to take my right to vote away from me, nobody. This is a bad Amendment."

"Mr. Mays to close the debate. Mr. Mays to close the debate."

"Thank you. Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Part of the deliberative process is being in your seat listening to the debate that's going on, and I know all of the Members here do that, and this is just to streamline the process a little bit. Once again, I would ask for your favorable vote on this Amendment."

"The question is, 'Shall Amendment #21 be adopted?". All those in favor signify by voting 'aye", all those opposed by voting "no". Have all voted who wish? 79  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day The Clerk shall take the record. On are 45 'ayes', 69 'nos'. The Amendment fails. Mr. Vinson."

"Don't you believe we need a verification on this one?"

"Thank you, Mr. Vinson. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #22, Currie et al, amends House Resolution 14 on..."

"Representative Currie."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. Amendment #22 to 14 would enable this chamber to return to the Constitutional Majority rule for ratifying Federal Constitutional Amendments, a rule that served both this state and the United States Constitution very well during our first 150 years. Of course, Constitutions should be protected against hasty, ill-advised, ill-conceived, ill-considered change. Returning this chamber to a majority rule requirement would certainly serve that purpose. A Federal Constitutional Amendment requires, first, that it be adopted by two-thirds of the Members of both Houses of Congress, and then must be ratified by three-quarters of the states across the country. Substantial barriers, substantial obstacles, indeed, to any kind of change in the basic document of governance. In fact, that system with the Constitutional Majority requirement in this state would serve the Constitution well, is, I submit, evidenced by the fact that during the years that the United States Constitution has been our basic document of governance, it has been changed. It has been amended very few times, indeed. Only a handful of our sister states have any kind of extraordinary majority requirements at all. In fact, some of them, many of them, have Majority vote requirements that are lower than that 80  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 which Amendment 22 proposes to this chamber today. Amendment 22 is a Constitutional Majority requirement. That is a majority of the Members elected to the chamber. Some states, I believe, 20, say that a majority of those voting on the issue is sufficient to put that chamber of that Legislature in the column of ratified states. To return to a Constitutional Majority requirement would, in fact, enable the majority of our citizens, speaking through their Representatives in this chamber, a chance to be heard along with the majorities of the other states when a constitutional issue is before us. Those of you who weren't here during the last several terms may not realize that when the Equal Rights Amendment was before the states, which, of course, it no longer is, majority rule was what you'd call a hot and heavy political issue on the floor of this chamber. In fact, we didn't adopt permanent rules last Session at all in part because of the issue of majority rule. But, the Equal Rights Amendment is not before the states right now. Many felt last Session, the Session before, that it was difficult to change the rules while that Amendment was before us. The Equal Rights Amendment is not before us today, and it seems to me that we are in a rare and unusual position. We can make a decision on what should be the basic procedures that govern our willingness to represent our constituents. When we act on Federal Constitutional Amendments, we can do it as it were without the heat of a particular issue making a difference to the way we think about it. Others might like to hide behind the language in the Illinois Constitution which seems to prescribe a three-fifths vote requirement, not only for purposes of the state Constitution, which, of course, is appropriate, but also for purposes of ratifying Amendment to the Federal Constitution. That kind of hiding 81  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 behind will not do. The federal courts in Dyer versus Blair have made it absolutely clear that the decision is a decision for us to make, not a decision for the State Constitution to make. In fact, if you look carefully at the language in the Constitution, you will note that the framers in 1970 in Illinois recognized that there might be a conflict and said that that three-fifths vote requirement for Federal Constitutional amending purposes should not stand in the event that it conflicted with the federal document itself. Adequate protection to the Constitution is necessary. It's essential. The majority rule would ensure adequate protection to the Federal Constitution, but it would also ensure a fair share, a fair voice for the majority of the citizens of this state for any Amendment that were to come before this chamber during this term and, I would hope, in the terms to come. Majority rule is fair. Majority rule is right. The framers of the Federal Constitution had the sense to realize that the country, the citizens might decide that there were new agreements, new consensus about basic democratic principles of governance, and that's why they initiated an Amendment procedure. If all the states were to adopt the three-fifths rule in Illinois, if the original 13 states had adopted three-fifths rules, we would not now have a United States Constitution to worry about amending, and if all the states followed our inappropriate lead, we would never see another change in that Constitution at all. I think it was a good thing, the framers envisioned change. I think it's just a good thing that the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution vas adopted, and that women were, in fact, permitted the right to vote. I can't look from the vantage point of January, 1983 and say that it's all over, it's all done. We've got everything that we ought to have. The 82  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 only way to ensure that ve can have appropriate, well-guarded constitutional change is if we move this chamber today to a Constitutional Majority requirement for Federal Constitutional Amendments. It's fair. It's right, and I urge your support for Amendment 22."

"Representative Nelson."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House. I would urge you all to vote for a change of our old three-fifths rule to a rule requiring a simple majority for ratification of Federal Constitutional Amendments only. And my reasons are these, very briefly. First of all, our principles of justice are based on the notion of majority rule in this country. Protection of minority rights is an important corollary of that principal, but protection of minority rights should not mean that a two-fifths minority can work its will over a majority of Representatives exercising their collective good judgement. We may restrict majority rule to defend minority and individual rights, but it is crazy to restrict majority rule in order to deprive minority and individual rights of full protection. Secondly, as Representative Currie pointed out, it is very, very difficult to amend our Federal Constitution as things stand, or as they would stand even if Illinois, like most other states, 43 in fact, ratified with a simple majority. We do not frivolously attempt to amend the supreme law of the land. In order to attach Amendments to the United States Constitution, it must pass the Congress of the United States with a two-thirds Majority, and then be ratified by three-quarters of the states; certainly safeguards enough to prevent hurried, unstudied action from occurring. Finally, to raise the question of whether the House has the power to set its own rules is to raise a red herring. Both the state and the federal courts have said 83  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 that each House of the Legislature may set its own rules, and the Attorney General in 1973 expressed that opinion also. In fact, under earlier Illinois Constitutions, the Illinois Legislature ratified previous Amendments by a simple majority. I would urge you all to join with us and vote 'yes' on Amendment 22. Thank you, Mr. Speaker."

"Representative Flinn."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I rise in opposition to this Amendment. It's very untimely. It's obviously brought up because of the failure of the Equal Rights Amendment last year, the year before last, the year before that and every year since 1972. The Equal Rights Amendment is not coming before us this year, and probably not next year, and if it ever comes before us again, it will never...ve will never be the 36th state for one simple reason. There were five states that tried to rescind their action of approving the Equal Rights Amendment and were refused. The Equal Rights Amendment is a dead issue. It's going to be dead even if you change this and we..and we are able to pass it in this state. There are not going to be enough states to pass it, but there is a real danger to some other issues coming down the line. First, I believe that the Constitution should be difficult to change. We should not be changing the Constitution with every whim that comes along. We should not be inserting what should be legislation into the Constitution. It's a very sacred instrument, and it should be kept that way. It's lasted more than 200 years. To abuse it in this manner by permitting easy changes to be made to it, the first thing you know, the Constitution will be just another instrument where anybody can load anything on they want. Now, I strongly believe that there's no reason for bringing this up at this time, none whatsoever. 84  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 Maybe there are enough votes to pass it and maybe there are not. But, what happens if it does pass? There are no issues before us now, but some of the issues that will beat the Equal Rights Amendment back, for those of you who sponsor this Amendment and think that's why you're really doing it, will be the abortion issue, the Washington, D. C. issue and some others will most likely beat the Equal Rights Amendment back. It's been such a highly publicized issue, the Egual Rights Amendment, that I doubt very much that it's going to return very soon. I would ask that you defeat this Amendment. Let's get on with the order of business of the House and not have these arguments all the time right in the first part of our Session."

"r. Friedrich."

"Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, Mr. Speaker, I think you and I and Ralph Dunn and Laurino are probably the only four survivors of the...the 1970 Constitutional Convention when this...when our Convent...when our Constitution was framed, and I think you will remember, as I do, that the debates on this particular issue were quite lengthy. In fact, I've read the debates, and I'm sure you might have, too. The old Constitution provided for three-fourths majority. There were many at the Convention who though a simple majority was adequate, but there are a number of places in the Constitution, as you know, that require an extraordinary majority. So, consistently all through the new Constitution, the three-fifths vote is required. I supported it then, not knowing what was coming down the track. If I were in another Constitutional Convention, I would support it again, notwithstanding the federal court ruling to the contrary. I think the Constitution of the State of Illinois and the Constitution of the United States are something that should be amended 85  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 after there is a preponderance of evidence and weight and sentiment on the part of the public that it should be changed. There have been many changes in the Federal Constitution through the years, and it leads me to believe, at least, when there is a change that needs to be made, that the people will rise to it and support it. Now, I thought it was interesting in Rules Committee the other day that some of those who were strong advocates of ERA voted against the simple majority rule, because they realize now that there are at least a couple of Amendments coming down the track that they would like to have some protection on, and they think it should require a three-fifths vote. One of those is the school prayer Amendment. Another is the one that would require a balanced federal budget. So, let me remind you, this is not a vote on ERA. This is not a vote on any of those other things. This is a vote to protect the people and to be sure that the changes in the Federal Constitution are deliberate and well thought out, after much demand from the people. I can assure you that the people in my district, because I've taken polls time after time, a preponderance of them feel that the three-fifths rule is right."

"Representative Breslin."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and Gentlemen, these are, indeed, the times that try men's souls. These are the times that we have to decide whether or not we're going to flex with the issues or whether or not we're going to stand on principles. We are not making a decision today on the Equal Rights Amendment, or on school prayer, or on a balanced budget or on a right to life Amendment. We are making a decision on how many votes it should take to ratify Constitutional Amendments. That is a function, a federal function, not a function of this State Legislature. 86  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 'Lesser versus Garnet' indicated quite clearly, the function of a State Legislature in ratifying a proposed Amendment to the Federal Constitution is a federal one derived from the Federal Constitution, and it transcends any limitations sought to be imposed by the people of the states. I propose, Ladies and Gentlemen, that the fairer rule, the right rule is that we have a Constitutional Majority; that we have a majority of this Assembly voting to ratify Constitutional Amendments. Number one, no other con...other than the ERA, no other constitutional provision ratified in Illinois required a three-fifths majority vote in this state. Number two, already, two-thirds of Congress, both Houses of Congress, are required to propose the Amendment to the states, and three-fourths of the states are required to ratify. That is a super majority. When Virginia was considering the ratification of the U. S. Constitution, Patrick Henry argued strongly against that in itself. He said that it's far too great a con...a barrier to Amendments to changes of this Constitution. He thought that was too great. Well, for the states...for Illinois to come up and say, "We require an additional Constitutional Majority', would, I'm sure, make Patrick Henry turn over in his grave. Ladies and Gentlemen, consider the issue as a rule for what is right for Illinois. The federal courts have already indicated that the Illinois Constitution, regardless of what the framers of the Constitution wanted, have violated the U. S. Constitution in requiring an extraordinary majority. But, it is up to us to determine, by rule, what it takes to pass anything and everything. The responsibility is ours. I believe the right vote is a 'yes' vote. Thank you."

"Representative Hoffman."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and Gentlemen of the 87  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 House, we've had an opportunity today to hear a great deal of discussion about this particular proposed rule change. You've also been subject to a great deal of discussion about circumstances which never took place. We were exposed, by the Sponsor of this Amendment, to a number of examples of what is referred to in logic, as hypotheses which are contrary to the fact, because they, in fact, did not happen. I do know, however, that the drafters of the Illinois Constitution wrote very clearly in Article XIV, Section 4, that it required the affirmative vote of three-fifths Members of the House elected to each House of the General Assembly to ratify a proposed Amendment to the Constitution, and that, as a Constitutional Body, the House of Representatives, in my judgement, we are obligated to support the intent of the drafters of the Constitution, regardless of the convoluted logic that is frequently used by the courts and by those who would interpret court opinions. It seems to me that the clear and direct approach to clarifying this issue is to address the Constitution directly and, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, for that purpose, I have drafted a Constitutional Amendment which eliminates the three-fifths requirement and changes it to a majority for Federal... or for Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. This addresses the issue directly. I, too, think that a majority requirement is sufficient, but it is not sufficient for us to fly in the face of the drafters of the Constitution and all the people who supported the adoption of the Constitution when it came up for a vote in 1970. For that reason and that reason alone, Ladies and Gentlemen, I stand in opposition to this Amendment to the rules. I think we have an obligation as Members who were sworn to uphold the Constitution to uphold all of the 88  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 Constitution, not just those parts of the Constitution which we subscribe to at any particular time and moment. I do, however, believe the Constitution should be changed, and I have drafted a Constitutional Amendment to do just that and I would request all of those of you who feel the same way as I do to let me know that you would like to be Cosponsors of this Constitutional Amendment and I will be pleased to add your name to the list of names on that Constitutional Amendment. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker."

"Representative Pierce."

"Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I hate to disagree with the previous speaker, my friend from DuPage, but when this General Assembly acts in ratifying an Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, it is acting, not as an instrumentality of the Illinois Constitution, but as instrumentality of the United States Constitution. And the Illinois Constitution cannot put extra burdens on this Body in acting pursuant to the United States Constitution. But we can, however, set our own rules, and that is just what the Lady who is sponsoring Amendment 22 seeks to do. She seeks to adopt the rule providing an extraordinary majority...that is a Constitutional Majority, a majority of those elected to this Body, to ratify a Federal Constitutional Amendment, just as every other previous U. S. Amendment was ratified by this Body. Think, Mr. Hoffman, for one minute, what would have happened if we required a three-fifths votes to repeal...to repeal the Prohibition Amendment. We might not be able to drink beer and wine, and the Governor may not have anything to tax right now. Think what a horrendous possibility that might have been that we had failed to adopt the Constitutional Amendment repealing prohibition. Is that what the 89  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 Gentleman is after? Your Governor doesn't agree with you, because he thinks it's so wonderful we repealed prohibition that he now wants to tax the product even...even further. I do think an extraordinary majority in the nature of a Constitutional Majority is sufficient protection for the people of our state, both Houses of the General Assembly must act. Two-thirds of each House of the Congress must have acted previously. Three-quarters of the states must ratify. That is sufficient protection, and for that reason, I have no trouble at all in enthusiastically supporting Amendment 22 requiring a Constitutional Majority to ratify a Federal Amendment."

"Representative Ropp."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. When we were sworn into this Body just a couple of weeks ago, we have taken an oath that clearly defined how we would vote on U. S. Constitutional Amendments. I do not see that it is necessary at this point to change what we have already taken a true oath to do a couple of weeks ago. When the pioneers of this country set up this Constitution, they did not intend for it to be an easy thing to change. It was established so it would be difficult to change, and that large numbers of supporters would have to rally around a given issue in order for it to affect the many states in which entwine the United States. And so, by having a two-thirds vote in the U. S. Congress, certainly gives us indication that that was established in the early days as well as it is today. Someone has said that, "Well, Illinois is one of the few states that still has a three-fifths Majority", and that we should change so that we're like everyone else. I say that when Illinois is right, that we do not have to change to be like those who may, in some opinion, be wrong. I've never felt that we 90  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 should vote just because other states are voting one way, and Illinois stands alone. Many time I think we are right, and I think we should stand for that right now and in the future. And to change that on this particular issue because it is somewhat based on a single issue, I think, is wrong now, as it was wrong 200 years ago, as it will be wrong 200 years from now, and I urge a 'no' vote on this Amendment."

"Representative Satterthwaite.

"Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, I think, particularly for those new Members of this Body who may not have had as deep an opportunity to go into these issues as some of us who've been around for a while, we should be very cautious about quoting only part of the Section of the Illinois Constitution that deals with ratification of Federal Constitutional Amendments. We've had several references now to the fact that the Illinois Constitution says that we are required to give a three-fifths vote, and yet none of those speakers chose, for whatever their reasons might be, to read completely that Section of the Illinois Constitution. The final sentence of that Section of the Constitution says, 'The requirement of this Section shall govern to the extent that it is not inconsistent with requirements established by the United States.' That may undermine, to some extent, the argument that we have to uphold a three-fifths rule. And so, I suggest to you that, in fact, the courts have spoken. The courts have said that our State Constitution cannot bind us in this regard, that we, as a Legislative Body are, in fact, free to set our own rules regardless of what our Constitution says on this issue. And so, there is no binding commitment on the part of the fact that you swore to uphold the Constitution, no binding commitment that makes you also sworn to uphold a 91  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 three-fifths rule. In this case, it is a federal responsibility. The courts have indicated that it is up to the individual Members of the Legislative Body to decide the rules under which they will operate regardless of what our Constitution says. And so, certainly Members need not be bound by only part of what our Constitution says. They should read the entire Section, and they should realize that they are free to vote on the issue independent of that three-fifths clause in the Constitution. I believe that the D. S. Constitution, as it was written, was very careful to delineate when an extraordinary majority would be required. There was no restriction placed upon the majorities by which Legislative Bodies would make their decision. And so, I believe that it was the intent of the 0. S. drafters of the Constitution to allow states to pass Amendments by a majority of their Members. In fact, many states ratify Amendments by less than a majority of their elected Membership, and require only a majority of those voting on the issue. I believe that We should not disadvantage the people of the State of Illinois by placing an extraordinarily high barrier. We in Illinois, if we uphold the three-fifths rule, essentially give a position of inequity to our citizens so that ve are not able represent them as well as if we require only a majority vote. I think that the right vote, regardless of any Constitutional Amendment that should come before us, is one that is consistent with ■y reading of the Federal Constitution, and that will be for...a vote for this Amendment for a Constitutional Majority."

"Representative Klemm."

"Thank you... Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Much of what I was going to say has already been said, so I don't want to take the time of 92  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 this chamber and you Members to be redundant of what we're talking about. I think we've heard about the extraordinary vote that's needed both in Congress and of the states required on a Federal Constitutional question. I think most of us who are willing to listen to the facts certainly can see that that's an extraordinary vote. I think some of you remember last year when we tried to change some of the rules, or at least have this question come before us. It was held in abeyance in Committee, but...and I'm delighted that we have the opportunity today to discuss this and vote for it. I know I, for one, will join those who favor this Amendment 22, and I certainly ask all of the Members of the Republican side certainly to join with me and support this change to the simple majority. Thank you."

"Is there any further discussion? There being no further discussion, the Chair recognizes Representative Currie to close the debate."

"It's time to return Illinois to the kind of rules for ratifying Federal Constitutional Amendments that served us and the Federal Constitution very well during our first 150 years. There's talk about keeping this rule. In fact, let's go back to our roots. Let's go back to the way we used to do business in the state when we understood that we acted on Federal Constitutional Amendments because the Federal Congress asked us to, not because the State Constitution told us how, when, where and whether to do so. The Constitution of the State of Illinois does not provide a shield behind which to cast a vote on Amendment #22 to House Resolution 14. The decision is ours to make as individuals who are responding to a federal duty. Majority rule is fair. Majority rule is right, whatever Amendment is on our table. I urge us to do the right, the fair thing now. Vote 'yes' on Amendment 22." 93  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983

"The question is, "Shall Amendment #22 be adopted?". All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', all those opposed by voting 'no'. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question there are 61 'ayes', 51 'nos'. The Amendment is adopted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #23, Currie - et al, amends House Resolution 14 on page 39 and so forth."

"Representative Currie."

"Amendment 23 would take out of the House Rules something that's been there only in the last two Sessions, a prohibition against the consideration by this chamber of a Federal Constitutional Amendment more than once in any term. The reason I think that provision does not belong in our House Rules, well, they are two. First, any Bill, any proposal that any one of us would care to bring before this chamber can be brought, as we all know, any number of times, any number of ways. Any number of us can propose the same Bill. Any Bill that fails in Committee can return again as an Amendment someplace else, can turn up on a Senate Bill that comes across at a later date. There is no reason that Amendments to the Federal Constitutional...to the Federal Constitution should be so prohibited."

"For what purpose does...Excuse me, Representative Currie. For what purpose does Representative Vinson seek recognition?"

"Mr. Speaker, it's my understand that Mr. McAuliffe's light is not working. I wish you would recognize him so that he could indicate that he did, in fact, punch his button and want to be recorded on the last Roll Call."

"Mr. Clerk, what does the record show regarding Mr. McAuliffe's vote on the last Roll Call."

"Representative McAuliffe is not recorded as 94  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day voting." January 26, 1983

"Would you record Mr. McAuliffe as 'no'. Thank you. Representative Currie."

"First, there's no reason to treat Constitutional Amendments differently from the way we treat any other kind of...any other piece of legislation, any other Resolution, any other action before this chamber. Secondly, it's conceivable with that kind of prohibition that somebody who is opposed to a particular federal proposal might well decide and might well be able to introduce it first before the proponents. That kind of unfairness could happen, and it seems to me this provision doesn't belong. We should take it out. That is what Amendment 23 does, and I urge your support."

"Let the record show that the count on the Amendment #... Mr. Clerk, which Amendment are we dsicussing?"

"Amendment #22."

"Yes. Let the record show that the count on Amendment #22 would be 61 'ayes', 52 'nos', and that the Amendment is adopted. Representative Currie has moved for the adoption of Amendment #23. Is there any discussion? There being no discussion, the question is, 'Shall Amendment #23 be adopted?'. All those in favor of adoption say 'aye', all those opposed say 'no'. In the opinion of the Chair, there should be a Roll Call on this question. I'm surprised there wasn't discussion. So, the question is, 'Shall Amendment #23 be adopted?'. All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', all those opposed by voting 'no'. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question there are 60 'ayes', 51 'nos'. The Amendment is adopted. For what purpose does Representative Vinson seek recognition?" 95  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983

"There's a continuing question with Mr. McAuliffe's switch."

"Yes. Mr. Clerk, how is Representative McAuliffe recorded?"

"Representative McAuliffe is not recorded as voting."

"Record Mr. McAuliffe as 'no'. Let the record show that the Amendment was adopted on a vote of 60 ayes and 52 nays'. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #24, Vinson - Davis, amends House Resolution..."

"Mr. Vinson."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. This Amendment is another one of the cornerstones of our effort to strengthen the Committee system. Won't go into any exhaustive detail on the Amendment, because it's clear that Mr. Madigan's actions are going to continue to be at variance with his words in his new era speech. The purpose of the Amendment is to strengthen the Committee system in two fashions. Number one, it would require 60 Members to vote to adopt an Amendment on the House floor. If Committees are going to be important, then you have to put the action in Committee, not on the House floor. The second thing that the Amendment does is to provide a definition of the concept of germaneness in the rules so that all the Members will know whether their Amendment to a Bill is germane or not so that we don't simply have a talisman operated by the Parliamentarian for partisan advantage on the subject of germaneness. And for those reasons, I would move for adoption of Amendment #24."

"The Gentleman moves for the adoption of Amendment #24. Mr. Matijevich. Mr. Matijevich."

"Yes, Mr. Speaker, I don't think any reasonable House 96  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 Member really believes that we ought to have a rule making it mandatory that we have the same requirement for adopting an Amendment that we do for passing a Bill. It would be overly restrictive, and we all know that. And I really have found the time here on the floor of the House, or seen the time on the floor of the House that a good Amendment was very controversial, but was adopted on a close vote. And to say by rule that it's got to be a Constitutional Majority, this is the first time I've said today, and I've thought others are, but this one I'm going to say, is ridiculous. So, I would urge the Members to oppose it."

"Mr. Johnson."

"Perhaps some of what Representative Matijevich says would be true for the times when everybody's here like today. But what about the times when we vote at the call of the Chair on significant Amendments, some of which totally change the substance of the Bill at the start of the day when there's only 40 Legislators here or sometime in between the long delays in the latter part of June when there's only 40 people on the floor, or, for that matter, times near the end of Session right before the Death Resolutions when there's only 40 people on the floor. You can totally change the substance of a Bill, gut the Bill on a vote of 19 to 7, and that would be somewhat short, to say the least, of what would be necessary to pass the Bill, but certainly enough, at the appropriate stage of a Session or a day, to totally take the work that somebody's put into their Bill out of it to totally change the substance of the Bill and to totally change the course of a legislative process that we're supposed to have been commenced in that starts in Subcommittee or Committee and carried on through. If everybody were here all the time, if we didn't have lag Sessions, if we didn't have beginnings and ends of 97  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 Legislative Session or Legislative Days when we have small attendance, little attention, important concepts built into otherwise noncontroversial Bills around it, perhaps what he says is true. This is not ridiculous. It's absolutely necessary. It's good government, and if we're going to uphold the Committee systems, if we're going to uphold the ability of each Sponsor to control their own legislation, then we certainly ought to have a requirement that at least makes it a little more difficult to whimsically change a Bill by Amendment at an inappropriate stage of the legislation. I urge a 'yes' vote on this Amendment."

"Is there any further discussion? There being no further discussion, the Chair recognizes Mr. Vinson to close the debate."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Staff advises me that the Reference Bureau has now indicated that there are more Bills being drafted at this stage in this Session with 118 Members than there were two years ago with 177 Members of the House. Apparently, that is what cutback is being interpreted to mean in this General Assembly. Mr. Speaker, the actions today definitely confirm that Mr. Cullerton's interpretation of the new era is the interpretation that will prevail, not what some of the more optimistic of us had hoped for. I would urge you to give this Amendment your serious attention and concern so that at least in one respect we might reform the rules and procedures of this General Assembly and try to do what the people ask us to do. I would move for adoption of Amendment #24."

"The question is, 'Shall Amendment #24 be adopted?'. All those in favor will vote aye...all those in favor of the adoption of the Amendment will vote 'aye', all those opposed will vote 'no'. Have all voted who wish? 98  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 Have all voted who wish? The Clerk will take the record. On this question there are 45 'ayes', 69 'nos'. The Amendment fails. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #25, Nelson - Johnson, amends House Resolution 14 on page 56 and so forth."

"Mr. Johnson."

"Representative Nelson and I felt that Representative Stuffle made some good points earlier, so we're addressing ourselves to Representative Stuffle and other people who thought that our earlier Amendment, Amendment #16, was too general, wasn't specific enough. So, this is very specific. A 'yes' vote on this Amendment means that you don't think you ought to be able to vote on your own pension increases, legislative pensions, as an Amendment or through Conference Committee Reports at the end of a Session, willy-nilly without any kind of public debate or any kind of public input. If you vote 'no', you think it's a good idea to be able to do that, go ahead and pad your own pocket, vote for your own pension increases and do it through a Conference Committee Report that totally subverts the democratic process. Representative Stuffle made some good points. I think some other downstaters were concerned before about our Amendment only addressing itself to pensions generally, and that legitimately may be the case. It affects...might affect fire...firemen's pension or policemen's pension and so forth. This is absolutely specific. No Conference Committee Report on a pension Bill is in order if it increases any, quote, 'legislative pension benefits which were not the subject matter of the Bill as it passed the House'. This also speaks to the question of the Christmas tree legislation. It's an absolutely necessary good government Amendment, and I urge a 'yes' vote. I'm sure everybody, now that we're specific 99  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 enough, is going to join and give this 118 votes."

"Mr. Matijevich."

"Representative Johnson, I thought maybe you could get enough P.B. on the earlier Amendments. I guess evidently you must have talked to your reporter and you're not getting any, so you want to work at it some more. I think the arguments that Representative Cullerton had made earlier on the other Amendments still hold true, and really we are opening up a pension Bill to litigation. I think that's a danger, and we ought to...we ought to be concerned about that. You know, just because we want to get this P.R. with regards to either pension or pay raises, we're doing damage to the legislative process. One day you do it with regards to this issue. The next day you limit on germaneness on the next issue. You are taking away and eroding your own responsibilities as a Legislator. I hope that my voters judge me on what I do, on what I do as a Legislator. I voted for a pay raise up front, wasn't worried about it. I did it because I thought it was needed. I wasn't afraid of it and made all kinds of these crazy arguments on the floor of the House and then after it passed walked right up there and took my salary and said, 'Thank God for you Legislators who had the guts to vote for it, but not me. I'm going to stand on the floor of the House and argue about it, but be the first at the pay line, first one.' I don't think you ought to go to this route and damage your own process, and I urge a 'no' vote."

"Representative Stuffle."

"Yes, Mr. Speaker and Members, Representative Johnson chooses to indicate that this is a, as he explains it, a much different Amendment than the last one that he proposed, but I would still argue without regard, even looking at the pension part, he did change that. You still 100  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 have the question of the vagueness of the language that speaks to what materials within the scope of a Bill. I think it's very vague in that respect with regard to the first part of the Amendment. I know what he's trying to accomplish and so does he. I think that much of what Representative Matijevich said is true. I don't happen to be one who has stood here and voted for those pension increases. As Representative Johnson knows, I have not. But I think it's a very vague Amendment still, particularly when it has that language on line 9 about any material not within the scope of a Bill as it was passed by either the House or the Senate. Who is to make that determination as to what's within the scope of a Bill? That's a germaneness issues that's going to be addressed by the other rules already here. I think we put this in the situation where it's so vague it's going to be very difficult to understand in any given situation what is included in the language of this type of an Amendment to the rules. And for those reasons, I think it still fails to meet the test of being specific enough to be understandable by the Members or to be fair to the Membership on the consideration of Bills and Amendments before this House. I share his concern about pension questions. I know all the Members do because that's a touchy subject as our pay raises. But I think the Amendment still fails to reach the question of being specific enough to address our needs and concerns as they come about in this House."

"Is there any further discussion? There being no further discussion, Mr. Johnson, do you wish to close? Mr. Johnson."

"Yes, very briefly, Mr. Speaker and Members. Like Representative Matijevich, and I know he is an extremely conscientious Legislator and does his job. We all try to 101  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 do our job. One of my jobs, and I think the job of most of us who are elected to come down here, is to represent our constituents and their views on matters such as pension increases. You don't have to look back very far. I think it was two years ago at the end of the Session or nearly the end of the Session when Representative Doyle unwittingly wound up being the Sponsor of a Bill that would have provided for massive pension increases for Legislators. And with all due respect to Representative Doyle, I don't even think as the Sponsor of the Bill, he knew what he was sponsoring, and there's sure a whole lot of Legislators who voted, some wittingly and a lot of them unwittingly, for a pension increase on a Conference Committee Report. That's an example of what can happen, and I would suggest to you that this is simply an effort to try to straighten out what has become, in some cases, a cumbersome process, an ununderstandable process and an all-too-well understood process to the public."

"The question is, "Shall Amendment #25 be adopted?. All those in favor signify by voting aye, all those opposed by voting "no". Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question there are 52 'ayes', 60 'nos'. The Amendment fails. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #26, Vinson Zwick, amends House Resolution 14 as amended."

"Mr. Vinson, Amendment #26."

"Mr. Speaker, I would withdraw that Amendment, and if I might address an inquiry to the Chair."

"The Amendment shall be withdrawn. State your inquiry. Mr. Vinson."

"I believe Amendment #22 was adopted and was the Amendment which changed the number of votes in regard to 102  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 Constitutional Amendments."

"That's correct."

"I don't believe that Amendment spoke to the provisions in our temporary rules on page 39, line 17 and 18 which required a vote of 71 Members to do that. And if that is indeed the case, I wonder what the posture actually is. Have we engaged in an annulity and do we have to go back and deal with that 71 vote issue first?"

"Mr. Vinson, could Mr. Getty take your inquiry under advisement..."

"That would be fine."

"...And respond at the appropriate time?"

"Would...Would we get back to that before the end of action on the rules today?"

"I think that we would be able to respond to you when Mr. Getty has prepared his response."

"I would hope that that would be today. I would certainly hope that it would be within the Session."

"So would I. Are there any further Amendments?"

"House Amendment #27, Preston, amends House..."

"Mr. Preston."

"Mr. Speaker, I'd withdraw that Amendment."

"Mr. Preston."

"I asked to withdraw #27."

"The Amendment shall be withdrawn. Are there further Amendments?"

"Amendment #28, Preston."

"Mr. Preston."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Those of us who were privileged to be Members of the House of Representatives during the 82nd and the 81st General Assemblies remember on a number of occasions when we have been the subject of ridicule and been brought into 103  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 some amount of disrepute both as Members and as a Body because of demonstrations that took place on this House floor. On one occasion there were some Members and former Members who took to the House floor in various mock-up uniforms and regalia and marched up and down to the delight of the news media and the television cameras. And when people at home saw the nonsense that was going on here, there vas serious doubt as to the seriousness and the serious intent of the Members of this august and distinguished Body. Amendment #28 to House Resolution 14 merely prohibits while the House is in Session or during periods of recess any demonstrations by Members or others, either on the floor of the House or in the gallery and directs that the Doorkeeper remove any individuals who are so demonstrating. The business of the House is serious business. The business of the people is serious business, and we should keep that in mind at all times during the Sessions and during recesses of the House. Thank you."

"ar. Matijevich."

"Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, ay father used to tell me when I was a kid, trouble comes to those who ask for it. The truth of the matter is that the Speaker and the Doorkeeper have the responsibility to preserve the decorum of the House. We don't have to write into the rules that demonstrations are prohibited. We know that everybody ought to know that. The fact of the matter is that when we adopt these rules today, nobody out there is going to know that this rule, if we so adopted it, was going to be in our rules. They wouldn't know it anyway. So...but what people do know is that they've got to act like ordinary people should act, and that responsibility lies with the Speaker to control everything in this House and to use the Doormen and others to preserve that peace so 104  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 that we can deliberate in an ordinary, sensible, responsible manner. We don't need this rule, and I would urge you to vote against it."

"Is there any further discussion? Mr. Preston to close."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have every good wish for the present Speaker of the House, and I know that he has every intent of enforcing the decorum of this Body. Previous Speakers also had every good intent. The fact is that our present Speaker may not always be on the Speaker's rostrum. There may be other people taking over for him, and those other people, I'm sure, have every good intent. But I want to show the people also what it is that is the intent of the House, and the intent of the House is to preserve decorum, to eliminate demonstrations that have caused us to be ridiculed in the press in the past. And for that reason, I ask you for an 'aye vote. This, of course, has to be enforced by the Speaker, who will have good intentions. But, at the same time, it shows that we, as a Body, also have good intentions."

"The question is, 'Shall Amendment #28 be adopted?. All those in favor say 'aye', all those opposed say 'no'. In the opinion of the Chair, the 'nos' have it. The Amendment fails. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #29, Matijevich, amends House Resolution 14..."

"Mr. Matijevich."

"Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, Amendment #29 answers the problem that Representative Vinson had talked about earlier, where on the listing of Committees we failed to delete the Public Institutions and Social Services Committee, so..."

"Mr. Matijevich, is this an Agreed Amendment?" 105  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 4th Legislative Day

"Yes, Sir."

"Mr. Vinson. Mr. Vinson."

"I had... Yes, Mr. Speaker, I...I will say that I had intended and had signified agreement on this. I wonder if it might be appropriate to amend it on its face, though, because I think there may be a continuing problem with it, and I would direct your attention, and perhaps the Parliamentarian's attention to line 2, which refers to temporary rules. And I wonder if it's necessary to change that to permanent rules, and I would move to do that on the face of the Amendment if that's necessary."

"Our posture...Mr. Vinson, our posture at this minute is that we are amending the temporary rules which, after their adoption, will become the permanent rules, so that the Amendment, as drawn, is correct. Okay? Mr. Vinson."

"I'm advised by counsel that we are dealing with a Resolution which is neither temporary nor permanent at this point."

"If this is a matter of great import, I would suggest that Mr. Webb and Mr. Getty could discuss this while we proceed to the remaining Amendments."

"Are you... Are you satisfied that this does the job?"

"I feel very comfortable in Mr. Getty's opinion."

"Well, despite the fact that some people might have been asked the question, "Who's the real Speaker?", I will...I will defer to you and Mr. Getty in this respect."

"Okay."

"But I would still hope that we could get a ruling on that other matter."

"We have that ruling for you, so let us dispose of this Amendment, and we will render the ruling that you 106  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 have requested. Concerning Amendment #29, Mr. Matijevich moves to adopt Amendment #29. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', all those opposed say 'no'. In the opinion of the Chair, the 'ayes' have it. The Amendment is adopted. Concerning Mr. Vinson's inquiry on Amendment #22, Mr. Vinson, you make reference to Section 44 (E) of the...of the rules as embodied in House Resolution 14, which provides that the provisions of this rule may be suspended only upon an affirmative vote of 71 Members. It is the opinion of the Chair that that Section of the rules does not apply to your question because, at the time of the consideration of Amendment #22, the Body was considering an Amendment to a Resolution. And the vote requirement for the Amendment would be that the Amendment receive more 'ayes' than 'nays' at the Amendment stage. Thank you, Mr. Vinson. And for what purpose does Mr. Klemm seek recognition?"

"Well, excuse me, Mr. Speaker, but I wasn't recognized before the last vote, and I was just...wanted a clarification on Amendment 29. It does say Rule 14 (A), and yet when I look in the schedule of our rules, it does say 16 (A). I just...for clarification of technicality that we may want to correct that on Amendment 29. We just adopted it. It did say that we would amend Rule 14 (A) in the temporary rules. Fourteen (A), according to what I have, is there is no (A), and it should be, probably, 16 (A). I just wanted to clarify it, and since I wasn't recognized prior to your asking for the vote, I wanted to take that liberty to call it to your attention."

"Mr. Klemm, the Parliamentarian tells me that your point is well taken, and, with leave of the Body...Mr. Matijevich."

"I don't think it is, because it's 14 (A) of the 107  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 temporary rules, Mike. I think you'd better take another look at that. That's right. We're amending the Resolution as amended in Rule 14 (A) of the temporary rules. 14 (A) of the temporary rules. See, right now all we have is the temporary rules. We're going to adopt the Resolution, then it becomes our permanent rules. But 14 (A) is in the temporary, Mike, I think."

"Mr. Matijevich and Mr. Klemm, if we could permit Mr. Getty to research this question and return to it. Mr. Clerk, are there any further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #30, Hoffman, amends House Resolution #14..."

"Representative Hoffman."

"Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. This, too, is a technical Amendment or a clean-up Amendment to conform election...the language in our rules for election contest and qualification challenges to conform with single-Member districts. The language does that, plus it deletes a Section that was not utilized anyway and is not necessary. And I would move the adoption of Amendment #30."

"The Gentleman moves for the adoption of Amendment #30. On the Motion for adoption, Representative Matijevich."

"Speaker, this now, with the changes, is an agreed Amendment."

"Thank you, Mr. Matijevich. Mr. Matijevich tells us that this is an agreed Amendment. All those in favor of the adoption of the Amendment will signify by saying 'aye', all those opposed will say 'no'. In the opinion of the Chair, the 'ayes' have it. The Amendment is adopted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #31, Preston, amends House..." 108  STATE OF ILLINGIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 4th Legislative Day

"Mr. Preston."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I discussed Amendment 31 with the Speaker and with others on the Democratic side of the aisle, as well as with people on the Republican side of the aisle, without objection. I just want to read it, in case you don't have it in front of you. Amendment 31 says, 'The Speaker may invite any person to offer an invocation at the beginning of each day's Session, and shall advise the person invited to...invited to offer the invocation that the House intends the opening prayer to be of an ecumenical rather than a sectarian nature so that it may benefit all of the Members of the House". And I urge your 'aye' vote."

"The Gentleman moves for the adoption of Amendment #31. Is there any discussion? Mr. Ropp."

"Mr. Speaker, I just have a question of the Sponsor."

"The Sponsor indicates that he will yield."

"If this Amendment passes, then would you, in fact, come into this House chamber prior to the prayer when the Speaker calls us to order rather than standing out in the hall?"

"That's my desire, and I hope when this passes that I'll be able to do that and do so willingly. Thank you."

"I was going to say, I'd strongly support this because I've missed you, and we'd welcome you in these House chambers at the opening of the ceremonies."

"Thank you."

"Mr. Piel."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Gentleman yield?"

"The Sponsor indicates that he will yield."

"Representative Preston, what is your reason behind this Amendment? The question that I've got... The reason I'm raising the question is because, I'm sort of reading in 109  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 between the lines here, but you're sort of giving the Speaker the discretion on determining what the content of the prayer is. Am I correct there?"

"No, of course not. No. All the Amendment says is that the Speaker will advise whoever is giving the opening prayer that it is our intent to have the opening prayer be ecumenical. What the... It's not bin... Whatever the person saying the prayer does, he may do what he wants, obviously. But, it's...the idea is stressed that it be an ecumenical prayer, and that's the intent of the House."

"Thank you. To speak to the Amendment, Mr. Speaker. I think the one problem that you have with this is I have noticed and talked to different ministers, rabbis who have come up to give the opening invocation in the House of Representatives, and I...I thought, at least the impression I got by talking to all of them, is that they were very honored by being asked to give the invocation before the House of Representatives. And I think what you do, you sort of demean their nature and their job and their position also, by saying to you, "Well, we want this ecumenical'. You know, right off the bat, you know, we want you to give the invocation. We want it ecumenical. And, in that case, Representative Preston, I think you're really, you know, making a mistake by saying to them, you know. This is the way we want the prayer given, and I would ask the Members of the House, before you cast a 'yes' vote for Amendment #31, that you read this thing and read the possible ramifications of it very seriously. Thank you."

"Mr. McGann. Mr. McGann."

"Mr. Speaker, Members of the Assembly, I ask the yielding of Representative Preston."

"The Sponsor indicates that he will yield to a 110  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day question."

"What is happening January 26, 1983 to our freedom of thought? And by having an Amendment such as this, what we are doing is hamstringing the clergy. This is wrong. Who's to decide what is ecumenical? Who is to decide what is sectarian? How are we going to be able to audit this? I think we are making a very, very bad mistake in voting any kind of a 'yes' for this Amendment."

"Representative Hoffman."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have only one comment to make. I say, all power to the Speaker."

"Is there any further discussion? There being no further discussion, the Chair recognizes Mr. Preston to close."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think some of the previous speakers may have misunderstood both the language and the intent of this Amendment. It is the intent to include all of us, all of us, not just the majority, but all of us in the prayers that are said. That is my desire. I hope that would also be your desire so that we can all gain inspiration and the proper asking of the Deity for our wisdom in what we do in this chamber, not just for some, but for all of our Members. That's the purpose. That's the language, and I hope you will give it your 'aye' vote. Thank you."

"The Gentleman moves for the adoption of Amendment #31. All those in favor will signify by voting 'aye', all those opposed by voting 'no'. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question there are 51 'ayes', 53 'nos', 3 voting 'present'. The Amendment fails. Are there further Amendments?"

"No further Amendments." 111  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983

"There being no further Amendments, the Chair would like to respond to Representative Klemm by stating that, in the opinion of the Parliamentarian, the Amendment was properly drawn. Okay? Thank you. There being no further... Mr. Klemm."

"Can... Mr. Speaker, can it be amended? Since it's a tech...technical error, can we amend it on its face?"

"Oh, I'm sorry. The opinion of the Parliamentarian is that the Amendment was properly drafted."

"Oh, I thought. Okay, I misunderstood you."

"Thank you. And, there being no further Amendments, the Chair recognizes Representative Matijevich on House Resolution 14. Mr. Matijevich."

"Yes, Mr. Speaker, in offering now and moving for adoption of House Resolution 14 as amended, I want to, as I said before, thank our Parliamentarian, Mike Getty and Ray Becker, also thank the Speaker for having this as a special order of business on really the first day that we are in operation for business. I would guess that this is probably the first time in the history of the legislative process that a House has adopted its permanent rules, in the House at least, on the first day that we've come back after organization. Now, we can go to business, when we adopt this Resolution. I think it's a good sign that we are starting on the right foot. Also, I think all the new Members ought to know that very soon, in fact you have it now, but very soon you will have printed copies of the rules. Those are for your benefit. Keep those rules and study them. They will always come to good use for you. So, I would now move, Mr. Speaker, because we have good rules to operate this House on, the House Resolution be adopted as amended." 112  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day Speaker Madigan: 14 January 26, 1983 "The Gentleman has moved that House Resolution as amended be adopted. Is there any discussion? Daniels."

"Well, Mr. Speaker, I guess it's not a surprise to Madigan, to to Mr. you let you know that ve are, in fact, disappointed; disappointed, because many of the issues that we presented to you in a nonpartisan fashion have been turned aside by you. And, Representative Matijevich, you're right. It is unusual that these matters are heard so fast. But when you sat on the other side of the aisle, under your former leader, Representative Redmond, Speaker Redmond, and you couldn't adopt the rules until some of the closing days of the Session because, yes, our side of the aisle was unwilling to allow many things to happen at that time. We, in turn, said in response your leader now, Speaker that it is time to turn aside partisan bickering and partisan differences. But, yes, you have turned that aside right and you have shown us that even those Amendments that are reasonable and Besolutions that are reasonable, you won't hear any of those. And we have a new hope that things will change. But, we're ready, Mr. Speaker, and we will work. We would be here next week if you wanted us to be or the week after that or when your schedule permits. But are disappointed, Sir, and we hope that the disappointment ends with the adoption of the Democrat rules; the Democrat rules because, even though you allowed the discussion to take place, with your near extraordinary majority, we will abide by the decisions that you have thrust upon us now, and we will attempt, whenever possible, to cooperate, even at times when it's difficult to do so." ега. We now, we

"Is there any further discussion? There being no further discussion, guestion is, 'Shall House the 113  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 Resolution 14, as amended, be adopted?". All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', all those opposed by voting 'no'. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, there are 69 'ayes', 44 'nos', no voting 'present'. The Resolution is adopted. Is there any further business to come before the Body? Agreed Resolutions."

"House Resolution 15, Woodyard. House Resolution 16, Yourell. 17, Yourell. 19, Mautino. 20, Brunner. 21, John Dunn Mautino Richmond. 23, Karpiel. 24, Farley. 25, Breslin. 26, Sam Wolf. And 27, McAuliffe."

"Mr. Giorgi."

"Mr. Speaker, Woodyard's Resolution 15 honors Mayor Zamberletti. 16 by Yourell notes a Boy Scout Award. 17 by Yourell recognizes another Boy Scout Award. Mautino records an election in his district. Brummer says that Dan (sic Don) Hoover's having a farewell dinner. 21 by Dunn signals recognition of the marriage as the cornerstone of society. 22 by Karpiel notes that a marriage lasted 50 years. 24 by Farley asks cooperation of various civic organizations. 25 by Breslin notes the establishment of a river rescue unit. 26 by Wolf recognizes the championship of the Granite City Warriors. And 27 by McAuliffe notes a retirement. I move for the adoption of the Agreed Resolutions."

"The Gentleman moves for the adoption of the Agreed Resolutions. Is there any discussion? There being no discussion, the question is, 'Shall the Agreed Resolutions be adopted?'. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', all those opposed say 'nay'. In the opinion of the Chair, the 'ayes' have it. The Resolutions are adopted. Mr. Clerk, is there any further business? Death Resolution." 114  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day

January 26, 1983 "House Resolution 18, Representative Saltsman, with respect to the memory of Captain Vernon A. Gudot."

"Mr. Giorgi moves for adoption of the Death Resolution. All those in favor... Mr. Giorgi."

"Μτ. Speaker, I yield to Representative Saltsman from Peoria. But, before you adjourn the House, one of our Members whose light switch isn't working wants to be recognized later on. Representative Saltsman."

"Fine. Representative Saltsman." Saltsman: reason I "Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House. The vas late for Session today vas a brother firefighter was killed in the City of Peoria who I had worked with for 16 years. Captain Vernon Gudot, who was a member of my shift and a brother company member vas down here last Tuesday in the General Assembly as one of my guests, and he took pictures of our House floor, of our inauguration and showed great concern about the General Assembly and even made arrangements to bring his two children down here, as it was his first time of ever being here. We, from the City of Peoria, and I know throughout this state, this morning, had a funeral in honor of this firefighter, and practically every city in the City of Peoria sent brother firefighters into Peoria in uniform and from one end of the state to the other, they sent men in with their own equipment from their own cities to even man the equipment while the on-duty shift of 50 men could also attend his funeral. We wish to thank everyone in the State of Illinois from the cities that cooperated and showed the respect for Fire Captain Vernon Gudot, that we have lost a good friend, and all of your communities were representative...were represented, and I hope you take it back to you local fire department. Vernon Gudot had two children aged 13 and 15. He was a 16-year veteran of the 115  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 department. He give his life to help others. An engineer working with him was seriously injured, but will survive. He will be in the hospital for another five to six months. We realize the respect that was given Captain Gudot this morning at this funeral, and I appreciate everyone accepting this Resolution in honor of Captain Gudot. Thank you."

"Representative Saltsman moves for the adoption of House Resolution 18. All... Representative Giorgi. All those in favor will signify by saying "aye, all those opposed 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. The Resolution is adopted. General Resolutions."

"House Resolution 28, Levin - Cullerton. House Resolution 29, Levin - Bowman and Currie."

"Committee on Assignment. We will adjourn with the adoption of a Death Resolution for a former Member. And, Mr. Vinson, for what purpose do you seek recognition?"

"Mr. Speaker, when the House convened today, you announced that the future schedule would be that we would not meet next week, I believe. Is that correct?"

"That's correct."

"And that we will meet the week after next."

"That is correct."

"And on that week, Committees will consider Bills."

"Yes."

"Then, going back to your response to my inquiry in regard to the Committee on Assignments and comporting its conduct with Article IV, Section 7 with the Constitution, when will it meet, have public notice and so forth, have public meeting for the assignment of those Bills?"

"I would think that that question would be more properly directed to the Chairman of the Committee."

"Could you indicate who that is?" 116  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day

"Representative Greiman." January 26, 1983

"Could I direct that question to Representative Greiman, then?"

"Representative question is under advisement."

Greiman advises that that Vinson: "Mr. Speaker, how can we then have any Bills assigned for a Committee hearing for the week after next? How can we move on with an expeditious attention to the people's problems?"

"Our presumption is that the assignments will be made in due time, and with enough time to do proper notice so that Bill Sponsors who wish to have their Bills heard in Committee during the week of February 8 will be permitted to do so."

"I...I think you might be misunderstanding my inquiry. My in..."

"Oh, no. I'm not misunderstanding you, Sam."

"My inquiry is, when the Committee on Assignments will meet so that the public can participate in the process pursuant to the Constitution, as you suggested they would have the opportunity to do."

"Mr. Vinson, I believe that my response was simply that that particular Committee would function with due regard to constitutional and statutory requirements, and I believe that I couched my statement in terms of a presumption on my part, because I am not a Member of that Committee."

"Would...Do... Could I inquiry of Mr. Greiman, then?"

"I'm sure that you could make an inquire to Mr. Greiman. Mr. Greiman, do you choose to respond? Mr. Greiman."

"I think that my response has already been appropriately made, and I certainly will stand by that. We are certainly 117  4th Legislative Day STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE January 26, 1983 going to pursue the commission of this... the charge of this Committee like all other Committees, in accordance with law and traditions and practices of this House."

"Mr. Vinson."

"There... There will then be a public meeting of the Rules Committee sometime in the interim between now and next week. Is that... Is that correct? I'm sorry. A meeting of the Committee on the Assignment of Bills next week?"

"Mr. Greiman."

"My answer was quite clear. As a matter of fact, I took the initiative and even asked your Leader who the Gentleman was that would be on that Committee that one might even give notice to, and he said, "Well, I don't know who it is.' That was about an hour ago. So, you know, I couldn't call a Committee meeting in any event. But, in any event, it will be in accordance with the law and accordance with the customS of the practices of this House of Representatives, Mr. Vinson. Now, more than that, I can't say. More than that, I will not say."

"Mr. Daniels."

"Mr. Greiman, the Gentleman on our side is Representative Jack Davis, and I want you to know something right now. If you want to treat this in a flippant manner and you want to treat a question of a Member on this side of the aisle, when we're dealing with subjects on assignment of Bills, you go ahead, Sir. You treat that funny. You think that it's humorous. You're dealing with the matters of state, and you're dealing with the matters of the people of Illinois. And it's your Speaker that said this is going to be open. Now if you want to be serious about it, that's one thing. You want to be flippant, Sir, in your new Leadership position, you go ahead and do it."

"The Chair would like to adjourn to permit our 118  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 Members to travel safely to their homes. It is now approaching six o'clock and, in that regard, I am told that Mr. Panayotovich has been seeking recognition. Mr. Panayotovich from the 10th Ward of Chicago."

"Mr. Speaker, I request to be recorded on the House Resolution #14 for adoption. I think my buttons aren't working properly. I'm still getting..."

"Fine. Let the record show that the Gentleman wishes to be recorded as 'aye' on the question of the adoption of House Resolution 14. As I said, excuse me. We shall adjourn with the adoption of a Death Resolution for a former Member. Before we do that, for those Members who have not yet been assigned a parking spot, would the Republicans please consult with Zale Glauberman, with the Democrats, see Gary LaPaille relative to parking spots. Would Members please turn their keys in to Emery, the Doorkeeper? I believe this is...pardon me? If there are any of our former Members still around, would they please turn in their keys to Emery, the Doorkeeper. And if there is no further business to come before the Body, Mr. Clerk, would you read the Death Resolution?"

"House Resolution 22, Virginia Frederick - Pierce, whereas the Members of this Body are saddened to learn of the demise of a former colleague, Francis J. Berry; and whereas, Mr. Berry was born in Chicago July 9, 1912 and has been a Libertyville resident all of his life, graduating from Libertyville High School in 1931 and attending the University of Illinois before serving in the United States Navy during World War II; and whereas, he was a former resident...excuse me, president of the Lake County Municipal League and former Vice Chairman of the Lake County Republican Central Committee, and he served as a Libertyville Village trustee from 1947 through 1953 when he 119  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 was elected Mayor, a post he held until 1965 when he was elected to the State Legislature where he served until 1967; and whereas, Mr. Berry was a forerunner in sponsoring legislation to help municipalities revitalize decaying downtown business districts through commercial renewal authorities using the combination of private capital and revenue bonds for renewal; and whereas, he was a past president of the Libertyville Rotary Club, member of the Libertyville American Legion Post, past president of the Libertyville-Mundelein Insurance Agents Association and a member of the Lake County Board of Realtors; and whereas, Mr. Berry is survived by his widow, Mary; three daughters, Mary Jo Friend and Ida Fulbright, both of Libertyville, and Patricia Flory of Berkeley, California; and three grandchildren. Therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the 83rd General Assembly of the State of Illinois that we express our profound sense of loss at the death of the Honorable Francis J. Berry, that we express our deep appreciation for the services he rendered throughout his long and distinguished career as an honest, decent, hard-working and dedicated public servant and that to his bereaved family we extend our heartfelt sympathy; and be it further resolved that a suitable copy of this Preamble and Resolution be presented to Mrs. Francis J. Berry, and as a further token of an expression of our sorrow, the House now stands adjourned."

"The Chair recognizes Representative Virginia Frederick."

"Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, although I was not privileged to serve in this Body with former Representative Francis Berry whose term of office began in 1965, I knew him as a very influential long-term resident of Libertyville, Illinois, where he won the 120  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 respect and the admiration of all its citizens over the many years of his public life. In addition to his service as a Member of the House, Mr. Berry served eight years as a member of the Village Board in Libertyville, and later 12 years as their Mayor, one of two Mayors to serve three terms in the history of the Village. In addition, he was a very active member of the Republican Party in Lake County all his life, serving as Republican Committeeman for many years and also as Vice Chairman of the Central Committee of Lake County. Mr. Berry's contributions to the Village of Libertyville can never be forgotten, for he was principal architect in designing municipal government and its services to meet the changing needs of Libertyville as it progressed from a small rural community to the modern suburb it is today. He was an advocate of orderly growth and is credited with the employment of the first Village engineer and an expanded police department, a modern sewage treatment plant and the present-day municipal park system. In repeating comments made by his colleagues who served with him in local government, Mr. Berry has character...was characterized as a man who was always fair, whose dedication to finding the right solution never flagged, and as a man who served as an exemplary model for service in government. Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, I move adoption of the Resolution and ask that a copy of it be sent to his widow, Mrs. Mary Davis Berry. I also ask leave of the House to add all the names of all the Members of this Body as Cosponsors."

"Representative Pierce."

"...Of the House...Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, it was my honor and privilege to serve with Francis J. Berry in the 74th General Assembly. We came here as freshman 18 years ago this month, in January, 1965, 121  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 26, 1983 after the at large election. He was indeed a Gentleman. He was a credit to public service, both as Mayor of Libertyville and as a Member of the House of Representatives. He was fair-minded to people of both Parties, within his Village, and here in Springfield, he gained the respect to all of us. A Gentlman, a man we could look up to. I am proud to have him been my colleague. And as a fellow Lake Countian, I wish to add my feelings to that of the Lady from Lake and urge the adoption of this Resolution for a very fine colleague of ours who recently departed."

"With the leave of the House, all Members shall be added as Sponsors of this Resolution, and Representative Frederick moves that the House stand adjourned till a Perfunctory Session tomorrow and then to a full Session on Tuesday, February the 8th at 12:00 noon. All those in favor of that Motion signify by saying 'aye', all those opposed say 'no'. In the opinion of the Chair, the 'ayes' have it. The Motion is adopted. The Resolution is adopted, and the House stands adjourned." 122  02/08/83 17:55 STATE OF ILLINOIS 83ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DAILY TRANSCRIPTION OF DEBATE INDEX JANUARY 26, 1983 HR-0014 ADOPTED HR-0014 RESOLUTION OFFERED PAGE 1 PAGE 114 PAGE 7 SUBJECT MATTER HOUSE TO ORDER - SPEAKER MADIGAN PAGE 1 PRAYER - REVEREND WILLIAM PECKHAN PAGE 1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PAGE 1 ROLL CALL FOR ATTENDANCE PAGE 1 RECESS PAGE 7 HOUSE RECONVENES - SPEAKER MADIGAN IN CHAIR PAGE 7 AGREED RESOLUTIONS PAGE 114 DEATH RESOLUTION PAGE 115 GENERAL RESOLUTIONS PAGE 116 DEATH RESOLUTION PAGE 119 ADJOURNMENT PAGE 122