Illinois House Floor Debate — June 28, 1984

"The hour of 10:00 having arrived, the House will be in order. Members will be at their seats. The Chaplain for today will be the Reverend Don Glenn, Pastor of Wesleyan Church of Broadview. Reverend Glenn is a guest of Representative Judy Topinka. Will the guests in the gallery please rise for the invocation? Reverend Glenn."

"A word on prayer by 'Irving T. Holmes', who avows and we agree, that to pray is to listen, is to intend to hear God and to respond to God. Prayer is a consent that is grounded in the expectation that God speaks to us and we can hear. This expectation is what we mean by faith. Let us, in that expectation, pray. Lord God, in the rigors and demands of our business, in the casualness of our leisure when we have it, give us pause to hear Your voice and the courage and grace to heed Your counsel and directives. As leaders for mankind, may we follow Your precepts and express Your unconditional love for all. In the name of Your Son, Our Savior, we pray. Amen."

"Representative Ropp will lead us in the pledge to the flag."

"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. Clerk, take the record. 118 Members having responded, a quorum is present. Agreed Resolutions."

"House Resolution 1127 offered by Representative Brookins et al."

"The Gentleman from Lake, Mr. Matijevich, on the Resolution."

"Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, House 1  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 Resolution 1127, Brookins, congratulates Rose Ann Pinn for having been crowned Miss Black Springfield, the first to be so crowned at a pagent, and I move the adoption of the Agreed Resolution."

"The Gentleman from Lake moves for the adoption of the Agreed Resolutions. All in favor signify by saying 'aye', those opposed 'no'. In the opinion of the Chair, the 'ayes' have it, and the Resolution is adopted. On page two of the Calendar, on the Order of Concurrence, we will proceed with concurrences other than appropriation Bills. On the Order of Concurrence, page two of the Calendar appears House Bill 598, Ms. Braun. Out of the record. On the Order of Concurrences, on page two of the Calendar appears House Bill 1563, Mr. McGann. Out of the record. On the Order of Concurrences appears House Bill 1658, Ms. Braun. Out of the record. On the Order of Concurrence, on page three of the Calendar appears House Bill 2296, Mr. Hallock. Hallock. Out of the... Out of the record. On the Order of Concurrence, on page three of the Calendar appears House Bill 2381, Mr. Hannig. 2381 out of the record. Alright. We will change the Order of Business and go to the Order of House Bills Third Reading, on page two of the Calendar. On the Order of House Bills Third Reading, page two of the Calendar appears House Bill 2350. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill. 2350."

"House Bill 2350, a Bill for an Act to amend Sections of the Illinois Public Aid Code. Third Reading of the Bill."

"The Lady from Cook, Ms. Currie."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. A year ago at this time, we found that the budgetary availabilities in the State of Illinois were not sufficient to lift and impose 500 dollar cap on general assistance 2  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 hospital stays. We know that our budget this coming year is still in somewhat... shape. The Governor, however, has announced that in terms of the Public Aid budget and in terms of his commitment to people who do provide care for the poor people of this state, it is one of his high priorities to find the money as soon as that money is available in order to lift the 500 dollar cap, that presently means any hospital that takes someone who is on the general assistance rolls can be reimbursed no more than 500 dollars for providing any kind of hospital inpatient service. Our program with House Bill 2350 is to move this Bill which would lift the 500 dollar cap, would in effect permit the Department of Public Aid to reimburse hospitals that provide this care for general assistance recipients at the standard and customary rates. Move this Bill now this spring over to the Senate where under our agreement we will wait until the fall Veto Session when the Governor and when the Members of the General Assembly have a better perception of what revenues will be available so that we will have a clear idea whether we can lift the cap as of January 1st, 1985. I'm happy to answer any questions, and I would appreciate your support for House Bill 2350."

"The Lady from Cook has moved for the passage of House Bill 2350. And on that, is there any discussion? The Gentleman from Lake, Mr. Matijevich."

"Well, I'm going to support Barbara, but I thought the Membership ought to know hiding right next to her is her brother, Terry Flynn, so I think we ought to introduce her brother. Your sister does a great job here, Terry."

"The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Bowman. The Gentleman from McLean, Mr. Ropp."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess just a question. According to our analysis, one of the reasons for this is 3  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 it states that by lifting the cap if the cap... if the costs are exceeding the cap, hospitals have to absorb that cost. I didn't think hospitals actually absorbed any cost. I thought most generally it were those private pay people who ended up subsidizing the cost. Is that correct or incorrect?"

"Well, I think it's a question better addressed to your staff analysis... your staff analyst or to the hospitals themselves. Certainly it's going to require the hospitals... It is... Refer the question to your staff analyst, Representative Ropp, or to the local hospitals in your district. We know that the hospitals cannot provide hospital stays at 500 dollars for the entire week, two weeks or whatever it may take. How they shift that cost is not... not addressed in House Bill 2350."

"Okay. Thank you."

"The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Huff."

"Thank you. Will the Sponsor yield for a question?"

"Indicates she will."

"Representative Flynn (sic - Flynn Currie), you're mentioning that you're going to lift the cap on the... on the what, general assistance, medical assistance?"

"It is only with respect to recipients of general assistance, that category of Public Aid people... that right now the Department of Public Aid is prohibited from reimbursing hospitals for more than 500 dollars for any individual hospital stay no matter how lengthy."

"To the Bill."

"Yes, proceed, Mr. Huff."

"I... I know Representative Flynn (sic - Flynn Currie) is a member of the Public Aid Advisory Council... Committee, such as... So am I. And I know she's worked long and hard, and I think this Bill deserves our support." 4  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984

"The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Levin."

"Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I would rise in support of House Bill 2350. If there's one piece of legislation that has a very direct effect on the constituents in my district who live particularly in uptown, it is this Bill. They have been tremendously hard hit by the cap, and the result has not only been financial but has had a horrendous effect on the health and safety of many, many individuals. I've had many people who have come to me. I've attended many meetings and have heard tremendous horror stories of the consequences of the 500 dollar cap. I wish we could put this on the Governor's desk right now, but this is the first step. And I commend this Bill to this Assembly."

"The Gentleman from DeWitt, Mr. Vinson."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Assembly. I rise in support of the Lady's Motion on House Bill 2350. I believe that the problem that the cap has created is very real. I do not believe there is sufficient money to address the situation at this time. But the Lady, in a spirit of compromise and cooperation, has put in a deferred effective date. She has agreed to move the Bill to the Senate and hold it there until the Fall Session. And for those reasons and to try to address the problem that is created by this cap, to try to get it resolved and particularly because of the Lady's spirit of cooperation in this matter, I would urge an 'aye' vote."

"There being no further discussion, the question is, 'Shall this Bill pass?' All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', those opposed vote 'no'. Voting is now open. This is final action. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this Bill, there are 111 voting 'aye', none voting 'no', none voting 5  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 'present'. This Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. Alright. We will begin again at the... Taking it from the top, as it were, in concurrences, on page two, on the Order of Concurrence appears House Bill 598, 598. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"House Bill 598, a Bill for an Act to amend the Illinois Public Aid Code, together with Senate Amendment #1."

"The Lady from Cook, Ms. Braun."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I move that we do nonconcur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 598. This is a Public Aid Bill. There is some corrections that the Department needs to have, and so I move to... in that Amendment that needs to be made. So I, therefore, move to nonconcur in Senate Amendment #1."

"The Lady from Cook has moved that the House do nonconcur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 598. On that, is there any discussion? There being none, the question is, 'Shall the House nonconcur?' All those in favor signi... with Amendment #1... All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', those opposed 'no'. In the opinion of the Chair, the 'ayes' have it, and the House does nonconcur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 598. On the Order of Concurrence, House Bill 1563, Mr. McGann. Out of the record. On the Order of House... of Concurrence appears House Bill 1658. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"House Bill 1658, a Bill for an Act to amend the Illinois Public Aid Code, together with Senate Amendment #1."

"The Lady from Cook, Ms. Braun."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. For similar reasons as expressed on the last Bill to which I spoke, I move to nonconcur in Senate Amendment 6  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 #1 to House Bill 1658."

"The Lady moves that the House do nonconcur in Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 1658. And on that, is there any discussion? There being none, the question is, 'Shall the House nonconcur in Senate Amendment 1?' All in favor signify by saying 'aye', those opposed 'no'. In the opinion of the Chair, the 'ayes' have it, and the House does nonconcur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 15..., 1658. Yes, Mr. Brookins, for what purpose do you seek recognition?"

"On House Bill 2350, I'd like leave to be registered as voting 'aye'. My button wasn't working."

"Alright. Mr. Brookins, it will be noted in the Journal. Your..., Your vote... Your affirmative vote will be noted in the Journal. On the Order of Concurrence appears House Bill 2296. Mr. Hallock, do you wish to proceed? Out of the record. On the Order of Concurrence appears House Bill 2381. Mr. Hannig, 2381. Still out of the record? Alright. On the Order of Concurrence appears House Bill 2388. This Bill... This Bill is subject to the State Mandates Act. Mr. Ewing, do you wish to proceed? Mr. Ewing in the chamber? Out of the record. On the Order of Concurrence appears House Bill 2395. Out of the record. On the Order of Concurrence appears House Bill 2534, Mr. Van Duyne. Yes, Mr. Van Duyne, 2534. Would you like to do that?"

"Mr. Speaker, I've been waiting with baited breath for four weeks. Anyway, seriously..."

"Mr. Van Duyne, I'd like to have the Bill read if you'd like to do it. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"House Bill 2534, a Bill for an Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act and the Illinois Environmental Facilities Financing Act, together with Senate Amendment 7  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 #1."

"The Gentleman from Will, Mr. Van Duyne."

"Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. The people from Getty Oil, I'd like to state, aren't too happy with the idea that Waste Management forced them into accepting this Amendment. But, nevertheless, they have accepted it, and I move for concurrence."

"The Gentleman from Will has moved that the House do concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 2534. And on that, is there any discussion? The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Piel."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Gentleman said he wasn't... they weren't too happy with it, but he didn't even tell us what the Amendment does. If we're concurring on final action, would he please go through it?"

"Yes. Actually, it just changes... deletes one complete Section. If you want me to, I'll read it to you. It's the Section on page 12 which states... the paragraph is designated (fff), and it... says, 'specified air contaminant', end quotes, 'means any contaminant as to which the air pollution control regulations of the board contain emission standards or the other specific limitation'. And that is deleted completely. And then (fff) is moved down to take the place of (ggg), and it says, 'landfill gas recovery facility', quotes, 'means any facility which recovers and processes landfill gas from sanitary landfill or waste disposal site', and then the rest of that paragraph is deleted. So the period is right after 'site'. That's all. I really see nothing which is all that earthshaking about it, and I can't really understand what the... all the fight was about. But, nevertheless, that's it. And it really does not change the Bill substantially at all." 8  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984

"Thank you very much."

"The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Leverenz."

"The Gentleman yield?"

"Indicates that he'll yield for a question. Proceed."

"Why did you only name Getty Oil and Waste Management? What is the tie-in between those two? Is this a special interest Bill?"

"Well, you know, if you're asking... asking the question seriously, I will answer you seriously."

"Well, I am."

"The Bill has to do with Getty Oil going in and drilling for methanol gas..."

"They don't drill for methanol gas."

"They extract. How does that suit you?"

"Yeah."

"They extract methanol gas from landfills, and, of course, around our area Waste Management owns most, if not all, of the landfills. And, of course, they wanted to protect themselves in case they ever wanted to go into that business too, you see. So truthfully, I don't see any argument, because after all, if they own the landfill, they must give the person who is going to extract the gas their permission. So truthfully, I don't understand what the real confusion was."

"Okay. Well, I've... I've noticed Getty sneakily adding things to this Bill and that Bill, and every time the name Getty comes up I have a little interest because I have a quarry being used for a landfill too. They just changed the definition of a well-head specifically for Getty in a different Bill. Thank you."

"Further discussion? There being none, the question is, 'Shall the House concur in Senate Amendment #1 9  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 29th, 1984 to House Bill 2534? All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', those opposed vote 'no'. Voting is now open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 112 voting 'aye', none voting 'no', 3 voting 'present', and the House does concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 2534. And this Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. On the Order of Concurrence appears House Bill 2600, Mr. Bullock. Mr. Bullock. Out of the record. On the Order of Concurrence appears House Bill 2605, Mr. Stuffle. Mr. Stuffle. Out of the record. On the Order of Concurrence appears... appears House Bill 2775, Mr. Capparelli. 2775. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"House Bill 2775, a Bill for an Act to amend an Act..."

"Mr. Clerk, I think he'd like to take that out of the record. On the Order of Concurrence appears House Bill 2783. Alright. This Bill is subject to the State Mandates Act. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"House Bill 27..."

"May be subject to the State Mandates Act, Mr. Capparelli. Proceed, Mr. Clerk. Read the Bill."

"House Bill 2783, a Bill for an Act to amend the Revenue Act, together with Senate Amendment #1."

"The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Capparelli."

"Mr. Speaker, first of all, it's not subject to the State Mandates Act. On page 1244 of our book, the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs says that does not create a reimbursable mandate, it is not necessarily a Mandates Act. Second of all, I do concur with the House... Senate Amendment. The Senate Amendment #1 speeds up the process for getting delinquent taxes back on the rolls, and I move to concur." 10  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984

"The Gentleman from Cook has moved that the House do concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 2783. And on that, is there any discussion? The Lady from Cook, Ms. Pullen."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to ask a question or two."

"The Gentleman will yield for a question."

"Is the underlying Bill still in this?"

"What's that, Penny? I didn't hear you."

"Is the underlying Bill still there? You said a sketchy couple of remarks about the Amendment, but..."

"Oh, yes. The original Bill... The original Bill increases the fee from 20 to 30 dollars on redemption of tax delinquent property. It's still there."

"Excuse me. Increases what?"

"From 20 to 30 dollar fee."

"For what?"

"For the redemption... Increases the fee for certificate of purchase of tax delinquent property from 20 dollars in Cook County to 30 dollars."

"Thank you. And what is the Amendment?"

"The Amendment will speed up those delinquent taxes so they will be back on the tax rolls."

"My analysis indicates that the Amendment provides that redemptions under protest must be based on grounds relating to the performance of the duties of the tax deed petitioner."

"Exactly. In other words, what they're saying is that those delinquent taxes are bought.. The person... responsible for any reduction since that process has been passed... can no longer go before the... tax appeals or before the Board of Review, that that part of that process is... will be on that person who buys the tax delinquent 11  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 and no longer on the petitioner. And so it will speed up the process."

"Thank you."

"There being no further discussion, the question is, 'Shall the House concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 2783?' All in favor signify by voting 'aye', those opposed vote 'no'. This is final action. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 71 voting 'aye', 34 voting 'no', none 'present', and the House does concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 2783. And this Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. On the Order of Concurrence appears House Bill 3036. Ms. Breslin, did you wish to proceed on 3036? Out of the record. On the Order of Concurrence appears House Bill 3041. Mr. Keane, do you wish... Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"House Bill 3041, a Bill for an Act to create the Hazardous Waste Technology Exchange Service Act, together with Senate Amendments #1 and 2."

"The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Keane."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move to concur with Senate Amendments #1 and 2 to House Bill 3041. Senate Amendment #1 dele... deleted everything in the Bill and substituted a special waste stream application fee and a special waste hauling permit fee. And it specified that those fees would be deposited in the... in the Hazardous Waste Research Fund. Amendment #2 changes those... It was... The fee was 250 dollars for the waste hauling permit fee and 25 dollars for the waste stream application fee. Amendment #2 did away with the 25 dollars for the special waste stream application, reduced the fee for the special waste hauling to 100 dollars for each permit. It's my understanding that 12  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 all parties involved, the large and small waste haulers, have agreed to this Bill, and I would be happy to answer any questions and ask for a favorable Roll Call."

"The Gentleman from Cook moves that the House do concur in Senate Amendments #1 and 2 to House Bill 3041. Is there any discussion? The Lady from Marshall, Ms. Koehler."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Would the Sponsor please yield for a question?"

"Indicates he will."

"Well, thank you. Representative Keane, perhaps you might tell us while the entire... why the Hazardous Waste Technology Service Act was stricken from this."

"Could you repeat that? I don't understand your question."

"From reading the print out, the computer print out here, it seems as if the Senate Amendment #1... stricken the... the Hazardous Waste Technology Exchange. Perhaps you might tell us why that is... why that was stricken."

"It's my understanding that that passed... similar Bill. We had companion Bills that were introduced in both the Senate and the House at the same time. It is my understanding that the... that the House... the Senate Bill is passed, and the Bill that we sent over there was no longer necessary."

"Okay, so we still have the Bill alive that does create that hazardous waste exchange."

"The Senate Bill."

"The Senate Bill."

"Yes."

"Alright, so this one... this Bill... the Senate Amendment #1 does indeed stricken the exchange and leaves only the fee portion. Is that correct?" 13  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1994

"Right. Well, the Amendment deletes everything after the enacting clause and puts in those fees."

"Okay. Thank you very much."

"Thank you."

"The Gentleman from Marion, Mr. Friedrich. There being no further discussion, the question is, 'Shall the House concur in Senate Amendments #1 and 2 to House Bill 3041?' All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', those opposed vote 'no'. This is final action. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 110 voting 'aye', none voting 'no', none voting 'present', and the House does concur in Senate Amendments 1 and 2 to House Bill 3041. And this Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. For what purpose does the Lady from Cook, Ms. Barnes, seek recognition?"

"Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I move to concur in the Senate Amendment..."

"Mr... On the Order of Concurrence appears House Bill 3042. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"House Bill 3042, a Bill for an Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act, together with Senate Amendment #1."

"The Lady from Cook, Ms. Barnes, now."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I move to concur in the Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3042, and it requires a date that they shall repeal any existing rules or regulations of January 1st, 1986, which allows time for House Bill 3180 which calls for the study of special waste proposed. I would move for concurrence."

"The Lady from Cook has moved that the House do concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3042. There 14  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 being no discussion, the question is, 'Shall the House concur in Senate Amendment #1?' All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', those opposed vote 'no'. This is final action. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 114 voting 'aye', none voting 'no', none voting 'present', and the House does concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3042. And this Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. On the Order of Concurrence appears House Bill 3057, Mr. Curran. Mr. Curran in the chamber? Out of the record. Oh, Mr. Curran, okay. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"House Bill 3057, a Bill for an Act to amend the Health and Safety Act, together with Senate Amendment #1."

"The Gentleman from Sangamon, Mr. Curran."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move to nonconcur in Senate Amendment #1 so this Bill can get to a Conference Committee."

"The Gentleman from Sangamon has moved that the House nonconcur to Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3057. And on that, is there any discussion? The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Cullerton. Mr. Cullerton, no? Alright. The Gentleman from Adams, Mr. Mays."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Sponsor."

"He'll yield for a question."

"I see that this Amendment simply adds an effective date for the Act, and we did... It makes it effective January 1 of '85. We put in an appropriation to implement this Act for a half year's funding this year. What seems to be the problem?"

"The problem is the City of Chicago."

"Can you explain?"

"The City of Chicago feels they need more time to 15  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 determine how this Bill is going to affect them, and we have given them assurance that we would move to nonconcur so this Bill could be put in Conference Committee."

"So what you're anticipating, then, is that the Conference Committee Report would then come out to delay it another six months?"

"Jeff, at this point I have no way of anticipating. If you had been in on the meetings with me, you'd know that there's just no way to understand what they're going to be doing in the next two or three days. But we felt... it was the only way to keep the Bill alive is to agree to nonconcur at this point."

"To the nonconcurrence Motion. I'm going to go ahead and support the Gentleman on this Motion; however, should this come back eliminating its application to the City of Chicago, I think we will oppose."

"There being no further discussion, the question is, 'Shall the House nonconcur in Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 3057?' And on that, all those in favor signify by saying 'aye', those opposed say 'no'. In the opinion of the Chair, the 'ayes' have it, and the House does nonconcur in Senate Amendment #1. On the Order of Concurrence, on page six of the Calendar appears House Bill 3059, Mr. Brunsvold. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"House Bill 3059, a Bill for an Act to amend an Act in relation to airport authorities, together with Senate Amendment #1 and 2."

"The Gentleman from Rock Island, Mr. Brunsvold."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. The original Bill 3059 specified clarification of the statutes regarding the refunding of revenue and general obligation bonds by airport authorities, and the language was recommended by 'Chapman and Cutler' to clarify some..." 16  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 some implications in the statutes. Amendment #1 simply tightens up the Bill and allows for the appointment of a trustee on behalf of the bond holders. Amendment #2 states that in the event the failure to pay the principle, or the premium, or the interest, that the bonds would become automatically due. Now this is... from what I've talked to my bond counsel, this is normal procedures for the marketability of the bonds. And I would ask for concurrence."

"The Gentleman from Rock Island moves that the House do concur in Senate Amendment #1 and 2 to House Bill 3059. There being no discussion, the question is, 'Shall the House concur in Senate Amendments #1 and 2?' This is final action. All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', those opposed vote 'no'. Final action. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 112 voting 'aye', none voting 'no', none voting 'present', and the House does concur in Senate Amendments #1 and 2 to House Bill 3059. And this Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. On the Order of Concurrence appears House Bill 3060. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"House Bill 3060, a Bill for an Act to amend an Act relating to Midwest Interstate Compact on Low-Level Radioactive Waste, together with Senate Amendments #1, 2 and 3."

"The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Marzuki."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I may have your attention, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I would move to nonconcur in Amendments 1, 2 and 3 to House Bill 3060. I think that this needs a brief explanation at this time. As you remember, this Bill started out in the House purely as a vehicle to replace the original Midwest Compact Bill. We 17  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 have developed out of this what is now known as the Central Midwest Interstate Compact on Low-Level Radioactive Waste, which essentially involves Illinois and Kentucky. What this will do is to allow Illinois to be a member of a compact, thereby prohibiting shipment of waste from any other state. Without being a member of a compact, we would have to face this problem. The Compact, as it now stands, follows very closely the conditions of the original Midwest Compact. However, Illinois automatically becomes the host state in this Compact; whereas, before, it was only assumed that we would be the host state. The Act provides an important difference in the Midwest Compact in that most of the Amendments that we put on this in the Senate and the House are included here. We have the ability to hold public hearings. There will be a... ability of the Legislature to approve contracts that would involve anyone from out of state. I think that... I think that what I will do here... I think you can read this good Bill. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. Amendment #2 deals with certain charges to generators. This has caused some problems, and Amendment #3 needs to be looked at a little bit. Essentially, we will bring this Compact back in the same form. There will be minor changes in the definition of generators. There will be, perhaps, substantial changes in Amendment 2, but otherwise, it is our intention to bring this Bill back as amended. At... At this time I would move for nonconcurrence on all three Amendments."

"The Gentleman from Cook moves that the House do nonconcur in Senate Amendments #1, 2 and 3 to House Bill 3060. On that, is there any discussion? The Gentleman from Lake, Mr. Pierce."

"Mr. Speaker, will the Gentleman yield to a question?" 18  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984

"Indicates he will."

"Did I hear you say that last year when we passed the Midwest Compact out of here sponsored by Representative Nelson, myself, with a trailer Bill by Representative Currie taking care of low-level nuclear waste, there were to be eight states in it, and it was maybe a 50-50 chance Illinois might be the host state. Is that right?"

"I would say that the chances were about like 99%."

"Well, that's what you argued. You argued that if we passed that Bill we'd be the host state, and you were against that Compact so we wouldn't be the host state. Now, you... you say that you're going to support a compact with Kentucky that guarantees that we're going to be the host state 100%, 101% that Illinois would be the host state for low-level nuclear waste. Is that what you've done to us over in the Senate, and you're supporting that?"

"Absolutely. I think that all of us recognize that as the primary generator of low-level hazardous waste not only do we have the responsibility for dealing with this waste, but that it was highly likely that we would become the host state and furthermore..."

"He's answered the question. I will just say this, I don't go along with his Motion. But last year, those of us, Representative Nelson and the rest of us who so bravely support the Midwest Compact, said there was only... there was a good chance, we admitted it, that we'd be the host state, but there's also a good chance that we wouldn't be. And we were criticized by... by many Members for the possibility even that Illinois would be the host state of the low-level nuclear waste site. And then it gets to the Senate, and those very same people desecrate the Midwest Compact - which about six states have only ratified, come up with a weird compact with Kentucky... only in Illinois 19  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 which absolutely guarantees we're going to be the host state. It seems to me that we had the wool pulled over our eyes over in the Senate and that the Motion can't be argued with. He's going to put it in a Conference Committee, and I hope when it comes out of the Conference Committee we're back to the Midwest... Midwest Compact with our sister states of Michigan, Indiana, Iowa, Wisconsin and so on that Representative Nelson so bravely and courageously passed last year. And I hope that's the result from this Conference Committee. So we should all support the nonconcurrence Motion."

"The Lady from DuPage, Ms. Nelson."

"Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Of course, I agree with Representative Pierce who is right on target, and I would like the Assembly to know that I do agree with the Motion to nonconcur because what is in the Senate Amendments to the present Bill are... is, in particular, one method for Illinois to simply go it alone. Kentucky is being used by the State of Illinois simply to help us avoid a court decision that would bring to Illinois wastes from other sections of the country. I do not believe that the Senate version is the best version for Illinois, because obviously, as Representative Pierce has stated, we find ourselves the host state in perpetuity. And I would urge all Members to nonconcur with the hope that we may yet work out a more reasonable solution to low-level nuclear waste disposal."

"The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Levin."

"Would the Sponsor yield for questions?"

"Indicates he'll yield."

"Okay. Representative Marzuki, what is the position on as far as nonconcurrence of the business and professional 20  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 people for the public interest? I know Howard 'Learner' has been very much involved in this, and does he want nonconcur or not?"

"I'm certain that they support this. They certainly support the Illinois - Kentucky Compact and were very instrumental in making this the new Compact of which we will be a member - this very good Compact, Representative. And with the protections that we had asked to be built into this thing, we now have them, despite what some of the previous speakers have said. The fact that we do not have to accept the waste from nine other states is another plus factor. So I would assume that there has not been time to contact the BPI at this moment on nonconcurrence because we have a couple of technical problems. But essentially, you will get the Bill back as you have read it, Representative."

"Okay. Okay."

"The question is, 'Shall the House nonconcur in Senate Amendments 1, 2 and 3 to House Bill 3060?' On that, all those in favor signify by saying 'aye', those opposed say 'no'. In the opinion of the Chair, the 'ayes' have it, and the House does nonconcur in Senate Amendments #1, 2 and 3 to House Bill 3060. On the Order of Concurrence appears House Bill 3067. Out of the record. On the Order of Concurrence appears House Bill 3069, Mr. Ewing. Mr. Ewing, you wish to proceed? Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"House Bill 3069, a Bill for an Act in relation to the collection of the state taxes, together with Senate Amendments #1, 2, 3 and 4."

"The Gentleman from Livingston, Mr. Ewing."

"Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, this is the... The last two Bills or what turns into being the last two Bills of the Governor's STEP Program and that is Stop 21  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 Tax Evasion. And what has happened here in the Senate is, we passed out of this House all three of the... of the Bills. The first of the Bills - 3062 - was objected to by the Illinois Retail Merchants, the Petroleum Marketing Groups, and it failed in the Senate. An agreement was worked out in the Senate and then that Bill, as amended to conform with the wishes of the... of the Illinois Retail Merchants and the Petroleum Marketing Groups, was added on as Amendment #1. And I would move to concur in that Amendment."

"The Gentleman from Livingston moves that..."

"Do... Do you want to take all the Amendments?"

"Well, you going to concur..."

"In all Amendments."

"...in all the Amendments."

"Yes."

"Well, we'll take them all together, so why don't you just go ahead."

"Alright. Number 2 is... is a very technical Amendment suggested by the Retail Merchants which clarifies the statute of limitations. Amendment #3, again offered by the Illinois Retail Merchants, provides that sales tax, if due... if accounts receivable are sold to a wholly owned subsidiary that the tax doesn't become due until collected by the subsidiary. Amendment #4 has provisions relating to prepaid sales tax on motor fuel to incorporate suggestions of the Petroleum Group which says that the tax is to be collected on the... not the date it's billed, but the date it's collected... date it's billed, and that's the way other gas tax is provided. It also accelerates payment of prepaid taxes for retailers with free collections of more than 10 thousand. And that limits the number this applies to down from, it was 700 as originally written down, to 60. 22  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 And I would move for the adoption of these Amendments."

"The Gentleman from Livingston moves the House concur in Senate Amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4 to House Bill 3069. Is there any discussion? There being none, the question is, 'Shall the House concur in Senate Amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4 to House Bill 3069?' All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', those opposed vote 'no'. Voting is now open. This is final action. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 116 voting 'aye', none voting 'no', none voting 'present', and the House does concur in Senate Amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4 to House Bill 3069. And this Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. On the Order of Concurrence appears House Bill 3072. Mr. Brunsvold, do you wish to proceed on 3072? Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"House Bill 3072, a Bill for an Act to amend the Medical Practice Act, together with Senate Amendment #1."

"The Gentleman from Rock Island, Mr. Brunsvold."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. The original Bill amended the Medical Practices Act to specify advertising procedures by physicians. Amendment in the Senate was put on by R and E which clarified: 1, the raise from six to nine months, the length of time for reciprocity candidates physicians to take their test. Right now the test is given every six months, and the six month period was not deemed long enough for them to schedule the test and get it completed. Also, it changes the fee language and simply indicated that the designee send the... the designated testing firm both the application processing fee be sent with the testing forms. And it also added that maybe a 25 dollar fee may be required by... for certification and registration. So with 23  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 that, I move for concurrence with Senate Amendment 1."

"The Gentleman from Rock Island moves that the House does concur in Senate Amendments #1 to House Bill 3072. On that, is there any discussion? The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Cullerton."

"Yes, would the Sponsor yield?"

"Indicates he'll yield for a question."

"Could you explain specifically what the Senate did to your Bill? How did they change your Bill?"

"The original Bill was not changed. The R and E added Amendments... the Amendments... an Amendment to one change from six months to nine months the time a reciprocity candidate physician to take the the 'FLEX' test, which is an examination they have to take before they're certified in this state. And right now, the test is given only every six months, so the time element was not... was not enough, they felt..."

"Why is the statutory fee open?"

"Let me check here. R and E indicates that they left it open in case fees had to be changed. In the future, they won't have to go back and change the statutes again."

"What's the position of the Medical Society on the original Bill?"

"They were in agreement. They were in on drafting the original Bill."

"Did they read it?"

"Yes."

"Okay. Thank you."

"There being no further discussion, the question is, 'Shall the House concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3072?' And on that, all those in favor signify by voting 'aye', those opposed vote 'no'. Voting is now open. This is final action. Have all voted who wish? Have all 24  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 voted who wish? Mr. Mays, you're on. Have all voted who wish? Take the record. On this question, there are 114 voting 'aye', none voting 'no', none voting 'present', and the House does concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3072. And this Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. On the Order of Concurrence appears Senate... appears House Bill 3083. Mr. Vinson. Mr. Vinson. Out of the record. On the Order of Concurrence appears House Bill 3089. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"House Bill 3089, a Bill for an Act relating to reimbursement of counties for the salaries of assistant state's attorneys, together with Senate Amendment #1."

"The Gentleman from DeKalb, Mr. Countryman."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. House Bill 3089 is a cleanup Bill from the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs. Originally, it was intended to... it was intended to transfer from the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs to the Department of Corrections the function of reimbursement to counties for partial payment for state's attorneys, and it made a... a technical correction in the reimbursement in counties in which a mental health institution is located having a population of between 20 and 30 thousand from 8,000 to 4,000, to make that in line with the... with the reimbursement schedule. For some reason it was out of line. There are no counties in that category. But it will be a technical correction to make it in accordance with the others. For instance, a county with 20 thousand population has a reimbursement of 3,500. A county with over 30 thousand population is 4,500. So the 4,000 dollars would be in line. The Bill passed on the Consent Calendar, 108 to 3. The Senate put on an Amendment which is technical in 25  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 nature changing the effective date making it immediate, and I move that the House concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3089."

"The Gentleman from DeKalb has moved that the House do concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3089. And on that, the Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Cullerton. Alright. There being no discussion, the question is, 'Shall the House concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3089?' All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', those opposed vote 'no'. Voting is now open, and this is final action. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 114 voting 'aye', none voting 'no', none voting 'present', and the House does concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3089. And this Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. On the Order of Concurrence appears House Bill 3090. Mr. Hoffman, do you wish to proceed? Mr. Hoffman, on 3090? Out of the record. On the Order of Concurrence appears House Bill 3091. 3091, Mr. Daniels or Mr. Ryder. 3091. Well, we'll take it out of the record. On the Order of Concurrence appears House Bill 3092. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"House Bill 3092 amends the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Act, together with Senate Amendments #1, 2 and 3."

"The Gentleman from Adams, Mr. Mays."

"Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I move we concur in Senate Amendments #1, 2 and 3 to House Bill 3092. They leave the underlying Bill intact, and they add to the Bill, through these three Amendments, the three House Bills 2908, 2909 and 2910, which were killed in Senate Rules Committee. To the Bill. These Bills deal with the perinatal care 26  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 network that was to be set up. So I move concurrence on these three Amendments, and be happy to try to answer whatever questions I could."

"The Gentleman from Adams has moved that the House do concur in Senate Amendments #1, 2 and 3 to House Bill 3092. Is there any discussion? There being no discussion, the question is, 'Shall the House concur in Senate... Senate Amendments #1, 2 and 3?' All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', those opposed vote 'no'. Voting is now open, and this is final action. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. Mautino 'aye'. On this question, there are 111 voting 'aye', 2 voting 'no', 1 voting 'present', and the House does concur in Senate Amendments #1, 2 and 3 to House Bill 3092. And this Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. On the Order of Concurrence appears House Bill 3093. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"House Bill 3093 amends the State Employees' Group Insurance Act, together with Senate Amendments #1 and 2."

"The Lady from Sangamon, Ms. Oblinger."

"Mr. Speaker, I request nonconcurrence with Senate Amendments 1 and 2."

"The Lady from Sangamon moves that the House do nonconcur in Senate Amendments #1 and 2 to House Bill 3093. Is there any discussion? There being none, the question is, 'Shall the House nonconcur in Senate Amend... Senate Amendments #1 and 2 to House Bill 3093?' All in favor signify by saying 'aye', those opposed 'no'. In the opinion of the Chair, the 'ayes' have it, and the House does nonconcur in Senate Amendments 1 and 2 to House Bill 3093. On the Order of Concurrence appears House Bill 3099, Mr. Hoffman. Out of the... Mr. Hoffman, yes. Mr. Clerk, 27  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 read the Bill."

"House Bill 3099 amends the Unemployment Insurance Act, together with Senate Amendment #1."

"The Gentleman from DuPage, Mr. Hoffman."

"Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. The... I move for concurrence in... in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3099. The Senate Amendment changes the effective date from March 31st, '84 to January 5th, 1985. In the Republican analysis, it is incorrectly reported as January 5th, 1984, but it is, in fact, in the Amendment, 1985. The Amendment also clarifies the disqualification period applicable to employees of educational services in accordance with Federal Government conformity requirements; therefore, this Amendment makes only technical changes in the original House Bill which passed this Body, 106 to 0. This legislation, which is conformity legislation for BES, is supported by both labor and business, and I would move now that we concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3099."

"The Gentleman from DuPage moves the House do concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3099. On that, is there any discussion? The... The Lady from Sangamon. No? Alright. There being none, the question is, 'Shall the House...' The question is, 'Shall the House concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3099?' All those in favor... Yes, Mr. Tuerk. The Gentleman from Peoria, Mr. Tuerk."

"The Sponsor yield?"

"Indicates that he'll yield."

"My analysis of the Senate Amendment says it delays the effective date from March 31, '84... Oh, thank you. I got the answer."

"Alright. The question is, 'Shall the House 28  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3099? All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', those opposed vote 'no'. Voting is open. This is final action. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 115 voting 'aye', none voting 'no', 1 voting 'present', and the House does concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3099. And this Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. On the Order of Concurrence appears House Bill 3102. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"House Bill 3102 amends the Criminal Code, together with Senate Amendments #1 and 2."

"The Gentleman from Knox, Mr. Hawkinson."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move to concur in Senate Amendments #1 and Senate Amendment #2 to House Bill 3102. This was the Department of Law Enforcement Bill on gambling devices. Senator Sangmeister in Senate #1 had a provision, the objective of which is to make the forfeiture provisions apply to gambling devices used pursuant to the Lottery. This is an attempt to preempt the Lottery from adopting a system of using coin operated machines that will bar instant winners; however, our analysis indicates that the language may not fully accomplish that purpose. Senate Amendment #2 is a Department of Law Enforcement Amendment which changes... omits the words, 'seized and confiscated', and replaces them with the word, 'forfeiture', which provides that no person having a property interest in one of these devices can have the device forfeited without a full hearing. And I would move to concur in both Senate Amendment 1 and Senate Amendment #2 and be happy to answer any questions."

"The Gentleman from Knox has moved that the House do concur in Senate Amendments #1 and 2 to House Bill 29  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 3102. Is there any discussion? The Gentleman from Effingham, Mr. Brummer."

"Yes, I must have misunderstood. I..., I thought you indicated, and our analysis certainly indicates, that Senate Amendment #1 appears to do the reverse of what it's intended to do. Our... Our analysis indicates that Amendment #1 makes the Illinois Lottery devices subject to seizure under the Criminal Code, and the comment is that Amendment should read that Lottery devices are not subject to seizure."

"No. The intention in the Senate was to prohibit the Lottery from adopting these coin operated machines in bars which will have instante winners. And so their objective was to include them as a gambling device in that kind of instance. We have some question about whether that language actually accomplishes that objective and feel it's basically a harmless provision."

"Okay. Then Amendment #2 is really a technical Amendment."

"No, it is not completely technical. It substitutes the word, 'seize or confiscated,' with the word, 'forfeited', and what that..., in the Department of Law Enforcement, their indication was that without that change they felt they would be unable to seize evidence where only an agent of the lessee or an agent of the owner was involved in the... in the gambling."

"Okay. Now because this is... is final passage on this, assuming we concur, I would like to briefly review what the underlying Bill does. We had a great deal of discussion in Committee. We went through numerous Amendments, as I recall, on the House floor. Could you briefly state in the current condition with Amendments #1... Senate Amendments #1 and 2 on this, and if we concur, what this will do as it 30  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 goes to the Governor's desk? What... Which devices can be seized and whether the owner needs to know that they're being used for unlawful purposes or not?"

"The basic underlying Bill has not been changed. It adds the definition of a device to include a device which is actually used for unlawful gambling. The language that you were concerned about in Committee has still been taken care of. The provision provides for seizure; however, there can be no forfeiture of property against an owner or any person having any property interest in the property unless that person has been given a hearing."

"Well, and unless that person knew that it was being used for an unlawful purpose."

"That's right. There could be no forfeiture without that knowledge."

"Okay. Thank you. Thank you."

"The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Jaffe."

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

"Indicates he will."

"Yeah, as I read Amendment #1, I think that Amendment #1 could possibly knock out the Illinois Lottery Law. It said... And it's really just one sentence. And it said, 'This Section shall apply to any gambling device used pursuant to the Illinois Lottery Law.' How can you stand there and tell me, you know, that it doesn't pertain to the Illinois Lottery Law? It means any device. It means the device that kicks out tickets."

"Well, are you going to ask a question or give... give your..."

"I'm asking a question, because I... I just... I don't know how you can interpret it any other way."

"Well, I spoke with the Lottery because I didn't want to do what you're suggesting, and I had some concerns. 31  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 They had their attorneys look at it. They feel that the provision is basically meaningless as written, that the... that the Senate has not accomplished its objective. And furthermore, the definition of gambling device still contains the... the definition, 'incapable of lawful use,' or that it's unlawfully used. And since they have separate authority... The authority for the Lottery is not contained in this statute, Representative. And they feel that since the separate authority to do this is not affected, that they don't fall under this definition. But I shared your concern, and I did not want to move to concur if they had any concern about it. And they indicate that they do not."

"Well, why should we pass it if: (a), it's meaningless; and two, everybody is confused about its actual meaning. It seems as though what we're doing is passing out something that's just going to screw up the statutes further, and we're going to have to have 79 law cases to determine whether or not this particular piece of Amendment applies to the Illinois Lottery Law or doesn't. I think we'd be in better shape by... by really nonconcurring, going back, taking this off or clarifying it, rather than putting on an Amendment that, by your own standards, is either meaningless or... or is so, you know, everybody has a different interpretation of it. And I think if you read it, it says, this Section shall apply to any gambling device used pursuant to the Illinois Lottery Law. I think it's very clear, and I don't know how anybody else can come to any other conclusion. I think we ought to nonconcur in this, take this Amendment off. I think you've done a... a good job on the Bill and worked hard on it, but I think that all we're going to do is set up the statutes for another law case."

"The Gentleman from Lake, Mr. Matijevich." 32  STATE OF ILLINOIS 3RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984

"Well, I would agree with Representative Jaffe that, you know, we often have been criticized for muddling up the statute books and putting in too much verbiage that really doesn't mean anything. And this is one of those instances where I feel even by the admission of the Sponsor of the Bill that this is excess verbiage that... and can be wrongfully interpreted. So I would suggest to him that, as to that Amendment, that he nonconcur, and I would think that the Senate then would be wise in receding from that Amendment. I think that's the wiser course in this Bill."

"Yes, were you asking for division of the question, Mr. Matijevich?"

"Yes, I think we should have that division."

"Alright. Further discussion? Mr. Panayotovich. Mr. Matijevich has asked for a division of the question, Mr. Hawkinson, which is his right. So accordingly we will take Senate Amendment #1 first, if the Clerk would change the board. Mr. Hawkinson. Mr. Friedrich."

"Mr. Speaker, may I interrupt the proceedings just a minute to note the presence of a former distinguished Member of this Body, Clyde Lee, from Mt. Vernon, who is also manager of the Harness Racing Association after he left here. Clyde Lee from Mt. Vernon."

"Good morning, Mr. Lee. Any... Any further discussion? Mr. Hawkinson, the Gentleman from Knox, to close. And Mr. Knox... Mr. Hawkinson, the position is that there's been a request for a division of the question, and we will vote on Amendment #1 in concurrence and then Amendment #2. Alright. Mr... Mr. Hawkinson to close."

"That's fine. I would simply move for... to concur with Senate Amendment #1."

"The question is, 'Shall the House concur in 33  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3102? All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', those opposed vote 'no'. Voting is now open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 50 voting 'aye', 56 voting 'no', 2 voting 'present', and the House does not concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3102. Alright, now... Mr. Hawkinson now moves to nonconcur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3102. All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', those opposed 'no'. In the opinion of the Chair, the 'ayes' have it, and the House does nonconcur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3102. Now as to Senate Amendment #2, the question is, 'Shall the House concur in Senate Amendment #2 to House Bill 3102?' All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', those opposed vote 'no'. Voting is now open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 113 voting 'aye', none voting 'no', none voting 'present', and the House does concur in Senate Amendment #2 to House Bill 3102. On the Order of Concurrence appears House Bill 3110. Out of the record. On the Order of Concurrence appears House Bill 3123, Mr. Cullerton. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"House Bill 3123 amends an Act in relationship to the adoption of persons, together with Senate Amendment #2."

"The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Cullerton."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. This... This Bill deals with the adoption law. The Senate made some minor changes which I agree with and move to concur with those, Senate Amendment #2 to House Bill 3123. They increase the penalty for the unauthorized disclosure of any information filed in the Department of 34  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 Public Health Adoption Registry. They prohibit the Department of Public Health from charging any fee for the withdrawal of an adoption registration identification or information exchange authorization. And they also... The original Bill said that adoptees under 21 could apply for certain disclosure forms. This Amendment the Senate put on restricts such access to adoptees over 18. I would move to concur with the Senate Amendment #2."

"The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Cullerton, moves that the House do concur in Senate Amendment #2 to House Bill 3123. Is there any discussion? The Gentleman from Champaign, Mr. Johnson."

"However you feel about this issue, I think the Members ought to know what they're voting on because I think it's an important philosophical question. If you vote with Representative Cullerton to concur, you're really making a significant change in the purposes of the adoption law in Illinois. For years, I guess ever since we've had legal adoptions, the theory behind adoptions... one of the premises of the adoption system is the opportunity for the child and the parents to establish a new family and to obtain a fresh start, so to speak, with no ties with the past and with the relationship between parent and child being absolutely and totally the same as any other family. As matter of fact, the birth certificates are...are reissued and amended to reflect that. This Bill substantially retrenches that theory, because this Bill says now that after you're 21 that even without the consent of the adoptive parents, even without the consent of parents who for 21 years have raised a child as his or her own child and done everything with respect to nurturing and rearing the child, then everything that they need to do with respect to creating a new family, despite all that, 35  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 that without their consent, the child can go to this registry and obtain all the information about their, quote, 'natural parents'. I think that that really goes a long ways toward saying that we really don't have a fresh start, that the Adoption Act doesn't mean what it's meant for that many years, that what it really means is that you can do it in some cases and not in others, and you really have two sets of parents and so forth. Now the law clearly provides that now, under appropriate circumstances, and I know John won't do this, but some people have accidentally brought up the red herring before - what about their health, what about genetics, what about blood tests? You can do that now with a court order but not just whimsically and not just simply go in and obtain the records with... with no consent of the adoptive parents. I think it's important that any change in this law, if we need any at all, require the consent of the adoptive parents who spent 21, or 30 or 40 years rearing and nurturing a child as their own only to find out that the law says, well, you've really got two sets of parents. I don't think it's a good Bill, and however you feel about it, you ought to be prepared to vote on the philosophy of whether you believe the Adoption Act is what it's been for that many years or whether it ought to be radically altered."

"Further discussion? The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Cullerton, to close."

"Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I agree with some points may by Representative Johnson, that is that it's a significant Bill. When we talk about the adoption registry, we're talking about a mutually consenting biological parents and adoptee submitting their names to this registry so that information can be helpful in saving someone's life, 36  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 for example, information about medical problems, genetic problems, can be obtained and be disseminated to these mutually consenting parties. That's why it's a significant Bill. I understand that it's emotional for some people. It's also very important - The change in the law that is necessary. The Senate Amendments are really almost technical in nature. His objection is to the Bill which passed overwhelmingly in the House when we first passed it, and I would suggest that we should pass this Bill overwhelmingly one more time."

"The question is, 'Shall the House concur in Senate Amendment #2 to House Bill 3123?' All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', those opposed vote 'no'. Voting is now open. This is final action. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 91 voting 'aye', 18 voting 'no', 3 voting 'present', and the House does concur... Mr. Leverenz. Leverenz 'aye'. On this question, there are 92 voting 'aye', 18 voting 'no', 3 voting 'present', and the House does concur in Senate Amendment #2 to House Bill 3123. And this Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. Representative Madigan in the Chair."

"On page two of the Calendar, on the Order of Senate Bills Second Reading, there appears Senate Bill 1893. Mr. Clerk, has that Bill been read a second time?"

"Senate Bill 1893 has been read a second time previously."

"Are there any Amendments?"

"Amendments #1 and 2 lost in Committee. Floor Amendment #3, Bullock - Nash - Currie, amends Senate Bill 1893 by deleting everything after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof the following." 37  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984

"Mr. Clerk, what did you say relative to Amendments #1 and 2?"

"Amendments #1 and 2 lost in Committee."

"Amendment #3. Who is the Sponsor of the Amendment?"

"Bullock, Nash and Currie."

"Mr. Bullock."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Senate Amendment #3 to... House Amendment #3 to Senate Bill 1893 is an Amendment that attempts to put into place, for the State of Illinois, the Illinois Tourism Fund. This Amendment is intended to provide funding for the McCormick Place expansion for the establishment of a Tourism Fund in the State of Illinois - Statewide Tourism Program. It also is intended to provide funds for downstate civic centers and promotional subsidy therein. It also is attempting to provide one year funding for the Chicago 1992 World's Fair Authority. This Amendment, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, has several features which are different from the plan that we received from the Senate, and I'd like to briefly enunciate the differences in this plan as opposed to the plan that was sent to us from the Senate. In this plan, for instance, we still rely on a new one percent hotel/motel tax statewide similar to that provided in the Senate Republican plan. And in this plan we also provide for the dedication of two percent of existing of five percent statewide hotel/motel tax or forty percent of that tax similar to the Senate plan. And in this plan we rely on the race track or the horse racing privilege tax, 1.7 million per year for McCormick place expansion, similar or identical to the Senate plan. But significantly, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, Amendment #3 does not rely on the 38  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 discriminatory food tax in the Senate Republican plan. The discriminatory food tax is not in this plan, but instead we attempt to rely on the dedication of two percent of the existing statewide hotel/motel tax effective in FY '86. And finally in the revenue stream of this particular plan, we're asking the municipality that would perhaps benefit the most from expanded economic benefits associated with the expansion of the McCormick Place, and new tourism and perhaps ultimately a World's Fair, we're asking the municipality of the City of Chicago to provide one million dollar funding in FY '85, and in FY '86 and beyond, for two million dollars. Mr. Speaker, in this plan we also have reduced expenditures. In the first year, FY' 85, for McCormick Place, this proposal, Amendment #3, would provide only 12 million dollars for the expansion of McCormick Place as opposed to the Senate plan of 15 million dollars, thus there's a three million dollar savings in FY '85. In this plan we provide eight million dollars for our Statewide Tourism Fund, unlike the Senate plan which asks for 10 million dollars, thus a two million dollar savings. But in this plan we recognize that downstate civic centers are in dire need of support for their promotional programs, and so we're providing two million dollars in FY '85 for downstate civic centers' promotional subsidy. So there's a net of three million thus far that we are reducing in this expenditure plan. The 1992 World's Fair proposal in this particular Amendment, we're providing only five million dollars for the first year for funding, unlike the Senate plan which requested 8.8 million dollars. Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, we would show, in FY '85 expenditures under this Amendment, 27 million dollars of expenditure. We would have 27 million dollars of revenue in the first year. In summary, on Amendment #3, Mr. 39  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, the Sponsors of this Amendment, Representatives Nash and Currie, we believe that the expanded economic benefits to the State of Illinois, for example, of McCormick Place after one year of completion, that benefit would be 31 million dollars to the state and possibly six million dollars to the county, 50% of that to the City of Chicago. We also find that under McCormick Place expansion that the state would get 47 million dollars of expanded economic benefit in the first year."

"Mr. Bullock. Excuse me for one second. For what purpose does Mr. Mulcahey seek recognition?"

"For a point of order, Mr. Speaker."

"State your point."

"Mr. Speaker, about two days ago I filed a Motion relevant to House Bill... Senate Bill 1893, and it seems to me to be in order that that Motion shall be called before Amendments. According to the rules, Motions do have precedent over Amendments."

"Mr. Mulcahey, your point is well taken. And on page nine of the Calendar, on the Order of Motions, there appears a Motion relative to Senate Bill 1893 by Mr. Mulcahey. And on that question, the Chair recognizes Mr. Mulcahey."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. As a Member of this Committee for the past year, Mr. Speaker and Members, I have had the opportunity to look at the consequences and look at the ramifications of what would happen if this particular piece of legislation would pass. This Motion strikes everything after the enacting clause. In as much as a number of Amendments were attempted by me in that particular Committee to make this Bill palatable for everybody, including those downstate, and inasmuch as 40  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 those Amendments were not adopted, I feel that this is the only recourse I have. The World's... For the World's Fair coming up in 1992 and the bailout, what I consider McCormick Place, is something that we have to deal with. And that's what we're dealing with right now. There's precedent for world fairs not working. And ever since, for the past ten or fifteen years, we know that world's fairs, throughout the United States especially, has lost money. The only one that has really captured any money was Seattle, and that was not a great deal. This particular Fair has to draw over 333 thousand people a day in order to break even. For God sake, Disney World on a good day only draws 125... 125 thousand people. This is something that is... is not going to work. And the record will show down the road... And the record will show down the road, in the final analysis, the State of Illinois in tax dollars are going to bail out... are going to bail out the World's Fair. It's a bailout of McCormick Place as well. Now if you want to put yourself in a position where ten years from now you're going to have to come back and say, 'Yes, indeed, I voted for this mess, and now, indeed, we are using tax dollars, state money, to pay for it,' then you vote... you vote against this particular Motion. Mr. Speaker, this is something that is not going to work. It's something that the rank and file people throughout the State of Illinois do not want. There's only a handful of power brokers that are supporting this particular measure. We all know that. I suppose it's greased. I suppose the deals have been made. I suppose it's going to go. But Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, this is something that is not going to work. It's something that is going to have to be dealt with down the line, and we all know it's going to be taxpayers' dollars. It's a bad idea, and I would move 41  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 for the adoption of this particular Motion."

"For what purpose does Mr. Daniels seek recognition?"

"Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I would, with due respect to the Gentleman's Motion, request a Republican Conference immediately. Take about one hour."

"Well, I don't know if we should give them their conference. Don't you know enough about the Bill to vote on it, Mr. Daniels?"

"Please, Buddy."

"Okay, so we shall stand in recess until 20 minutes to 1:00. And the Democrats once again can go to lunch. Now I would suggest to all that you be in the chamber promptly at twenty minutes to 1:00 because the first matter to be called will be Mr. Mulcahey's Motion to strike the enacting clause. That will be the first matter to be called. So let us all return at twenty minutes to 1:00. The House shall come to order. The Members shall be in their chairs. Mr. Clerk. Mr. Clerk. Mr. Mulcahey, I'm happy to see that you're at your station promptly at twenty minutes to 1:00. With your permission, we'll permit the Clerk to do some routine work. For what purpose does Mr. Friedrich seek recognition?"

"Nothing on that instance. I was going to question a quorum, but I won't in that case."

"Mr. Clerk, do you have some routine work that we can do for awhile. Some Agreed Resolutions. On the Order of Agreed Resolutions, Mr. Clerk, read the Resolutions."

"House Resolution 1128, offered by Representative McNamara; House Resolution 1130, by Representative Woodyard; House Resolution 1131, offered by Representative Hastert and McGann; House Resolution 1132, offered by 42  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 Representative Krska; and House Joint Resolution 176, offered by Representatives Vinson and Giorgi. House Joint Resolution 176 is taken out of the record."

"Mr. Greiman."

"House Resolution 1128 congratulates all associated with St. Gerald Parish on the occasion of its Golden Jubilee Year; and House Resolution 1130, Representative Woodyard, congratulates Anne (sic - Rosalin Anna) Vogel for 50 years of business personal... success in personal and business; Hastert - McGann, House Resolution 1131, commending Eileen Houston for her many outstanding contributions in the field of education as teacher of the year; and House Resolution 1132, Krska, which congratulates Mr. and Mrs. Robert Crosse on occasion of the their Golden Wedding Anniversary. I move the adoption of the Agreed Resolutions."

"The Gentleman moves for the adoption of the Resolutions. Those in favor say 'aye', those opposed say 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. The Resolutions are adopted. Death Resolution."

"House Resolution 1129, offered by Representative Leverenz, with respect to the memory of Mr. Steven C. Dzieglewicz of Bensenville."

"Mr. Greiman."

"Move the adoption of House Resolution 1129."

"Those in favor of the Resolution say 'aye', those opposed say 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. The Resolution is adopted. Mr. Mulcahey, let me suggest further that we take some noncontroversial matters on the concurrence Calendar until our Membership arrives. Mr. Vinson."

"It'll be fine with me. Just go ahead with that Motion of Mr. Mulcahey's right now."

"Well, I had... had some other people on your 43  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 side of the aisle indicate that they would question a quorum if I were to proceed with that Motion at an early stage. So in our usual effort at accommodation and good will, we decided to do some routine matters. Mr. Mulcahey. Mr. Mulcahey."

"Yes, Mr. Speaker, if we do go to that different Order of Business, the Motion will still be in order. Is that correct?"

"Yes."

"Thank you."

"Your point was well taken. Mr. Vinson."

"I liked it better when you had Representative Pouncey and Representative Taylor guard you on the podium."

"The Chair would like to ask if there are any Members who wish to move to nonconcur on any matters on the Concurrence or Nonconcurrence Calendar. The Chair recognizes Representative Nash."

"Yes, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, Senate Bill 1735, I move nonconcur and ask that a Conference Committee be appointed. 1735."

"Alright on page seven... on page seven of the Calendar, on page seven of the Calendar, on the Order of Nonconcurrence there appears Senate Bill 1735. Mr. Cullerton, do you have that file? The Gentleman moves to nonconcur in Senate Amendments #1, 2 and 4. Those in favor... The Chair stands corrected. The Gentleman moves to..."

"Refuse to recede from House Amendments 1, 2 and 4 and ask that a Conference Committee be appointed."

"You've all heard the Motion. Those in favor say 'aye', those opposed say 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. The Motion is adopted. For what purpose does Representative Kulas seek recognition?" 44  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984

"Since we're on that point of Order of Business, Mr. Speaker, I've got Senate Bill 1933, on nonconcurrence."

"What page would that be on, Mr. Kulas?"

"On page eight."

"On page eight of the Calendar there appears Senate Bill 1933. And, Mr. Kulas, would you state your Motion?"

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that the House refuse to recede from House Amendment #1 and that a Conference Committee be appointed."

"Gentleman moves that the House refuse to recede from Senate Amendment #1 and that a Conference Committee be appointed. You've all heard the Motion. Those in favor say 'aye', those opposed say 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. The Motion is adopted. For what purpose does Representative Breslin seek recognition?"

"Mr. Speaker, I would like to nonconcur in House Bill 3036 on page five on our Calendar."

"On page five on the Calendar there appears House Bill 3036. For what purpose does Representative Braun seek recognition?"

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move to nonconcur in Senate Amendment 1 to House.."

"One second, Representative Braun. We're on another Bill.. Representative Breslin..."

"I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker."

"... has moved to nonconcur. Those in favor say 'aye', those opposed say 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. And the House does nonconcur in Senate Amendments #1 and 2. The Chair recognizes Representative Braun."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker."

"State the page, Representative."

"It's on page nine of the Calendar. It's the very last 45  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 Bill before Conference Committee Reports."

"Page nine or page seven?"

"I've got nine."

"Nine."

"On yesterday's Calendar. Sorry, Mr. Speaker. It's page seven."

"So, on page seven of the Calendar there appears House Bill 3255. And Representative Braun, would you state your Motion?"

"My Motion, Sir, is to nonconcur in Senate Amendment #1."

"Okay. The Lady moves to nonconcur. Those in favor say 'aye', those opposed say 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. The House does nonconcur in Senate Amendment #1. Chair recognizes Mr. DeJaegher."

"Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to nonconcur with Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3136 on page six."

"On page six of the Calendar there appears House Bill 3136. Mr. DeJaegher moves that the House do nonconcur in Senate Amendment #1. Those in favor say 'aye', those opposed say 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. The House does nonconcur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3136. Are there any other Members who wish to offer Motions to nonconcur which would appear on the Calendar? The Chair recognizes Mr. Hannig."

"Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House. On page three of the Calendar, House Bill 2381, I would move that the House nonconcur in Senate Amendment #1."

"On page three of the Calendar there appears House Bill 2381. And Mr. Hannig has moved that the House nonconcur in Senate Amendment #1. Mr. Tate, are you seeking recognition on this question? On Mr. Hannig's Motion, those in favor say 'aye', those opposed say 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. The House does nonconcur in Senate 46  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 Amendment #1. For what purpose does Mr. Tate seek recognition?"

"Yes, Mr. Speaker, on page seven of the Calendar, on the Nonconcurrence Calendar, Senate Bill 1375. I would like to refuse to recede on Amendment #1."

"The Gentleman moves to refuse to recede. Those in favor say 'aye'..."

"And appoint a Conference Committee if that is adopted."

"Gentleman moves to refuse to recede. Those in favor say 'aye', those opposed say 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. The Gentleman's Motion is adopted, and the House requests a Conference Committee. Mr. McGann."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the Assembly. I refuse to recede on page... page..."

"Mr. McGann, one second."

"... page eight."

"I'm sorry, Mr. McGann. Could you state the page again?"

"Mr. Speaker, it's page eight."

"Page eight of the Calendar. And then the Bill number?"

"The Bill number is Senate Bill 1924."

"And your Motion, Sir?"

"And I refuse to recede..."

"Gentleman moves to refuse to recede from Senate Amendment #1 and that a Conference Committee be reported (sic - appointed). Those in favor say 'aye', those opposed say 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. The House does refuse to recede and ask for the appointment of a Conference Committee. Mr. Vinson. Mr. Vinson."

"Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would move..."

"Page number, Mr. Vinson."

"Page six." 47  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984

"Page six. Bill number?"

"3128."

"And your Motion, Sir."

"I move that the House nonconcur in Senate Amendments 1 and 2."

"Those in favor say 'aye', those opposed say 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. The House does nonconcur in Senate Amendments #1 and 2. Mr. Brummer."

"Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was seeking recognition on a point of order."

"Proceed, Sir."

"On the nonconcurrence Motions where the Sponsors move to refuse to recede, it seems to me that if the... would that not potentially be a final passage vote?"

"To recede is final passage, Mr. Brummer. If you recede from an Amendment, that means you give up on the Amendment, and maybe that would permit the Bill to go to the Governor. Are there any other Members who wish to offer Motions to nonconcur or to refuse to recede? There being none, we shall now return to the Order of Business where we left, and that was on a Motion by Mr. Mulcahey relative to Senate Bill 1893. Mr. Mulcahey."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and... and Members of the House. To go back just a little bit in renewing my Motion, the concern we have, of course, for this particular Bill is that the World's Fair, which is being proposed here and money is being raised to accommodate, is... is something that we feel is not... is not going to work. There's precedent for it. One figure that has been... has been talked about was the fact that the figure of 750 million dollars was what it was going to cost to... to pay for this particular fair. And I'm afraid... I'm afraid that the taxpayers of the State of Illinois, through city taxes, 48  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 county taxes, state taxes and federal taxes are going to be picking up the tab. If I may just point out, in 1904, the St. Louis World's Fair lost fourteen and a half million dollars. 1939, the New York World's Fair lost 19 million dollars. And in 1964, 21 million dollars was lost by the New York World's Fair. In Montreal, in 1967, 227 million dollars in the red. Osaka, in 1970, minus 150 million. Spokane, Washington, in 1974, 723,000. And just recently a couple of years ago, as we all know, Knoxville, Tennessee, came out 57 million dollars in the red. We all know New Orleans is failing, and we all know the precedent is there that the same thing is going to happen in Chicago. The Chicago World's Fair must draw three times as many visitors as Disney World did on its best day ever which was 125,000. At the rate of... At the rate of 750 million dollars for five and a half months or 165 days, there must be an average attendance at the World's Fair of 333,000 people a day. It is just plain not going to happen. Mr. Speaker, they've been working for a year trying to develop ways of raising funds for a World's Fair for a boondoggle. Yet, we all know that elementary and secondary education is still told to tighten its belt. This World's Fair, like the rest of them, will not pay for itself. The taxpayers of the State of Illinois will once again be called upon to come to the rescue. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, it's not fair. It's not right. And, once again, I renew my Motion."

"On the Motion, the Chair recognizes Mr. Bullock."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I stand in opposition to the Gentleman's Motion, and I have great respect for this Gentleman. But, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, we all understand the 49  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 importance of the proposition embodied in Senate Bill 1893 and certainly in many of the Amendments that are being proposed to this legislation. I can think of no more important subject matter to come before the General Assembly this year that impacts on both revenue for this state and the certain quality of life in our state than in Senate Bill 1893. We, in this Body, created a Select Committee chaired by Representative Currie. We, in this Body, by Resolution, empowered the City of Chicago, the State of Illinois, the World's Fair Authority and the Park District to engage in the development of intergovernmental agreements. We, in this chamber, passed legislation previously creating the Authority and empowering it to undertake tasks. We have long since passed the hurdle as to whether or not there should be a fair. The Governor of this state has gone on record in support for tourism and expanding it. And on our own side of the aisle of which the Gentleman serves, we have gone and surveyed the Membership on the subject of McCormick Place. Those issues are so important and so vital to this Session of the General Assembly that I don't believe the Gentleman really and truly wants debate to be cut off at this point. So, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, with all due respect to the Representative, I stand in opposition to the Motion and urge a 'no' vote."

"Representative Currie."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. I rise in opposition to the Gentleman's Motion. I think it dilatory. The Gentleman offered in Committee Amendments to remove both the World's Fair and McCormick Place from the substance of Senate Bill 1893. Both those Amendments failed on a 6 to 2 vote. He has offered additional Amendments containing the same proposals in the... the 50  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 process we'll be considering this afternoon. That's the appropriate place for him to make the suggestion that the World's Fair and McCormick Place should not be part of this Bill. I think we should resoundingly defeat the Motion. It is dilatory, and we don't need it."

"Representative Dwight Friedrich."

"Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, for the last several months I've been serving on the task force on the World's Fair, and I have to admit that there have been times during those hearings that I would have joined Representative Mulcahey and his intentions here. I think that this is a... not the way to take deliberate action on this matter. It was a common practice years ago in the House and Senate both to... for this Motion and many times it prevailed. I think it's too drastic, and I don't think it's a good way to go about anything in a deliberative way. And in finality, I may join Representative Mulcahey depending on what comes out of this package. But I think that we've gone far enough in this matter that we need to take it a piece at a time and come out with either no action or a concerted action or a majority action, and I would have to oppose, respectfully, his Motion."

"Mr. Vinson."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Assembly. There are, on this Bill, which the Motion would strike the enacting clause for, Amendments pending which would delete the World's Fair from the Bill. There are Amendments pending which would delete the World's Fair and McCormick Place from the Bill. There are Amendments pending which would create a downstate civic center subsidy program. There are Amendments pending which would create a downstate convention bureau subsidy program. There are Amendments pending which would create a program simply for 51  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 the enhancement of Department of Conservation parks throughout the state. I think that it would be extraordinarily precipitous and foolish for a Member from downstate to vote to strike the enacting clause of a Bill which, if we go through the Amendment process, might end up being a Bill which just funded downstate parks and downstate civic centers and downstate tourism. Now, everybody is going to have their opportunity to vote on those Amendments if we defeat this Motion, and everybody is going to have their opportunity to vote on the Bill on Third Reading if we defeat this Motion. You can make a reasoned judgement about what program you are rejecting if you reject this particular Motion; but, if you don't, then what you are saying is that on the possibility that... that because you don't like the World's Fair, you're going to reject the possibility of voting on a Bill which might just be a Bill for downstate civic centers, convention bureaus and parks. That simply is not a logical thing to do in this world. I would urge Members to vote against this Motion, because what the motion really does is prohibit and stop conversation about how this thing should be structured. Everyone will have a full opportunity to vote against the Bill if they don't like the Bill, and everybody will have a full opportunity to vote against the Amendments they don't like and make your statement felt and reject the program if you dislike the program. But it is absolutely foolish to vote for a Motion which could have the affect of simply stopping a downstate park program."

"Mr. Mautino."

"Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The Sponsor of the Motion I have great respect for and his... the knowledge that he possesses as a Member of the World's Fair Committee. We've had the opportunity to look at 52  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 legislation to strike the enacting clause in every Session in which I have served in the General Assembly. This Motion, though, I think, as a downstater, would be detrimental to an overall state program that will be considered by this General Assembly later this afternoon. The important message, I think, that we have to provide here is that those of us from downstate are not totally opposed to the concept embodied in 1893, but we are supportive of helping this concept with a statewide program that would be beneficial to all of us in the State of Illinois, rather than the current posture which addresses only Cook and the collar counties. For that reason, I would sincerely appreciate the consideration of all of our downstate friends, collar county and Cook County individuals to vote 'present' on the Motion of my good friend, Mr. Mulcahey, even though he has strong convictions on what is currently embodied in this legislation. But it is important that we look at all the Amendments and a statewide proposal that could benefit all of our citizens for many years to come. We've taken that step two years ago in the initial formation of the World's Fair Committee and the Authority, and I respectfully ask those Members to vote yellow, a 'present' vote, on the Motion to strike the enacting clause of this legislation."

"Mr. Tuerk."

"Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, I've been in this chamber now 16 years, and this is about the... maybe the third or fourth time that we've been facing the Motion to strike the enacting clause. They've all been major issues. Naturally, they have been major or otherwise the putter of the Motion would not go to this extreme. And, frankly, I think it is extreme measure to undertake to strike the enacting clause. Many of us who have spent the time 53  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 debating the various proposals during the World's Fair Task Force deliberations have, from time to time, disagreed with the approach that has been taken. Many of us have had our own plans, thinking in terms of not only downstate tourism, but also the expansion of McCormick and also the establishment of the World's Fair. I think the entire Body should have the opportunity to debate the issue fully. I think we'll have our opportunity. There are a number of Amendments offered to this Bill. If we can debate, take votes and then give the Body an opportunity to decide which direction to go. I think this is an extreme measure. And, therefore, I rise in opposition to it."

"Mr. Huff."

"Yes, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I rise in support of Representative Mulcahey's Motion, insofar as it relates to the fair. I think Mr. Mulcahey gave us ample reproof why we should not support this. However, he could have added, as we speak here today discussing, debating the advisability of this venture, Mr. Mulcahey could have also added that the most recent fair, the New Orleans Fair, is 96 million dollars in the red to its creditors as of this moment. And yesterday, the Illinois... I'm sorry. The Louisiana Legislature magnanimously de... decided, as somewhat reluctantly, to appropriate an additional 15 million dollars. I submit, Ladies and Gentlemen, that having the Louisiana Legislature having taken this step, we'll find that this is just the first step of a long series of bailouts for this fair. I also want to speak to the facts that Representative Bullock alluded to in the earlier opening dissertation of this Bill. He talked about the factors and the components and the financial planning. Mr. Bullock is very careful to exclude what investments have the heretofore unknown 54  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 sponsors of this fair put in there. I'm talking about Commonwealth Edison, the Chicago Tribune, the Continental Bank and the Sun-Times. And Channel 5 - thank you. It's my opinion, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, that these sponsors have been very, very careful, although they support the idea of a fair, they've been very, very careful not to insinuate any participation of their own part. As far as Continental... Sorry. As far as Commonwealth Edison is concerned, they have already stole enough millions from the people in my district to put up nine fairs by themselves. And let me ask you about the initial cost of 800 million dollars. Please don't be fooled by that figure. I submit that, before this fair is over with, we'll be talking about a figure that's three times that amount, perhaps two - two and a half billion dollars. And who's going to pay for that? I think this thing was ill-conceived. It certainly was ill-conceived in the sense that it was all put on one Bill. There would have been a question for a division of the question. And if the fair... If these other two projects have to go down, so be it, but I intend to vote for the Motion. Thank you."

"Mr. Klemm."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know, everything, I think, Representative Mulcahey has said is correct, but I think everything that Representative Vinson has said is correct. And I don't know. Coming from a suburban area, I have not seen evidence that the World's Fair is to the best interests of the State of Illinois at this point. I do, and I think everybody in this chamber supports the tourism part of the package, and I think certainly we want to continue to support that. I happen to exhibit at McCormick Place with my company many times in the year, and I can see the need for that facility to be improved. So, I support 55  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 the expansion of McCormick Place. But it seems to me that while deliberations are going on this very moment in this chamber, I'm sure there's discussions being had about funding for any of these programs and projects that we're debating. So, I would think that perhaps it would be best not to end the deliberation at this point in time. Certainly many of us have always been opposed to taxation without benefit to our people, and we haven't been convinced the World's Fair, with the examples being set through the last several years, has proven beneficial. I, at least, went to the last World's Fair in Chicago in 1932. So, at least I've had that experience of having been there. So, I certainly am not opposed to World's Fair, but I am opposed if they don't provide what we think they should and at a cost when we're looking for monies for education and mental health or school and everything else. Certainly we don't want to divert those funds from it. So I think I am still in the position of wanting to learn more about a World's Fair. I can't do that if we were to vote in favor of this Motion to delete it. So, I think that our best course would be to defeat the Motion, allow us to continue our deliberations so that we can more intelligently and more knowingly vote on these Amendments. I understand there's at least two or three dozen. I understand the Clerk has reserved a number of numbers for additional Amendments to be placed on there that have not been filed as yet. So, we are going to have a number of opportunities to voice our collective and individual points of view on each of these issues. So I would think, as much as I am in doubt of the success of the World's Fair, that we should still allow this dialogue to continue, and then I would suggest that we vote 'no' against the Motion. Thank you."

"Mr. Ropp." 56  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. In all due respects to the Representative who is offering this Motion, I'm sure there are a number of people throughout the state who are very much opposed to a World's Fair. But let me say that there are a number of programs that we have in the State of Illinois that do not always prove to be cost-effective. One, for example, might be the parks that many of us go and take part in throughout the State of Illinois, but I'm not sure that that necessarily has to be a cost-effective. It's the thing that provides opportunity for relaxation and pleasure for many of our citizens. I think this particular World's Fair that we're going to be talking about, though it may even lose some money, I certainly hope that it is operated efficiently with wise judgement and good leadership should that come about. But, to me, we have an opportunity as Members of this Body to show what the State of Illinois can be and is to the nation and to the world. When we compare what this World's Fair may or may not net in terms of revenue as it relates to previous fairs, let me say I think we have a little bit of a different picture here. The City of Chicago certainly is located in metropolitan areas that will substantially draw more by its mere location in this country. So, I think we have some pluses in that regard. Someone said that World's Fairs are old, and that may be. Some people have said World's Fairs actually do not provide the excitement and glamour that they did when Dick Klemm went fifty some years ago. But let me assure you that science and research and development will probably develop so many new things within the next eight to ten years that truly it will be an exciting thing to see, if it should become a reality. So, I hope that this Body does not, at this point, draw to a close the opportunities that this Body may have as we 57  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 review these Amendments that may be forthcoming to provide greater opportunity for outsiders around this state of ours to come in, to see Illinois, to see the good things that we have to offer. And certainly, as they go to maybe a World's Fair in Chicago, they'll see the waving fields of grain in downstate Illinois and in southern Illinois. They'll see our historic sites so that we can, in fact, wear our colors true and be proud of Illinois from the north end to the south end, from east to west, and I urge you not to support this Motion."

"Mr. Nash."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I rise in opposition to this Motion, but this time I want to share with you a statement by the President of the United States in reference to the World's Fair. 'Washington, D.C. - 6/20/84, 11:07 a.m. President Reagan gave the enthusiastic support of the U. S. Government to the 1992 World's Fair, the first international exposition that will be held simultaneously in two countries, United States and Spain. The 1992 Chicago Seville International Exposition will celebrate the 500th anniversary of Columbus' discovery of America and will showcase the social, economic, scientific and cultural achievements which have changed the world since 1492 and will preview the discoveries anticipated in the centuries to come. The fair, he said, promises to become a symbol of international peace and progress, illuminating our past and our future with its many splendid opportunities for the stimulation of trade and for culture and technological exchanges.' That's the statement of the President of the United States, and that's the good reason for defeating this Motion. I urge a 'no' vote."

"Mr. Mulcahey, to close." 58  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. First of all, I wanted to thank everybody for their respect they have for me, and I also want to thank Mr. Reagan for his enthusiasm. If he would send some money our way for education or the World's Fair, maybe we could take a different view, but I want to thank him for his overwhelming endorsement. Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, the feasibility study of 8.8 million dollars which is included here is just an example of... of the boondoggle. It's just an example of the total waste. Somebody indicated a little while ago about the Amendments that will be filed. I think there's about 36 Amendments that have been drafted, and they're going to do all these wonderful things for downstate. I... I haven't seen those drafts, those Amendments adopted yet, and there's no guarantee they are going to be adopted. But I think the fundamental thing here, and I agree, I think I agree with about 90 percent of the people who have spoke here this afternoon, but the bottom line, something that people did not address, something they did not address is who in the world in the final analysis is going to pay for this. The facts and figures are right there from World Fairs in the past. They all ended up in the red. They all ended up in the red. They came back to the state. They came back to the state for bailouts. There is precedent for it, and the same thing is going to happen in this World's Fair - the taxpayers of this state are going to be saddled with, once again, bailing out a boondoggle in Chicago. We all know it's right. The assets outweigh the liabilities, and I respectfully ask for your 'aye' vote."

"The Gentleman moves to strike the enacting clause from Senate Bill 1893. Those in favor of the Gentleman's Motion will vote 'aye', those opposed will vote 59  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 'no'. This Motion will require a simple majority. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question there are 26 'ayes', 69 'nos'. The Motion fails. The Chair recognizes Mr. Bullock on Amendment #3."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentleman of the House. Previously, I was explaining Amendment #3, and I'll attempt to go back over that explanation for the benefit of this Body. Senate Bill 1833, as it came before us, is a document that I believe that needs substantial reconstruction and improvement. Amendment #3 attempts to improve, through reconstruction of revenue streams and also through the readjustment of certain procedural provisions, to ensure that in Illinois we will, in fact, have a Chicago World's Fair in 1992 feasibility study, to ensure that we will create, in the State of Illinois, a tourism fund and to ensure that we can expand McCormick Place. And to do that, Amendment #3 supports the creation of an Illinois tourism fund in the State of Illinois and the State Treasurer. I would like, at this moment, to summarize for you some of the similarities and differences in Senate Bill 1833 as we received it. In addition, I'd like to indicate Amendment #3's improvements upon this Bill as sent to us from the Senate. We rely, in Amendment #3, on a new one percent hotel and motel tax statewide, which is similar to the Senate's. We rely on utilization of forty percent of two percent of the existing statewide hotel/motel tax, similar to the Senate plan. We continue to rely on use of the horseracing tax for McCormick Place Pavillion, similar to the Senate plan. But Amendment #3 drastically differs from the Senate plan in this particular area, and that is the reliance on a discriminatory food tax in Chicago only. And so, Amendment #3 does not include that discriminatory 60  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 food tax, but Amendment #3 includes, in FY '86, the utilization of two percent or forty percent of the existing hotel/motel tax revenue. But, significantly, Amendment #3 requires that that municipality that would receive perhaps the largest expended economic benefit, it requires that municipality to bring forth from whatever source one million dollars in FY '85 and two million dollars in subsequent years. Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, Amendment #3 also readjusts the project expenditures for McCormick Place, the World's Fair, tourism, and they are as follows. Under Amendment #3 we provide 12 million dollars in FY '85 for the expansion of McCormick Place, unlike the 15 million dollars provided in the Senate plan - a net savings of three million dollars. In Amendment #3 we provide a statewide tourism promotion fund of eight million dollars, unlike the Senate plan of 10 million dollars - a net savings of two million. Significantly, in this Amendment, we recognize the importance of downstate civic centers, and we provide a promotional subsidy for downstate civic centers totaling two million dollars. The Senate plan had no subsidy for downstate civic centers' promotional subsidy. In this plan we provide for the World's Fair for one year in a feasibility study of five million dollars, unlike the Senate plan of 8.8 million dollars - a net savings of three million dollars. And so, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, this Amendment #3 comes in at a balanced figure of 27 million dollars for revenue in FY '85 and 27 million dollars for expenditure in FY '85. But more importantly, this Amendment, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Assembly, recognizes specifically that the major reliance on the tax revenues we're talking about in this proposition would originate from those areas that received the greatest 61  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 economic benefit - for example, the reliance on the hotel/motel tax juxtaposition, unlike the disciminatory food tax. Seventy-five percent of the hotel/motel tax revenues are collected in the six county metropolitan area. Fifty percent of that tax comes from the City and 63 percent of the tax comes from Cook County - the area that receives the greatest economic impact and economic benefit. More importantly, we find that the World's Fair expenditure under this proposition would come from the one cent hotel/motel tax in Cook County. That's where the five million dollars would come from for the independent feasibility study for the 1992 World's Fair. We also recognize that Chicago has a role to play in this particular funding mechanism, and so the City of Chicago is being asked to provide one million dollars in FY '85, understanding that the economic benefits in FY '86 from McCormick Place expansion alone will be 20 million dollars. From tourism expansion in Illinois will be three million dollars. So the City of Chicago will invest one million and receive in return 22 million dollars as expanded economic benefit. We recognize that the State of Illinois will receive expanded economic benefit. The State of Illinois will receive 31 million dollars from the tourism promotion program and 48 million dollars from the McCormick Place expansion, giving us a net total of 78 million dollars coming into the state revenue from the expenditure in FY '85 of 27 million dollars. Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, the plan before us is a plan that has been thought out, well researched. Long hours have gone into the deliberation and fashion of this plan under our Speaker and his staff, with all of the parties involved participating indirectly or directly in the formulation of such a plan. And while Amendment #3 does 62  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 not in any way appear to be an ultimate answer to the funding of the 1992 World's Fair, it realizes that this Assembly is unready to commit itself to long term funding for the World's Fair but that this Assembly, in fact, supports the expansion of McCormick Place and the funding of tourism in our state. And I submit for your consideration and your adoption, Amendment #3 to Senate Bill 1893."

"The Chair would like to acknowledge the presence on the floor on the Republican side of our former Speaker and now the Lieutenant Governor of Illinois, Mr. George Ryan. Chair recognizes Mr. Vinson."

"Would you point out that that's the real Speaker, Mr. Speaker?"

"Mr. Vinson?"

"Would you point out that that's the real Speaker?"

"Here?"

"No. That you just introduced. Mr. Speaker, Amendment #3 to this Bill is an Amendment that Members ought to think about very carefully in my judgement. First of all, one aspect of the Bill is funding for the expansion of McCormick Place in Chicago, and Amendment #3 would determine how that expansion is going to be funded. Under the terms of Amendment #3, the entire reliance for funding all of these things, but particularly the expansion of McCormick Place, is based on a statewide hotel/motel tax. Now, at some point, the more you raise taxes, the more you discourage business. And if it makes sense to expand McCormick Place to bring trade shows to Chicago and to be able for Chicago to host the really major trade shows in this country, you have to be concerned about whether the taxes you're imposing make that actually impossible, make Chicago noncompetitive with those other trade show host 63  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 cities. Now there are people who passed around fact sheets about those other trade show cities and what their hotel/motel tax is. Under the provisions of this Amendment that we're discussing, the tax would be raised to eleven percent in Chicago. Some of the cities that are on those fact sheets that have been passed around supposedly which compete with Chicago have taxes at the eleven percent level. I'd ask Members to think about those cities and think about when they were last at a major convention in some of those cities. Has anybody ever gone a major convention in Baltimore, Maryland? Would anybody ever want to go to a major convention in Baltimore, Maryland? I think if you look at the cities which truly compete with Chicago on these major trade shows, you'll find that they do not have taxes of eleven percent on the motel rooms. As a matter of fact, the taxes they have on the motel rooms, the maximum they get to is ten percent in New Orleans. And then when you start looking at Anaheim, which is a very major competitor, it's at eight percent. And when you look at Atlanta, which is a very major competitor, it's eight percent. And when you look at Las Vegas, a very major competitor..."

"Mr. Vinson, excuse me for one second. Mr. Cullerton, for what purpose do you seek recognition?"

"Mr. Speaker, just as a courtesy to Representative Vinson, I think he's talking about the wrong Amendment. He's talking about an increase in the hotel/motel tax. This Amendment is the same as the Senate Bill. So, I think he should save that speech for another Amendment."

"Sam, maybe you've got the wrong form out. Mr. Vinson."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I always appreciate Mr. Cullerton' help. But this is the Amendment that raises the 64  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 tax, and we cannot compete with those cities that we're trying to compete with if we're going to raise the tax on hotels and motels to this level. It would simply be wrong. Mr. Speaker, this program that you offer is a program for a statewide tax program. All of the elements are for statewide taxes. And what you have deliberately deleted is the one tax in the program for the people who benefit the most from the total program, the people in the City of Chicago. Mr. Speaker, I can understand why somebody from the 13th Ward would author a program like this but not somebody who cares about the entire State of Illinois, not someone who cares about central Illinois or the suburbs or southern Illinois. If you care about the 13th Ward, I can understand that. And a 13th Ward leader can be proud of this program, but not people from all of the State of Illinois. And for those reasons, I would urge a 'no' vote on this Amendment."

"Mr. Brunsvold."

"Will the Sponsor yield for a question?"

"Sponsor indicates that he will yield."

"Representative, the money coming out of the existing hotel tax is how much?"

"Representative, the existing fund is at five percent. In FY '85, we would take two percent or forty percent of that money."

"Which would be how much, Representative?"

"The net amount would be 6.6 million."

"And what total... total amount is going to come out of all existing sales tax revenues?"

"There are no sales tax revenues. There's a hotel/motel..."

"Or hotel/motel tax."

"We are saying in FY '85 the total revenue stream would 65  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 be 27 million dollars, but that is not all hotel/motel tax revenue, as you know."

"Where does that hotel/motel tax go now, as far as the budget's concerned and as far... Does it go in the General Fund?"

"Ultimately, some of these revenues would go into the General Fund, yes."

"What do you assume is going to take the place of the money that's... this money that's now going into the hotel/motel... the hotel/motel tax that's going into the General Fund - what's going to replace that?"

"Well, we indicated, or at least I tried to indicate, Representative, that in FY '86 we will realizing expended economic benefits to the state 78 million dollars from McCormick Place and for tourism and, of course, in FY '87 and beyond, should we decide to proceed with the World's Fair, I'm certain, in terms of incomes from individuals who are employed in the area and other types of businesses in the six county area, we would expand it with sales tax revenues and so forth. So, we anticipate a net gain, not a net loss, for these expenditures in the first year for start up."

"You don't anticipate any of the proposed surtax on the Lottery as replacing any of this money?"

"Well, if I... I don't anticipate it, no; but, if I were advising the Governor, maybe one day I will, I certainly would advise them to accept this plan and to rely on the hotel/motel tax. And, as you know at present, apparently this administration is using Lottery proceeds to balance its budget, which is unfortunate."

"Thank you, Representative."

"Mr. Dwight Friedrich."

"Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I'm a little 66  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 surprised that the Sponsor has offered this Amendment at all. What... I think I'm more interested in what they didn't tell you than what they did tell you about it. If you have any interest in tourism or McCormick Place, either one, there's no way you can be for this; but, if you're interested and concerned about the funds... the General Revenue funds of the State of Illinois, you couldn't be for it anyway. First place, let me tell you, this relies on 36 percent of its revenue from outside Cook County, compared with 18 percent in the task force plan and 22 percent in the Bill you have before that came over from the Senate which means that this is... that it is not in keeping with what the task force recommended that the revenues be derived... or the funding be derived generally from the area that benefits. But the real kicker in this thing is that you're dipping into 80 percent of the existing state hotel/motel tax; and, over the period, you're talking about 350 million dollars of General Revenue funds. Now, you and I both know we cannot afford this, and I think this plan is... this Amendment is not defensible and that it should be just voted down out of hand. I think there's a lot of opportunity for the whole state to participate in the original Bill. I, frankly, I... there are some things about it that I would like to modify, but this plan absolutely lets Chicago off the hook. Number one, they propose two million dollars from the City of Chicago. When we asked them what... how they were going to get it, have you talked to the Mayor or the City Council, they said, 'No, but we're going to talk to them about it, and we'll figure out a way to come up with two million dollars some way'. Well, I didn't see the Mayor volunteering to come up with two million dollars. I didn't see the City Council volunteering to come up with two million. But out of the 67  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 nether land is going to come two million dollars from the City of Chicago. Now, all of you who believe that stand on your head, and I think you'll get the same result. This Amendment is not in keeping with the spirit of trying to get these three projects going, and I urge you to vote 'no'."

"Representative Currie."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. I rise in support of Amendment 3 to Senate Bill 1893. First, let me speak programmatically. People on this floor have raised questions, have expressed skepticism about the capacity of a Chicago World's Fair in 1992 ever to get off the ground. I think you will find if you'll look at the provisions of Amendment 3 that we have strengthened the chance that we'll be able to tell a year from now whether that project is one that should go forward, one we should finance. In the first place, Amendment 3 to Senate Bill 1893 decreases the dollars that were available for the World's Fair Authority for use in the next fiscal year from 8.8 million to five million dollars. Five million dollars will cover adequately the independent feasibility study that everybody agrees needs to be organized. As well, it will also cover the environmental impact statement that needs to be done so that we can find out whether the planning of the World's Fair can work to the benefit of the... of the people of the State of Illinois. As well, we provide in this Amendment that whoever does the independent feasibility study cannot contract with the World's Fair Authority after the independent feasibility study is over. How independent is a feasibility study done by someone who hopes to pick up the contract after saying, 'Yes, the systems are go. Everything should move forward.' For those of you who are skeptical about the World's Fair, who want 68  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 solid answers before deciding whether you support going forward with this project, you have to support those provisions in Amendment 3 to Senate Bill 1893. Let me talk, too, about the financing arrangement in this Amendment. Representative Vinson, I'm sorry to say, does not seem to be on the Governor's line with respect to how we pay for the expansion of McCormick Place and statewide tourism. We do not change, in Amendment 3 to Senate Bill 1893, the hotel/motel tax increase from that that was already provided in this Bill as it came to us from the Senate. There is, there was, a one percent increase in the statewide hotel/motel tax in the Bill as it came to us. That proposal was strongly supported by Governor Thompson and by the Chairman of his Financing Task Force, John Kramer. In fact, it was also supported by the hotel/motel industry in the State of Illinois. At issue, at real issue in this Amendment is what is the total financing framework? Do the benefits, the economic benefits that will accrue from these projects fit the economic burdens imposed by any kind of revenue stream to pay for them? It is my strong contention that the only way to make sure that the principle that burdens match benefits is to support Amendment 3 to this Bill. The Bill, as it came to us from the Senate, used hotel/motel tax revenues to help support these projects. No source of revenue is more closely connected to tourism than the hotel/motel industry. Who are the people who stay in the hotels and motels? Clearly, the tourists. Unfortunately, as this Bill came to us from the Senate, it also included a 22 million dollar hit on an annual average basis for people who eat food in restaurants in the City of Chicago. Look at the economic benefits we're to achieve from the program. You'll find we're talking with McCormick Place and statewide tourism, never 69  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 mind the benefits of the fair - leave that aside for the moment - 80 million dollars in statewide revenues, new statewide revenues on an average annual basis. What does the City of Chicago get? Something much closer to 20 million dollars. Eighty million dollars is the state share. To hit people in their food budgets, the school children in their cafeterias, the employees in their lunch rooms, the people who are buying McDonald's burgers on East 63rd Street or on West Fullerton Avenue, those are not the people who are benefiting from McCormick Place expansion and from statewide tourism. Eighty-eight percent of the food tax dollar in restaurants is spent not in fine dining establishments, not in the places where the tourists come to hang out, but in the lunch rooms in the school cafeterias, in the ma and pa grocery store right down the street. This Amendment is not the end of Senate Bill 1893. Everybody knows that there still will be further discussions and further debates. To me, the most critical element in this Amendment is that it offers the Members of this chamber a way to say no to a food tax in the City of Chicago as the primary means of financing these projects. There may be other problems with some of the elements. There's no question that the monies in this Amendment are adequate to move forward quickly with McCormick Place, to establish a statewide tourism promotion campaign and to do the work that's necessary to decide whether we should go forward with the World's Fair. Amendment 3 ensures that the benefits match... that the burdens match the benefits, and it says a resounding no to any kind of food tax imposed upon the residents of the City of Chicago. I urge your support."

"Mr. Tuerk."

"Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, as I said earlier in 70  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 debate, I support the concept of enlarging McCormick Place. I accept the concept of downstate tourism, and I also endorse the idea of providing a limited amount of money for further studies on the World's Fair. This Amendment, even though it speaks to one issue that's dear to my heart, namely the downstate civic center support, I think that helps the Amendment. I think there are other parts of the Amendment that may be salutory, but I think you have to take a look at the whole picture and look at the Amendment in toto. And that's why I'm rising to oppose the Amendment, because, frankly, notwithstanding the support that we might get for downstate, which is a sweetener in the Amendment, but it robs the General Revenue Fund, to a great extent, of future revenues. It taxes the downstate people too much, in my view, to make this a viable alternative. It doesn't really fund McCormick Place to the extent that it should. Chicago really is not committed to the two million dollars that's entailed in the Amendment. We haven't seen any indication from the City administration that it is committing itself to that amount of money. And those who benefit greatly from all three packages, but more specifically from the World's Fair and the expansion of McCormick Place, are not paying nearly enough in this total package. And, therefore, I think the Amendment falls short of the mark. And, therefore, I think it should be defeated."

"Mr. Nash."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I rise in support of Amendment #3 to Senate Bill 1893. Amendment #3 is very similar as the Bill came over from the Senate with the exception no one percent restaurant tax for the City of Chicago. The people of my district don't want to pay an extra penny restaurant tax. The people there are 71  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 on fixed incomes, and I don't think the people in your districts and the people from downstate, if there was a tax in your districts, would want to pay this tax. That's why I urge support of Amendment #3, and I urge your 'aye' vote."

"Mr. Ropp."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the Sponsor yield? Representative Bullock, in terms of the feasibility study, is it not true that before Chicago is even granted the opportunity for having a World's Fair, that there had to be some sort of feasibility study at that point, wasn't there? I guess, why do we need another one, and at what cost will just the feasibility study be?"

"Well, Representative, I would imagine, in the negotiation process at the International Exposition, that there were some surface analysis performed, both on physical planning and perhaps on financial projections. The Senate has spoken on the subject, and this Amendment would concur in that by saying that we want verifiable cost projections and revenue projections. We want it done with an outside, independent firm. I think that's a reasonable request at this point for the use of these revenues. And whether it is done before... prior to the awarding of the fair to Illinois in Chicago and the United States is not really important. What is important is that this Body is being asked to expend in access of three quarters of a billion dollars, maybe a billion dollars, and we simply are not ready at this point to make that type of decision without more substantiated facts."

"Well, this report is to come back and report to this Body by June 1, 1985, I think. Will, in fact, this Body be any more responsible to their suggestions and requests as is currently this Body any more responsive to the conclusions that have been given by both chambers' World's Fair group 72  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 that have come up with some considerations? I guess, is this money going to be well spent, or should we spend it somewhere else? Because it doesn't appear that we are really taking too much at heart with those people who have spent maybe six months on this study already."

"Well, Representative, all I can say in response to your question very quickly and succinctly - the Governor of this state appointed a task force chaired by Secretary Kramer. It was a unanimous decision by that task force that such an independent feasibility... verifiable feasibility study be undertaken. And the Senate has spoken on the subject; and, in this Amendment, we're asking this House to speak on the subject. And I would urge your to support it."

"Further discussion? The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Madigan."

"Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I rise in support of Amendment #3 to Senate Bill 1893, and as I rise in support, I wish to take issue, somewhat, with earlier remarks which were put into the record in opposition to the Amendment. A previous speaker alluded to this Amendment being helpful to a certain geographical area in the City of Chicago but not being helpful to other sections of the state. It is just that kind of rhetoric that causes many of the problems that we encounter here in the Legislature on a day-to-day basis, and it's just that kind of rhetoric that gives rise to the problems that we have in this state. The Bill that came from the Senate is a discriminatory Bill. The Bill that came from the Senate proposes to build an exposition center in Chicago, continue a study of the World's Fair for Chicago, and develop a statewide tourism program predicated upon the imposition of a food tax in Chicago only. I've been in this Assembly for 14 years. I know how to pass 73  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 Bills, and sometimes, I know how to defeat Bills. And I know that if you want to pass a Bill, you construct a coalition that permits people outside the City of Chicago to either cast a free vote or to cast a vote that they can use in their campaign literature where they can portray themselves as being against Chicago. That is precisely the strategy that was used in constructing the Bill that came from the Senate. What I did was to take the Bill that came from the Senate and to make three basic changes. I took the Senate Bill, and I said: 'Number one; I will not support the imposition of a food tax in Chicago only for these three projects; number two, in substitution for that, I will provide that we will make further use of the state-wide hotel/motel tax to move ahead with these projects. I said further use of the statewide hotel/motel tax. By direct reference to 'further use' is to the use of $10,000,000 from that tax in the next budget - not the FY '85 Budget, but the FY '86 Budget. So I am asking the State of Illinois, in July of 1985, to commit itself to an additional $10,000,000 in support of these projects, and I hasten to tell you that when we talk about the statewide hotel/motel tax, we are talking about a tax which is collected fifty percent in Chicago. Fifty percent of that tax is collected in Chicago. Sixty three percent of that tax is collected in Cook County. Seventy four percent of that tax is collected in the RTA region. So when you talk about the hotel/motel tax, you are talking about a regional tax. You are talking about a tax that is taken out of the metropolitan area in northeastern Illinois, and I suggest to you that it's a fair tax to use in support of these three projects. And the last thing I did in my plan was to require that the City of Chicago, from its corporate fund, be required to contribute $2,000,000 a year to the support 74  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 of the McCormick Place project before that project could move ahead. That's the essence of the plan. I think it's a far better plan that came from the Senate. I think it's far better because it is a uniform plan, because it is not discriminatory against one geographical area of the state. There are some other reasons why it's a good plan. The proponents of the Senate plan have already acknowledged that the imposition of the food tax in Chicago only, will be subject to a court challenge before that tax can be imposed. We know from prior experience that where there is such a court challenge on the imposition of a new tax, that that litigation will require several months, and the proponents of the fair have admitted.... Excuse me. The proponents of McCormick Place have admitted that the litigation will not be finalized until January or February of next year. So that when the opponents to my Amendment say that I am unduly delaying the beginning of the McCormick Place project, take their own evidence in the record of the Governor's task force and look at it because it says that with the imposition of the food only tax in Chicago, there will be a delay well into next year. People have said that the imposition of this food tax - in Chicago only, will be paid by those who patronize the fine dining establishments in downtown Chicago, and we've been given an enumerated list of restaurants which support this tax. I want the record to show, and I want everyone in this Assembly to know that the food tax they're talking about is derived eighty-eight percent from fast food outlets, lunchrooms and cafeterias. The tax they're talking about, when they say this is a fine dining tax, is derived eighty-eight percent from fast food outlets, lunchrooms and cafeterias. So, when you vote for that tax - if you vote for it - don't fool yourself. Don't delude yourself into 75  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 thinking that you're doing a fair and an equitable thing. You're not. You're imposing a food tax in Chicago only. You're doing it on the backs of people who cannot afford it, and as you do it, you're rejecting a plan that proposes to use a tax which is derived almost entirely from visitors to this state, and it's collected fifty percent in the City of Chicago. I would sincerely recommend to every Member of this Body that you look long and hard at this Amendment, that you look long and hard at this Bill. It's easy to sit here and to say, 'It's a free vote. It doesn't affect my town.' But maybe there will be Bills down the road. Maybe there will be Bills years ahead that will do just to your town what this Bill is doing to the people of the City of Chicago, and then you'll sing a different tune. And I hope it doesn't happen to you. And I hope it doesn't happen to me. Thank you very much."

"Representative Greiman in the Chair prior to Mr. Madigan's remarks. Further discussion? The Gentleman from Fulton, Mr. Homer."

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

"Indicates he'll yield for a question."

"Representative Bullock, how much currently is raised by the five percent hotel/motel tax per year in the State of Illinois?"

"The projections for FY '86 or the extrapolations are about 40 million."

"Alright. So, currently 40 million dollars is raised by the five percent hotel/motel tax. And where does that 40 million dollars go at the current time?"

"Ten percent of it goes to tourism promotion, and 90 percent of it, at present, was used for GRF, General Revenue Fund."

"Alright. And under Amendment #3, where would... what 76  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 would the division be, then?"

"Under Amendment #3, in FY '85..."

"If you might, let's go with '86 and assess the first full year of funding."

"Alright. We'll skip '85, Representative, and go to '86. In FY '86, the revenue would go... 17.3 million of the hotel tax would go into the Tourism Fund... new Illinois Tourism Fund, and another nine million would also go into the Illinois Tourism Fund."

"Okay. So the bottom line is that in 1986, if this proposal should pass, that..."

"FY '86. I don't want to be technical, but we should, since we're discussing fiscal years as opposed to calendar years."

"Correct. In FY '86, approximately 34 million dollars that would have gone in without this legislation in the General Revenue Fund will no longer go into General Revenue Fund but, rather, will go into Illinois Tourism Fund for the purpose of funding this program. Is that correct?"

"That is not correct, Representative. That's why I said, let's use fiscal years. In Fiscal Year '86, the figure would be 27.2 million, as opposed to the 34 that you alluded to."

"The figure you gave was 27 million?"

"Twenty-seven million point two."

"Alright. And that's for a period of thirty years?"

"Just FY '86. I mean, you asked for the FY '86. We're discussing only FY '86, Representative."

"But this legislation authorizes that... that provision for thirty years in order to retire the bonds of McCormick Place."

"Correct. And if you annualize that, if you want an annualized average, Representative, it would be 25.7 77  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 million, not 34, compared to the Senate's 21 million annual average."

"So that over a period of thirty years, we're talking about taking approximately one billion dollars out of the General Revenue Fund and putting it into the Illinois Tourism Fund. Is that correct?"

"Well, Representative, let me say, in answer to your question, we're talking an annual average in this plan of 25.7 versus the Senate plan of 21.1. If you look at the differential through those years, we're talking about a 4.6 million differential, but it's significant to note in addition to that, or as a part of that, we will be giving on an annual basis of two million dollars to downstate civic centers, which is, in fact, five percent of that differential."

"So, two million to downstate civic centers and about a billion dollars to the Illinois Tourism Fund. Now..."

"Well, Representative, that is certainly incorrect, because what you also have to do is to talk about the net expenditure and subtract from that expanded economic benefit, and I don't think you or I would want to overlook the revenue that would come into the State Revenue Fund. Fy '86 alone, since we're talking about FY '86, you would realize 78 million dollars, new dollars, expanded economic benefit to the State Treasurer. So, while we are paying out approximately 27...in FY '86 we're paying out 46 million, we are getting back into the state coffers just from McCormick Place and from tourism, 78 million dollars. So, you can see a net gain there, Representative, of almost... well not of almost, of 32 million dollars net to the state. So, we have to consider that."

"Representative Bullock, that's prefaced upon the theory that by expanding McCormick Place and by having the World's 78  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 Fair, of course this Bill doesn't go that far, that World Fair..."

"No, not the World's Fair..."

"But by... But tourism in McCormick's Place are going to enhance the state's revenue by the projections that you gave."

"That's correct."

"And who made those projections?"

"Well, these figures, Representative, are easily verifiable, both from the Authority, both from the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs, which is a state agency that we fund annually, and of course, as you know, from our very fine and able House Democratic staff."

"Certainly all of which are constrained by the fact they're speculating about what's going to happen thirty years in the future."

"Well, the Governor appointed Secretary Kramer chairing the task force, and he had many private financiers on that task force and many distinguished Legislators from both sides of the aisle, and the task force also verified the figures."

"Right. Now, I'm sure that that's their best guess. Now, with respect to the priority, let's suppose that the Illinois Tourism Fund does not raise the revenues. Let's suppose the projections, in spite of all the care that's been taken to be accurate, is not sufficient. Does Amendment #3 provide a list of priorities as to which of the liabilities created hereby would be funded first? For example, would McCormick's Place expansion bond project take precedence over tourism and over downstate civic center promotion?"

"Representative, you asked two questions, and I'll answer them very quickly. The answer to the question... 79  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 first question is, you know, if these figures are off and, in fact, we don't generate the revenue, then you're obviously against the Bill and the projects, and I don't think that you want to be against the Bill and all of the projects. The second question is, what happens if the revenue is not up to the actual projections? And in this Amendment, we clearly delineated Section 8.25 not only the payout or the revenue stream to various funds, but McCormick Place account would, in fact, have first draw on the Illinois Tourism Fund established in the Treasury Department."

"So, in other words, what you're saying, Representative, is the money would first be applied to McCormick Place. Then, if there's any left, it would go to statewide tourism. Then, if there was any left after all of those expenditures, it would go to downstate civic center promotion. And if there was not enough money, then there wouldn't be any money for downstate civic center promotion. Is that correct?"

"Well, if you wanted to use that rationale, but I don't necessarily agree with it. What this plan presents to the Body is revenue projections that I said have been verified by the agencies that you... that you acknowledge are pretty competent, and then we subsequently spell out expenditure draws on that revenue. And I cannot foresee, Representative, that our figures are so far off that we would not be able to find two million plus dollars for your downstate civic centers, understanding that in the Senate plan, and if you defeat this Amendment or don't support it, you would have a... probably the Senate plan, you get no money for your downstate civic centers."

"Well, somebody must have had that concern, because they set up a list of priorities, and I see that downstate civic 80  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 centers occupies the last priority. But let me just very briefly, Mr. Speaker, to the Bill. I think..."

"Proceed."

"I think that it's very clear to all of the Members here that in their conscience those Members from Chicago as well as those Members downstate that the World's Fair project - it's just simply a boondoggle. The five million dollars being asked is nothing but a waste of money, money that could be going for vital state services at a time that we very desperately need them. We don't need to spend five million dollars to save face. All that we have to do is look and see what happened in Knoxville, New Orleans and... recognize that this is not 1933 in Chicago and vote to save that five million dollars to put it where it could be better used, by the kids of this state and their education. Now, with regard to McCormick Place expansion, I, for one, think that that's an excellent suggestion, that we expand McCormick Place or that McCormick Place be expanded, because I think that it is vital to the City of Chicago and to the northern part of this state in attempt to attract conventions and in an attempt to attract tourism, to create construction jobs in the City of Chicago, to create new recreation jobs in the City of Chicago. I think that that's a good, sound proposal. But who should pay for it, is the question. Who should pay for the expansion of McCormick Place? Should it be the people who will receive the direct benefit in the City of Chicago and in the Chicago area, or should it be the people in Peoria, Illinois and downstate Illinois? Who should pay for the expansion of ... of McCormick's Place? Now, the City could pay. The City has a lot of ways to pay. The have industrial revenue bonding authority. They have... by which they could realize the revenues from McCormick's 81  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 Place in an attempt to help retire the bond issue. They can use the Public Building Commission in the City of Chicago. They have home rule power to exact other taxes to help support this project, which is going to so directly and greatly benefit the people of that area. It may be a very sound investment. But why are you going to rob a million dollars out of General Revenue? Why are we going to take that money, that money which should be going for education and for mental health and for public aid? Why are we going to take a billion dollars out of that fund over the next thirty years?"

"Gentleman bring his remarks to a close."

"We're being... Thank you. We're being told that... that revenues are going to be enhanced as a result of the expansion of McCormick Place and because of tourism. But I would submit to you, in all due respect to the Sponsor, that that's... that's a trickle down theory that would make even perhaps David 'Stockman' blush. Certainly we would hope that the state's revenues would enhance as we would hope the Federal Government's revenues would enhance, but that doesn't mean the Federal Government's going to pay for it, and it shouldn't mean that the entire State of Illinois should pay for it. I just simply am not prepared, at this time, to take the gamble and gamble away a billion dollars that should be going for education, should be going for mental health. And, in closing, I would just say that that's certainly a wager that I'm not willing to make."

"Gentleman from Bureau, Mr. Mautino."

"Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and Gentlemen, I concur with many of the sentiments raised by Representative Homer, but I think one area that has not been touched, should be touched. And I would like to address the Sponsor of the Amendment, Representative 82  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 Bullock, in regards to the provisions within the Amendment that puts the full faith in credit under the bonding authority that is authorized in this Amendment. As I read the Amendment, Representative Bullock, I note that in Section 10, the state's full faith in credit is behind the bonds issued under this provision; yet, in fact, the balance of the State of Illinois outside the County of Cook would, under this Amendment with the exception of the civic center provisions, receive very little for our full faith in credit. Is that a correct evaluation that I just provided?"

"Gentleman indicates that he'll yield for that question."

"First of all, Representative, the Gentleman from Bureau that I have tremendous respect for, I have to say to you that you are incorrect where you indicate that the state's full faith in credit are behind those bonds. If you could point out to me, in this legislation, where that is so specified, I would be glad to... to restate and to certainly withdraw that, but I don't... I don't read it that way."

"Section 10 on page 23."

"On page 23, Representative?"

"Yes, Sir., Yes."

"And the line?"

"It's Section 10, starts with line 16 and goes through line 23."

"As I read this, Representative, I don't discern that the state has an obligation that full faith and credit of the state is obligated. Now, where does it say that?"

"That was my question. As I evaluated this..."

"Well, it does not say that., That's why I stated previously that if... if one purports that the full faith 83  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 and credit behind these bonds, to my knowledge, that certainly just isn't correct, Representative."

"Alright then, my follow-up question would be if, in fact, revenues under this proposal were not sufficient for the payment of the bonding provisions embodied in the overall proposal, where would that money come from?"

"Well, Representative, we'd have to make the conclusion that those bonds would, in fact, be in default."

"And then the appropriation process of the State of Illinois would then be providing the debt service as well as the paying off of the bonds. Is that correct?"

"Representative, I can only reference page 32, if you'd like to go over it with me. On page 32, line 15, 'The state shall not be liable on bonds of the Metropolitan Fair and Exposition Authority issued under this Act and such bonds shall not be a debt of the state nor shall this Act be construed as a guarantee by the state of the debts of the Metropolitan Fair and Exposition Authority. The bonds shall contain the statement to such effect on the face thereof.' In fact, Representative, that language speaks for itself. And, as you know, the Exposition Authority, in and of itself, is a unit of local government."

"I'm sorry. On page 32, what line?"

"Line 15 through 21."

"I submit to you on page 32 that you start reading from line 4. 'The state pledges to and agrees with the holders of the bonds of the Metropolitan Fair and Exposition Authority, pursuant to this Section...'"

"Go on. Continue."

"'... the state will no limit or alter the basis of which state funds are to be paid.'"

"Continue."

"Therefore, we would have to appropriate funds in the 84  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 case of... of not enough revenues for the debt service, as I read it."

"Representative, now that you have finished reading it, I think if you take the time to analyze it, that Section in and of itself merely says that we will not repeal the taxes."

"Excuse me. Would you repeat that? You would not repeal the what?"

"Taxes."

"The tax? Isn't that correct, what you said?"

"That's correct."

"Yes, Sir. Thank you very much."

"Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Terzich."

"I move the previous question."

"Well, no one is seeking recognition. So, accordingly, Representative Bullock, to close."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. This Amendment has received the debate that I believe is necessary for this Assembly to reach the same conclusion that this Sponsor has reached, and that is, that we in Illinois must support the expansion of McCormick Place, the creation of a Tourism Fund in our state and fund for one year the 1992 World's Fair, but more importantly, that we must recognize that downstate civic centers are important to the economic vitality of the State of Illinois. In trying to meet that need in the course of the debate we've had several statements made which I classify as myth, and I'd like to refute those myths with fact. One of my distinguished colleages indicated at the outset that if Amendment #3 were adopted, we would, in fact, have eleven percent rate on hotel/motels in the City of Chicago. Amendment #3 does not raise the rate to eleven percent; but, in fact, the tax would be ten percent only which 85  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 would make it the same as Washington, D.C, New York, Los Angeles, Houston, New Orleans, and San Francisco is at 9.75 percent. So that, Representative, was inadvertently in error. One of the other Representatives made the statement that downstaters are, in fact, subsidizing McCormick Place and tourism and one year for the fair and even the convention center subsidy. That, in and of itself, is myth. The facts are, as the Speaker of the House indicated, the revenue stream for this proposition, three-quarters of the revenue are generated in the six county RTA metropolitan area and 50 percent of that revenue, in fact, comes from the City of Chicago itself. And we understand the importance of downstate civic centers and we provided a subsidy to that area that only pays 25 percent of the revenue. We are providing a subsidy. One other Representative made a statement that supposing these figures are off and we are charging the General Revenue Fund with a billion dollars. That, in and of itself, is a myth, because we have to subtract the net revenue expanded economic impact to the state. McCormick Place alone, in one year, over and beyond the 47 million they sent to state... to the state treasury from its expanded program, the overall economic benefit from McCormick Place is in the area of 1.1 billion dollars... the overall economic impact. Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, Amendment #3 is, in fact, the best funding source for these four vital projects and I urge an 'aye' vote."

"The question is, 'Shall Amendment #3 be adopted?' Those in favor signify by voting 'aye', those opposed by voting 'no'. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. Mr. Bullock."

"Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure everybody has an 86  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 opportunity to express themselves on the subject. There are three Members absent. If we could poll the absentees."

"Clerk shall poll the absentees."

"Poll of the Absentees. Breslin."

"Record Representative Breslin as 'no'."

"Taylor and White."

"On this question there are 39 'ayes', 59 'nos'. The Amendment fails. Are there any further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #4, offered by Representative Bullock."

"Mr. Bullock."

"I'd like to withdraw Amendment #4."

"Gentleman requests leave to withdraw Amendment #4. Is there leave? Leave is granted. Are there any further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #5, offered by Representative Currie."

"Representative Currie."

"Question of... Parliamentary inquiry. Is Amendment 5 in order?"

"The Amendment is not in order. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #6, offered by Representative Currie."

"Representative Currie."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is Amendment 6 in order?"

"The Amendment is not in order. Are there any further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #7, offered by Representative Homer."

"Mr. Homer."

"Mr. Speaker, is Amendment #7 now out of order?"

"The Amendment is not in order. Are there 87  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #8, offered by Representative Homer."

"Mr. Homer."

"Mr. Speaker, I move to withdraw. It's not in order."

"Gentleman requests leave to withdraw Amendment #8. Is there leave? Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #9, offered by Representative Cullerton."

"Mr. Cullerton."

"Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Amendment #9 is going to be on another Bill, so I would, at this time, ask leave to withdraw Amendment #9."

"Gentleman requests leave to withdraw Amendment #9. Is there leave? Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #10, offered by Representative Younge, Madigan and Currie."

"Representative Younge."

"Mr. Speaker, I move to amend Amendment #10 to make it conform to the past events of the first nine Amendments. I ask leave to correct any error."

"Think they'll... Are you sure that you aren't asking for leave to withdraw?"

"I ask for leave to withdraw."

"Lady requests leave to withdraw Amendment #10. Is there leave? Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #11, offered by Representative Braun, Madigan, Currie and Younge."

"Representative Braun."

"Thank you." 88  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984

"Representative Braun, Amendment #11."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would inquire whether Amendment #11 is in order at this point."

"The Amendment is not in order. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #12, offered by Representative Currie."

"Representative Currie, on Amendment #12."

"Leave to withdraw."

"Lady requests leave to withdraw the Amendment. Is there leave? Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #13, offered by Representative Homer."

"Mr. Homer."

"Leave to withdraw, Mr. Speaker."

"Is there leave? Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #14, offered by Representative Levin."

"Mr. Levin."

"To withdraw."

"Is there leave? Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #15, offered by Representative Homer."

"Mr. Homer."

"Leave to withdraw, Mr. Speaker."

"Is there leave? Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #16, offered by Representative Dwight Friedrich."

"Mr. Friedrich." 89  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984

"I would hope this fine Amendment is in order, Mr. Speaker. Do you want to check it?"

"It is."

"Pardon?"

"The Amendment is in order."

"Thank you. I'll pursue it, then."

"Proceed, Mr. Friedrich."

"This requires the World's Fair Authority to hire an executive director, and that that director be confirmed by a vote of three-fifths of both Houses of the General Assembly. His term shall be four years. I think it's appropriate, if we are going to be providing the money for this and the financing, that the General Assembly have some control over the people who run it. Move the adoption."

"Mr. Bullock."

"Mr. Speaker, will the Sponsor yield for a question?"

"Yes, I will."

"The Sponsor indicates that he will yield."

"Representative Friedrich, are your intentions at this point to have the Illinois General Assembly confirm an individual to a separate unit of local government?"

"Well, I think we do have something to say about what happens with the RTA and so on, and I don't think that's any different than this, basically."

"When has this House confirmed an individual or an official to the RTA?"

"Well, we haven't, but the state does have something to say about it, even though it's a separate corporation, the Governor makes the appointment."

"But your Amendment says that by two-thirds of this Assembly and the Senate we shall confirm the CEO of the World's Fair Authority, which is a separate unit of local government, and my question is, 'Do you feel that this will 90  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 pass the test of constitutionality?"

"Well, the Senate has to confirm the appointment of the Chairman of the RTA, I'm informed, and I think that's a separate unit of government."

"Well, Representative Friedrich, I'm all in support of expanding the..."

"I'm not a constitutional lawyer."

"I'm all for supporting and expanding the influence of the House of Representatives. Certainly a bicameral Body should be equal to the other chamber, and I support your Amendment."

"Thank you."

"The question is, 'Shall the Amendment be adopted?' Those in favor say 'aye', those opposed say 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. The Amendment is adopted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #17, offered by Representative Piel."

"Mr. Piel."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First question, is the Amendment in order?"

"Yes."

"Thank you. For those of you that have a copy of the Amendment, there has been a change. Representative Mulcahey... Let the record show that Representative Mulcahey has withdrawn as Sponsor... as one of the two Sponsors of the Amendment. On the Amendment #17, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I'd like to preface my remarks by saying that I'm not entering this Amendment as a slap in the face to the World's Fair. I just felt that the purpose of Amendment #17 off the Bill, in hopes of putting it onto another Bill, and to let it rise and fall on its own strengths or weaknesses. The 91  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 purpose of Amendment #17 is to prevent the World's Fair from dragging down this Bill and hurting the McCormick Place and tourism in Illinois, which I feel are the prominent areas of the Bill. After looking at the one year feasibility study as far as the World's Fair is concerned in the proposed Bill, I feel the World's Fair won't hurt the Bill. And I withdraw Amendment #17."

"The Gentleman moves for the adoption of Amendment #17. On that question, the Chair..."

"Mr. Speaker, I withdrew Amendment #17."

"The Gentleman requests leave to withdraw the Amendment. Is there leave? Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #18, offered by Representative Bullock and Nash."

"Mr. Bullock."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Amendment #18 goes, perhaps, at the heart of the problem with the Chicago 1992 World's Fair as it comes before this Assembly. Amendment #18 will attempt to professionalize the operation of the 1992 World's Fair Authority with the establishment and creation of an office of professional management for scheduling, for cost projections, for quality control. The PMO Office would execute the directives and objectives of the Authority and its citizens'board of advisors. The PMO Office would coordinate the efforts of the organizations that are necessary for the planning and construction and operation of the fair. It would develop documents to monitor and to manage and control all aspects of the Fair Authority in a professional manner. Some examples of successful PMO, which most of the Members of this Assembly would support, because we know that the Authority has not been 92  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 professionally managed. The O'Hare Field Exposition Expansion Project was under a PMO management. The Chicago Deep Tunnel Project at the Metropolitan Sanitary District was under PMO management. The McCormick Place Exposition Program was under PMO management. And some of the examples of where there were no PMO is, in fact, the WPSS Nuclear Power Project, and I doubt seriously if they had PMO at the Three Mile Island fiasco. So, what I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that we are giving five million dollars for a feasibility study of the fair. We should also give, concomitant with that, a professional management office to coordinate all of the efforts of the Authority so that when we receive information in the future, we will receive adequate cost projections, revenue projections in a timely fashion. And I would urge an 'aye' vote."

"Mr. Greiman."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I join with Mr. Bullock part of the way. I think that the program management office is a good idea. The question... and the feasibility study is a good idea. The question is, though, whether it should be done in-house, whether it should be done by the same people who, in fact, be doing the fair itself. It is believed that most feasibility studies, if they are to be meaningful and effective, should be done by out-of-house. Accordingly, I would suggest to Representative Bullock that he... since we have... we seem to have a lot of time on our hands to add new Amendments, that perhaps he take this Amendment out and that he instead revise the Amendment so that it will do what I am suggesting."

"Representative Greiman, you are absolutely correct and I will certainly work with you, and we'll withdraw this Amendment."

"Thank you." 93  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984

"Gentleman requests leave to withdraw the Amendment. Is there leave? Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #19, offered by Representative Bullock, Nash and Laurino."

"Mr. Bullock."

"Leave to withdraw."

"Is there leave? Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #20, offered by Representative Bullock."

"Mr. Bullock."

"Leave to withdraw."

"Is there leave? Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #21, offered by Representative Tuerk."

"Mr. Tuerk."

"Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, all during the deliberations..."

"For what purpose does Mr. Bullock seek recognition?"

"Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the Chair if this Amendment is in order?"

"The Amendment is not in order. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #22, offered by Representative Tuerk."

"Mr. Tuerk."

"Well, we may as well inquire about Amendment #22 also. Is that in order?"

"The Amendment is not in order. Are there further Amendments?" 94  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984

"Floor Amendment #23, offered by Representative Dwight Friedrich."

"Mr. Friedrich. Mr. Dwight Friedrich. Mr. Dwight Friedrich on Amendment #23."

"I believe this can be withdrawn since we approved the other one. Thank you, Mr. Speaker."

"Is there leave? Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #24..."

"Mr. Olson requests leave to withdraw Amendment #24. Is there leave? Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #25, offered by Representative Homer."

"Mr. Homer."

"Leave to withdraw."

"Is there leave? Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #26, offered by Representative Levin and Bowman."

"Mr. Levin."

"Leave to withdraw."

"Is there leave? Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #27, offered by Representative Levin and Bowman."

"Mr. Levin."

"Same Motion."

"Is there leave? Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Mr. Levin."

"Floor Amendment #28, offered by Representative Levin." 95  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984

"Leave to withdraw."

"Is there leave? Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #29, offered by Representative Levin and Bowman."

"Mr. Levin."

"Leave to withdraw."

"Is there leave? Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #30, offered by Representative Shaw."

"Mr. Shaw."

"Leave to withdraw."

"Is there leave? Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #31, offered by Representative Wojcik et al."

"Representative Wojcik."

"Leave to withdraw."

"Is there leave? Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #32, offered by Representative Friedrich."

"Mr. Friedrich."

"I would like to withdraw that, please."

"Is there leave? Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #33, offered by Representative Piel."

"Mr. Piel."

"Leave to withdraw #33."

"Is there leave? Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?" 96  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984

"Amendment #34, offered by Representative Tuerk."

"Mr. Tuerk."

"Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, all during the deliberations during the task force..."

"For what purpose does Mr. Bullock seek recognition?"

"Mr. Speaker, I would question whether or not this Amendment is in order."

"The Amendment is not in order. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #35, offered by Representative Tuerk."

"Mr. Tuerk."

"Would you give us a ruling on 35 then, please?"

"The Amendment is not in order. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #36, offered by Representative Mulcahey."

"Mr. Mulcahey."

"Mr. Speaker... Mr. Speaker, is this Amendment in order?"

"The Amendment is in order."

"Fine. Withdraw it."

"Is there leave? Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #37, offered by Representative Bullock, Nash and Currie."

"Mr. Bullock."

"Mr. Speaker, is this Amendment in order? Is it in order? I request leave to withdraw it."

"Is there leave? Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #38, offered by Representative 97  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 Bullock, Nash and Currie."

"Mr. Bullock."

"Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, Amendment #38 is an Amendment which, perhaps, answers several of the concerns that were raised on the floor a few minutes ago. This Amendment would, in fact, dip into the restaurant tax, .7 percent. It would reduce by one percent the hotel/motel tax in the City. In conjunction with the subsequent Amendment, this Amendment would provide the funding necessary for the four projects that were previously enumerated."

"Gentleman moves for the adoption of the Amendment. Is there any discussion? Mr. Vinson."

"Mr. Speaker, will the Sponsor yield for a question?"

"Sponsor will yield..."

"Mr. Speaker, before I do that, I would like to make a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair."

"Proceed."

"Should we now understand that any Member of the House may go to the Clerk and request that certain numbers for Amendments be held open and then, just before the Bill is heard, they may file the Amendments and have them distributed? Is that now a privilege granted to Members of this House?"

"Mr. Vinson, you'll have to let me inquire into that question and get back with you."

"I wondered, Mr. Speaker, if you might reserve Amendments #60 through 69, those numbers for me to file when we get up to that area. I don't want to file them yet because I don't want anybody to have a chance to analyze them so that we might determine what they are. But I would like to reserve the numbers."

"Let us see if we can't, as usual, accommodate 98  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 you, Mr. Vinson."

"Could you... fine, and could you also get me a Democrat analysis of these Amendments? I assume that some member of the staff must have had a chance to analyze these in the days that they have been prepared and held in hiding."

"Let us see if we can't find one of those for you."

"Now, could I inquire of the Sponsor some questions?"

"The Sponsor indicates that he will yield."

"Representative, could you explain to us what these Amendments do, since it's been rather difficult to find out?"

"Representative, I'll explain those that I'm sponsoring, and I happen to be sponsoring this one. Some of the others, I couldn't, perhaps, be as thorough as I, perhaps, can on the ones that I'm sponsoring."

"Well, could you explain this one?"

"Yes, Sir. I'd be glad to. The... Amendment 38, before us, will attempt to dip .7 percent into the Chicago hotel/motel tax in FY '85, providing us three million dollars. In the out years, it will provide an average of 3.9 million dollars. Also, this Amendment would maintain the Senate plan of one percent state-wide hotel/motel tax, and, of course, this plan, in expenditure, provides ten million dollars to downstate civic centers... I mean to tourism, and two million to downstate civic centers. So, this is a net expenditure increase for downstate civic centers, and, of course, a net increase in expenditure for the Governor's Department of Tourism that he wants to establish in the state."

"Is there a restaurant tax on the City of Chicago in this Amendment?"

"Chicago only." 99  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984

"There is a Chicago only restaurant tax in the Amendment?"

"No, Chicago only hotel tax."

"Is there a Chicago only restaurant tax in the Amendment?"

"No."

"Does the Amendment strike the restaurant tax in the Senate Bill?"

"Yes."

"I beg your pardon?"

"Yes."

"And what is the elaborate language in the Amendment on property descriptions?"

"On property descriptions?"

"Yes."

"The same as in the original Bill. The same as was in the Amendment #3."

"To the Amendment, Mr. Speaker. It would appear to me that this is Amendment #3 all over again. Now, I can't absolutely and flatly assert that, because of the way in which staff and Members have been denied the opportunity to have a meaningful opportunity to analyze the Amendment. But, the Gentleman does say that there is no restaurant tax in the City of Chicago if we adopt this Amendment. And, as I said before, in regard to what the duplicate of this Amendment, we are in a situation where the two biggest projects that this entire program would create are projects whose greatest benefit is derived by the City of Chicago. Seems to me that again this is an Amendment where the City of Chicago would derive all of the benefit from the program and have to pay a very low amount of the cost. It is an Amendment of disproportionate benefit to the City. It is an Amendment that ought to be rejected by those people who 100  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 care about the entire State of Illinois and whose interests are not parochially located to the City. I would request a Roll Call, Mr. Speaker, on this Amendment because I think that the tactics by which this Amendment have been offered, as well as the contents, bespeak something more appropriate to the City Council of Chicago than to a genuinely deliberative Body. I would urge a 'no' vote and request a Roll Call and a verification, should it appear to get the requisite number of votes."

"Representative Brummer."

"Yes, will the Sponsor yield?"

"Sponsor indicates he will yield."

"How does this differ from Amendment #3, which was considered previously? It appears to eliminate some authorization for the State Treasurer to withhold funds that would otherwise be distributed to the City of Chicago. Is there any other difference?"

"Well, Representative, I'll attempt to explain, as best I can, the differences in this and the previous Amendment. This Amendment, Representative, will give two million dollars to the Department of Tourism, as opposed to the previous Amendment, which was only giving then eight million dollars. This Amendment also will give your downstate civic centers two million dollars annually. And this Amendment relies, essentially, in Chicago, on an increased hotel/motel tax in Chicago only. So, this Amendment has no additional revenue impact on southern Illinois or your area, but, in fact, we are giving additional revenue to some projects that would help you in your area through the Governor's expanded state tourism program and downstate civic centers."

"Does this have a one percent state-wide hotel/motel tax increase?" 101  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984

"It's identical to the Senate Amendment in that regard, and the answer is yes."

"Okay, so with regard to the comparison between it and Amendment #3, it is the same in that regard?"

"In that instance, yes. In several other instances, no."

"And it is the same with regard to the distribution of the downstate civic centers, none of which are located near me anyway."

"Well, perhaps we can work on that with subsequent Amendments."

"No, I'm not suggesting that, but it's the same with regard to the distribution of downstate civic centers, is that correct?"

"Yes."

"And is it the same with regard to the allocation to the McCormick Place expansion as Amendment #3?"

"I would imagine that that's true."

"So, once again, and is it the same with regard to five million dollars for the study for the World's Fair?"

"It is in some instances, but there is no impact on the City of Chicago in terms of its revenue."

"So, it does not require the City of Chicago to put in the two million dollars per year, is that what you are saying?"

"Yes."

"So, in the final analysis, it appears to be substantially similar to Amendment #3 with the exception of the deletion of the obligation of the City of Chicago to put in the two million dollars?"

"Well, I wouldn't say it's substantially the same, Representative. I have attempted to identify, at least in four instances, the differences." 102  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984

"Well, okay. Would you reiterate those? I thought we had covered the major elements of the... Amendment #3."

"Number one, we give more money to tourism for the State of Illinois. Number two..."

"Okay, and how is that financed?"

"It's financed through the taxes and revenues that I enunciated with the hotel/motel tax and, of course, the racing privilege tax."

"Okay, does that mean it takes more out of the General Revenue Fund, or does it mean that there is..."

"Takes less than the other Amendment, Representative, less."

"Okay, and what are the other three differences, then, you delineated?"

"Well, I did two. You missed one, which was the increased expenditure for tourism. We removed the City's commitment in the City of Chicago. We imposed a tax on the hotel/motel industry in the City of Chicago, and we provide the same level of funding for downstate civic centers. So, in effect, it's three, but it's only one million over the Senate plan that was sent over here."

"Okay. With regard to the hotel/motel tax in the City of Chicago, you are indicating that there is... currently, the City of Chicago pays a one percent additional motel/hotel tax, as I understand it. Is that correct?"

"Well, we're at nine... yeah, we're at nine percent in the City. Representative, state-wide, you are at five percent."

"And in Amendment #3 there was no proposal to increase the hotel/motel tax in the City of Chicago. Is that correct?"

"That's correct."

"And this does increase the hotel/motel tax in the City 103  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 of Chicago?"

"That's correct."

"What amount of revenue is generated from the one... is that increase one percent increase in the City of Chicago?"

"On an annual average, it averages out to about 3.9."

"I'm sorry. I could not hear the answer."

"Annual average 3.9."

"Okay, and under Amendment #38, what is the... what is the state commitment to McCormick Place on an annualized basis?"

"Well, the state's commitment to McCormick Place on an annualized basis is somewhere in the vicinity of maybe 10.6 plus... on an annualized average $34,000,000."

"And under Amendment #3, it was about 27.5 million."

"Well, in this Amendment and in #3, 50 percent of that is from Chicago, so you would have to break it out."

"Well, how does the $34,000,000 compare to the amount in Amendment #3, then?"

"Well, Amendment #3... it's greater than Amendment #3, Representative."

"And where is that revenue coming from, then?"

"The extra tax in the City of Chicago."

"You mean the hotel/motel tax?"

"Yes."

"The 3.9..."

"3.9, right."

"3.9?"

"Yeah, uh-huh."

"Thank you."

"Mr. Dwight Friedrich."

"Mr. Speaker, we have been working on this World's Fair thing for weeks and weeks, and we've had the task force meeting. We have had staff on both sides of the 104  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 aisle analyzing all the proposals that's been made. And now, five minutes ago, I get this on my desk, the most... one of the most complicated things we'll be dealing with in this whole Session, and you expect us to analyze it and make an intelligent vote. I respectfully ask you to take this out of the record for at least an hour so our staff has a chance to go over it. And up until 11:00, I know, he had told me he had constantly gone to the well and said, 'Where are the Amendments? MissingAmendments?' Nobody could tell him. Suddenly, they appear on my desk and you expect me to vote intelligently. You haven't analyzed them. Even Representative Bullock couldn't answer sensible questions because he didn't have the answers, either. So, apparently, your staff hasn't either. Would you please take this out of the record for at least an hour so that at least we can have a staff analysis?"

"Mr. Bullock."

"Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the previous speaker, but I will respectfully disagree with you, Representative Friedrich. I, at no time, could not answer a mundane question, especially those that you chose to ask. I have attempted in every instance... in every instance... I have attempted in every instance to answer the questions to the best of my ability. Representative Brummer probably had me here for about ten to fifteen minutes of interrogation. Other Representatives have asked me questions, and in every instance, Representative Vinson notwithstanding, I have attempted to answer those questions. One of the things that I think, Representative Friedrich, that you might be well to adhere to in the future is to, perhaps, put certain things in gear before you make those wild, unfounded statements. I am prepared to answer every question, and if you have a specific 105  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 question, I'll be glad to answer it. But I have not pleaded ignorance on any subject before this Assembly."

"Mr. Friedrich."

"Mr. Speaker, I say again, we have had these Amendments less than fifteen minutes. It's very, very complicated. It deals with millions of dollars, $220,000,000 for McCormick Place alone, $10,000,000 for tourism and a possible $900,000,000 down the road for the fair. And he expects us to analyze it. We don't even have a chance to get it to our staff to analyze, much less ourselves. And we keep going to the well. Now, somebody has known what was in these Bills for several days. We had the Committee meeting on Monday. You knew that Amendment #3 was not going to pass. You knew that you were going to offer something else, but you keep us in the dark and expect us to vote intelligently. I ask you again to take this out of the record for at least an hour."

"Representative Currie."

"Representative Friedrich may not have had a chance to see his staff analysis on the Amendment, but I rather suspect that there are people on his side of the aisle who had a notion this Amendment was coming. When Representative Vinson spoke against our Amendment 3 to Senate Bill 1893, I believe, in fact, he was speaking against the provisions in Amendment 38 to Senate Bill 1893. As the Members of this chamber should be aware, there was no increase in the state-wide hotel/motel tax, nor in the city of the county hotel/motel tax in our Amendment 3 different from that already proposed in Senate Bill 1893. Yes, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, Amendment 38 is different. Amendment 38 responds to the concerns of those of you who do not want to spend food taxes collected in Chicago only for tourism activities. Amendment 38 responds 106  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 to the concerns of you who do not want to dip additionally into state General Revenue Fund sources to pay for tourism promotion. Amendment 38 responds to the concerns of those of you who want to see that Chicago shares adequately in the burdens of paying for McCormick Place expansion and state-wide tourism, even though the major beneficiary of those two programs will be the General Revenue funds of the State of Illinois. What Amendment 38 to Senate Bill 1893 does is to add, beyond the proposals that came to us from the Senate, a .7 percent increase on hotel and motel use in the City of Chicago only. The point of that increase is to say, yes, Chicago is willing to pick up a slightly larger share of the burden. Yes, we are willing to dip less into present state hotel/motel general revenue funds. Yes, we insist that we will not use food taxes collected in the City of Chicago only to fund these tourism promotion programs. This Amendment says there will be an increase beyond that already proposed for hotel/motel use in the City of Chicago only. And I would answer the earlier misplaced remarks of Representative Vinson on the question of the state-wide hotel/motel tax in this way. We are told by the promoters of McCormick Place expansion that if we don't expand, we are going to lose business to New York. They say they don't want... May I have order, Mr. Speaker?"

"Would the Assembly please give its attention to Representative Currie? Thank you."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Members of the House. We are told that the major competition is New York. If we do not expand McCormick Place, the trade shows will migrate in that direction. Let me point out to the Members of the chamber that if we adopt Amendment 38, which means an increase over the Senate plan of .7 percent on Chicago only hotels and motels, we will still be in a favorable 107  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 competitive position with New York, with Seattle, with Baltimore, Milwaukee and Washington, D. C. The total hotel/motel tax in the City of Chicago will still be under the hotel/motel taxes in those places. It seems to me that Amendment 38 responds to the concerns of those of us who reject a Chicago only food tax for these purposes, who are resistant to additional revenues from the state General Revenue chest, who demand that there be greater expenditures from the City of Chicago only. This Amendment does continue to include greater protection for those who are skeptical about the plans for a 1992 World's Fair in Chicago. It decreases the monies that were available in the Senate plan, and it requires a real independent feasibility study, which this Bill, as it came to us, did not. If you are skeptical about the fair, if you want fair revenue sources, equitable revenue sources, the only right vote is 'yes' on Amendment 38 to Senate Bill 1893."

"Mr. Hallock."

"Thank you, Mr... Mr. Speaker, Members of the House. This 55 page Amendment is very intriguing, and the part that concerns me the most begins on page seven. Representative Bullock, if you could, I have a question about page seven, please. On page seven begins a description of just where this fair is going to be held. Now, because this Amendment hit my desk about fifteen minutes ago, you might assume that I have not had the time to peruse this and find out just where the fair is going to be held. It seems to me that it begins talking about the Illinois Central Gulf Railway, and I have one of those in my district. It talks later on about the Bill, about Highway 55 and so on, and I know that goes downstate and goes right through Springfield and Bloomington. Could you describe for me just exactly what kind of description you 108  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 are giving here and where this fair might be held?"

"Representative Hallock, that language is identical to the language in Amendment #3, which you did have a chance to read, and that Amendment before us describes the McCormick Place expansion."

"Well, then where is that? Is this going to be... the land here, is this... the railway rights in Chicago? Is it the Art Institute property? Is it the R. R. Donnelly property? Is it Lake Michigan waterfront property? Where is this going to be? Is it 910 South Michigan? You know, which... this location, as a lawyer, I frequently have a chance to read descriptions such as this, but it's usually in the courthouse or in my law office where I have the time to do that. This description doesn't tell me an awful lot in terms of common... as to exactly where it might be. So, could you give me the boundaries?"

"Representative... Representative... This... I'll be glad to give you the boundaries, and I want to preface this by saying you certainly had the time to read Amendment #3 and you voted on that. This language is identical to that. Now, B, the property we are talking about, Representative, is the McCormick Place, west of Lake Shore Drive, north of 23rd Street. It is the same identical parcel of land that was encompassed in Amendment #3. It is not in Rockford. It is in Chicago, and the tracks that are specified and the various parcels in this Amendment describe that area that I just defined for you."

"Well, I appreciate you answering the question. I'm very pleased to know where the fair is. Mr. Speaker..."

"Not the fair, McCormick Place, Representative. McCormick Place, not the fair."

"And the rest of the package, I assume, unless you just want McCormick Place. Mr. Speaker, briefly to the Bill. 109  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 It seems to me this description highlights the problem here. I, also, within the last fifteen minutes, received this Amendment and really haven't had the time to peruse it, and I, of course, trust the Sponsor very well and believe him that this, in fact, is where the fair is going to be held and I would hope that it would be... and the McCormick Place. But let me just say, I also would like to join Representative Vinson in requesting that we reserve some Amendments. . If you could, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve Amendments #70 through 80 and ask at a later date to offer those Amendments. Thank you."

"Mr. Piel."

"Yes, Mr. Speaker. Will the Gentleman yield to a question?"

"Sponsor indicates he will yield."

"Mr. Bullock, would you explain to us exactly what is entailed in the issuing of bonds and notes in the Bill?"

"In... Specifically what, Representative Piel?"

"Well, you know, as Representative Hallock and others mentioned, we have only had fifteen minutes to look at this one, and I was just wondering as far as the... starting on page 50, we are starting... we are talking about the issuing of bonds and notes, and I was just wondering if you would explain to the Assembly exactly what authority they will have as far as issuing bonds and notes?"

"You are referring to page 50, what line, Representative?"

"We are starting on page 50."

"Yeah, on page 50, but what line, Representative? Are you talking about the ordinance? I mean, what is it specifically you want me to..."

"What authority are they going to have as far as issuing bonds and notes?" 110  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984

"The authority that is invested in this particular authorization would allow McCormick Place, for thirty years, to issue its revenue bonds or non-obligation bonds. This language is identical to the language in Amendment #3, which you just voted on."

"Well, that wasn't asked when Amendment #3 came to the floor, and I figured you could enlighten the Assembly on it."

"Well, I could, but I would... if you'll ask a specific question..."

"You don't want to enlighten us, then, as far as the... okay."

"Well, I'll be glad to give you a lecture in stocks and bonds, but I don't think this is the appropriate forum for that."

"Alright, let's... Yeah, I've heard the lectures before. The lectures are very good. Let's go to page 51. Quote, it says, 'The Authority may enter new arrangements to provide additional security and liquidity for such notes. These may include, without limitation... without limitation municipal bond insurance, letters of credit, lines of credit, et cetera, et cetera.' Can you explain to me exactly what they would be going into there?"

"This is the language that the Governor's Office asked us to include in this Bill. It allows the Fair Authority to issue the bonds and... working cash bonds, and it's language that was requested by your administration, and we are including it."

"Working cash bonds. Well, what about the area that says municipal bonds, insurance, letters of credit, et cetera?"

"What Section is that, Representative?"

"It's on page 51, halfway down."

"What line, Representative." 111  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984

"You know, it's your Amendment. I thought... I figured that you knew your Amendment, but let's start on page... or line 14."

"On page 51?"

"That's right."

"Alright. On line 14, the first word is, 'This Section'. Do you want to start there?"

"That's line 14."

"And there's a period after that."

"I just read it to you."

"Okay, and what is your question?"

"You just were talking about one area. I'm talking about the letters of credit, the municipal bond insurance and lines of credit. And I was wondering if you would explain to us exactly what you are talking about."

"Okay, this Section permits the World's Fair Authority to enter into agreements for its working cash fund."

"That's all? Are you finished?"

"That's what it does. Of course, the purchaser of these bonds would like to know what the security is, and that's what this does, provides them the security."

"In other words, what you are talking about, as far as a working cash fund and..."

"World's Fair Authority, right."

"For the World's Fair Authority, and I'm going to just give you two words right out there, it says, 'may include without limitation'. In other words, you are giving unlimited authority to the Authority, correct?"

"No. The Authority may enter into agreements to provide additional security, that's to the bond holders, and liquidity..."

"Yeah, you don't need to read it. You don't need to read it. I've already read it twice on the floor. What I'm 112  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 asking you is without limitation... those two words, 'without limitation.' Is that correct?"

"These are traditional, usual and customary security arrangements that any municipality would enter into when it hopes to issue these type bonds. There is nothing unusual about it, Representative."

"Well, we are talking about letter of credit, lines of credit, et cetera, without limitation, correct? That's what it says. I'm asking you if you agree with that?"

"Representative, everything that's enunciated in this Section, yes, Sir. Without limitation, yes."

"Thank you, thank you. No further questions, Mr. Speaker."

"Mr. Klemm."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the Sponsor yield for a question?"

"Sponsor indicates he will yield."

"Thank you. Representative Bullock, just a couple of short questions, if you will. On page... let me see if I can find it now. On page 33 of the Amendment, there is some question there that's been changed - some language - and it's changing $2500 to $5000 for signatures of, I guess, the treasurer, vice-chairman and chairman for wages or salary payments. And I was wondering if you could maybe clarify to me or at least explain to me what that really means. It's on page 33, lines..."

"Page 33?"

"Yes, Sir. Lines 25 through 33 on that page."

"Okay, and your question, Representative Klemm?"

"And the question is that we have increased the amount from $2500 now to 5000 for salaries or wages..."

"Not on page 33... Oh, at the bottom. Okay, I'm sorry."

"And also asking that the treasurer, vice-chairman and chairman now sign it and it is all 'may' so they can do it 113  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 or they don't have to do it. I was wondering why this... why is this permissive legislation or wording needed and why are we increasing the amount from $2500 to 5000? Are we expecting paychecks that are going to come up to $4999? I mean, are there going to be some pretty high priced people here that we had to raise this amount up or what is the safeguard for Illinois?"

"Okay. First of all, Representative Klemm, this is the identical language of the Senate Bill, and last year, I am led to believe, we passed legislation authorizing this for all units of local government. So, once again, it's usual and customary. It's not out of the ordinary that we require the vice-chairman of the board and the chairman of the board to sign checks in that amount."

"Alright, so this is keeping in the standard procedure we have done before?"

"That is correct."

"Alright, and would that be true, then, on page 34, the next page, and it may very well be. I'm not sure of that, and that's why I want you to clarify it. On Section 24 where it's line six and back on line 24 of that same page..."

"And also line 12, yes, Sir."

"And on line 12 also, increasing it from 2500 now to 5000, where we require bids. Why are we doing this or selling property where we wouldn't want even a more close scrutiny of these bids rather than increasing the dollar amount, which lessens the amount of awards that would fall under this open competitive bidding process that you and I support?"

"Well, this also... not that this is a rationale for it, Dick, but this also was in the Senate Bill. This also track previous legislation we have passed out of here 114  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 raising the no bid level to $5000. I doubt seriously if anybody is going to, you know, go to the caboosekow or get in trouble for dealing in $5000. You are a private businessman. You know how quickly you can reach that threshold, and it's usual and customary in contractual biddings."

"Alright. Just one last question, if I may. And that's the location... Representative Hallock had briefly mentioned it... and that's the location of the McCormick Place. There was some... oh, letters, I guess, information handed out to many of us concerning an alternative site for the McCormick Place. I think it was from the Donnelly Company, if I might use their name. I was wondering if, in this description, legal description for McCormick Place, has those sites been used as alternative sites in this legislation to look at, or is it just simply that one... over the railroad tracks just north of McCormick Inn, there, that we talked about?"

"Okay, Representative Klemm, this Amendment 38 adopts the site description that the Exposition Authority requested initially, as was said in Committee by Representative Pierce, that the General Assembly should not put itself in the site selection position, but, in fact, should rely on that unit of local government, in this case, the Metropolitan Fair and Exposition Authority, to select the site. And so the site described in Amendment 38 is, in fact, the site that the Metropolitan Fair and Exposition Authority selected. It does not include mention of the alternative site, which is south of 23rd Street and west of King Drive. I'm certain that the Authority would consider that alternative site in subsequent expansion programs."

"I don't know if you serve on the World's Fair Subcommittee. Is this location now pretty well set in 115  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 concrete by the Fair Authority or by this Commission that this will the location that we have to describe it then in this legislation, or could they, at some future date, during these negotiations, maybe consider alternative sites or combinations thereof, that this legislation that you have given a legal... kind of a legal description, that we would have to again further amend it, or is it open enough to allow that Authority to go on by that... by the Fair Commissioners, I guess?"

"Let me, first of all, Representative Klemm, make perfectly clear that this Amendment and this language that we were talking about with Representative Hallock deals with McCormick Place expansion. The parcel of land we are talking about in no way deals with the World's Fair."

"Okay, yeah."

"McCormick Place expansion is west of Lake Shore Drive, for those that are familiar with Chicago, and, of course, the World's Fair would be the landfill east of Lake Shore Drive. So this..."

"Well, then let me correct that. Then the McCormick Fair Authority... or the McCormick Place Authority's location of the expansion is really what I meant, and you are right. I didn't want to confuse it with the fair. Would this lock them into this location by this Amendment or do we still leave them an option, if they so desire?"

"Yes. It would pretty much resolve and solidify the site that they have selected in this language. There would be no elasticity here for them to change and go to an alternative site if we adopt this Amendment. No."

"Alright. Just, again, one last question. I'm trying... I don't mean to delay this, but have they then, the Fair Authority, really have decided this is the location, excluding these other alternatives that have reached my 116  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 desk and your desk in the last couple of days?"

"No, it was commenced... the deliberation and study of this commenced in November of 1982. Almost two years have transpired in this process and the Fair Authority, where members are appointed by the Governor Thompson and by the Mayor of the City of Chicago, that's who the membership would be... the membership is. They decided... the Fair and Exposition Authority, appointees of Thompson and Washington and Byrne and Daley, they decided that this was the site that they wanted."

"Alright, so this would just confirm that then?"

"It is being confirmed with this legislation."

"Fine. Thank you very much for your answers."

"Mr. Huff."

"Yes, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield?"

"Sponsor indicates he will yield."

"Representative Bullock, am I correct in assuming that what I'm looking at on page seven, line 22 deals with the McCormick Place expansion site? Page seven..."

"Yes, Representative. That was raised by Representative Hallock. You are correct."

"Can you... Can you... Are you familiar with the Lake Side Bank?"

"Yes, I am."

"Can you tell me what the projected or estimated land acquisition cost is for the site proposed by the McCormick Place Exposition Center?"

"Yes, and I'm not quite certain the relationship of Lake Side Bank to that, by my..., my information, Representative Huff, indicates that the Metropolitan Fair and Exposition Authority is prepared to purchase, for approximately 30 million dollars, the air rights and land for this project west of Lake Shore Drive." 117  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984

"Right. Are you also aware of the fact that the land density that the fair is proposing to buy from the Illinois Central is about roughly 12 acres..."

"No... First of all, Representative, the fair is not buying this land. This is being purchased by the Metropolitan Exposition Authority. This is not land, Representative, purchased by the World's Fair Authority."

"No, no, no. I didn't mean the World's Fair Authority, Larry. I meant the Exposition Authority. Okay. Now, we got that straight. Well, it's approximately, according to the Amendment, the square footage is about 1,100,000 square feet, which is roughly about 12 acres, which is roughly the land dimension of the land that the Lake Side Bank wants to give the Exposition Center for nothing. Are you aware of that?"

"First of all, Representative Huff, that just isn't correct. That is not correct. The alternative site is owned by R. R. Donnelly. It is not owned by the Lake Side Bank. The site proposed by the Authority is land that is north of 23rd Street, west of Lake Shore Drive. It is not 12 acres, Representative. It is 80 acres."

"Alright. To the Bill, Mr. Speaker."

"Mr. Huff."

"You know, for years, Mr. Speaker, one of the problems that many of the people in that immediate area have had is just trying to get across that wide expanse of the ICC tracks in additions to the wide... very wide expanse of the outer drive. Those two expanses have developed what we call a natural barrier to the people's access to the lakefront. It is my belief that this access will be made even more arduous if we construct the McCormick Place expansion following the designs that the McCormick Place Exposition Center wants to carry out. I don't know if many of you 118  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 realize it, but if these plans go forward, as projected by the Exposition Authority, you are going to have an expanded exposition hall built on stilts 50 feet in the air traversing two sets of railroad tracks. And I... I listened to the testimony when the various Committees were held with reference to this project. Representatives from R. R. Donnelly and the Lake Side Press had offered very magnanimously to give up land that is already cleared approximately 300 feet west of the proposed site for nothing, Ladies and Gentlemen. It wouldn't cost the taxpayers anything, and it would... it would, in my opinion, provide for a better construction design, in that this proposed expanded exposition center could be built at grade level, Ladies and Gentlemen, rather than 50 feet up in the air. I think that, if for no other reason, we should give some consideration to the offer made by R. R. Donnelly and the Lake Side Press."

"Mr. Bullock, to close."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Just briefly, to respond to Representative Huff's statement. Unfortunately, Representative Huff, you are... you're incorrect in regards to the existing site for McCormick Place expansion. The fact of the matter is, all of the architectural drawings and all the information that's been given to this Assembly indicate clearly that 70 percent of McCormick Place expansion, Representative, is on grade and only 30 percent of it is suspended over the IC tracks. In addition, of the alternative site that you mention, only 19 acres are being donated or would be donated by the R. R. Donnelly Corporation. We still would require approximately 58, maybe 60 acres to be purchased at a price in excess of five million dollars for trucking and marshaling and taxiing and so there would really be an 119  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 increase in cost to try and acquire the alternative site. So, the Gentleman is just incorrect in both stating that the project would be suspended in the air and that the alternative site would be costless. It would be more costly. Ladies and Gentlemen, Amendment 38, in closing, brings to this Assembly a funding source for McCormick Place, for tourism, for downstate civic centers and for a one year feasibility study of the World's Fair. It's reasonable. It generates substantial revenue from the City of Chicago and the six county area. I urge an 'aye' vote."

"The question is, 'Shall the House adopt Amendment #38 to Senate Bill 1893?' Those in favor will signify by voting 'aye', those opposed by voting 'no'. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. Mr. Bullock requests a Poll of the Absentees."

"Poll of the Absentees. Alexander."

"Mr. Clerk, what was the first name?"

"Alexander."

"'Present'."

"Braun. Breslin."

"'Present'."

"Brookins."

"'Present'."

"Doyle."

"'Present'."

"Markette."

"'Present'."

"Rice."

"'Present'."

"Shaw."

"'Present'."

"Taylor. Wait. White. No further." 120  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984

"Representative Braun."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. There is a very serious issue here in this Amendment. While we have not really had time to adequately review it, seems to... a possible alternative that may be in the best interest of the citizens of this state. I am hopeful that as we look at this issue in Conference Committee and as this issue is further developed, that we can work out something that reconciles all the various interests. And so, for that reason, even though it may not allow for this Amendment to be passed, insofar as it is an alternative to the restaurant tax, I will support the Amendment and encourage the others to do so as well. I vote 'aye'."

"Record Representative Braun as 'aye'. Record Representative Brookins as 'aye'. Record Representative Alexander as 'aye'. If everyone would be patient, we'll get to everyone. Representative LeFlore as 'aye'. Representative Rice 'aye'. Mr. Kirkland."

"No."

"Please record Mr. Kirkland as 'no'. Mr. Piel."

"If this should receive enough votes for adoption, I would ask for a verification."

"Representative Markette wishes to be recorded as 'aye'. Are there any further changes? Mr. Turner? Record Mr. Turner as 'aye'. Record Mr. Shaw as 'aye'. Record Mr. Pangle as 'present'. Record Mr. Wait as 'no'. Mr. Christensen."

"Would you change me from 'no' to 'present'?"

"Record Mr. Christensen as 'present'. Mr. Saltsman wishes to be recorded as 'aye'. Record Mr. Leverenz as 'aye'. Record Mr. Doyle as 'aye'. Record Mr. Vitek as 'aye'. Mr. Mautino. Record Mr. Mautino as 'no'." 121  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 Are there any further changes? Are there any further changes? Mr. Clerk, give me the count. On this question there are 49 'ayes' and 55 'nos' and the Amendment fails. Amendment fails. Are there further Amendments?"

"Amendment #39, offered by Representative Bullock, Nash and Currie."

"The Gentleman requests leave to withdraw the Amendment. Is there leave? Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #40, offered by Representative Currie."

"Representative Currie. Representative Currie."

"I... this out of order. Leave to withdraw."

"Is there leave? Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #41, by Representative Homer."

"Mr. Homer."

"Mr. Speaker, may I inquire, is 41 now out of order?"

"The Amendment is out of order."

"Leave to withdraw, please."

"The Amendment is out of order. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #42, offered by Representative Homer."

"Mr. Homer."

"Leave to withdraw, please."

"Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #43, offered by Representative Cullerton."

"Mr. Cullerton."

"Yes, this... Mr. Speaker, this Amendment deals with the alternate site for McCormick Place, and this will 122  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 appear in other legislation. So, I would ask leave to withdraw at this time."

"Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?"

"#... Amendment #44, offered by Representative Homer."

"Mr. Homer."

"Leave to withdraw, please."

"Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Amendment #45, offered by Representative Currie."

"Leave to withdraw is requested. Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Amendment #46, offered by Representative Younge, Madigan, Currie and Braun."

"Representative Younge. Mr. Parliamentarian, is the Amendment #46 in order? The Amendment is out of order. Are there further Amendments?"

"Amendment #47, offered by Representative Currie."

"Representative Currie. Leave is granted. The Amendment is withdrawn. Are there further Amendments"

"Amendment #48, offered by Representative Levin."

"Mr. Levin."

"Is this in order?"

"The Amendment is not in order. Are there further Amendments?"

"Amendment #49, offered by Representative Homer."

"Mr. Homer. Mr. Homer."

"Leave to withdraw, please."

"Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Amendment #50, offered by Representative Bullock, Nash and Laurino." 123  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984

"Mr. Bullock. Mr. Bullock requests leave to withdraw. Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Amendment #51, offered by Representative Hallock, Giorgi and Tuerk."

"Mr. Hallock."

"Yes, Mr. Speaker, Amendment #51 is a very important..."

"Mr. Bullock."

"I'd like to request if this Amendment is in order or not?"

"The Amendment is not in order. Are there further Amendments? For what purpose does Mr. Hallock seek recognition?"

"Could the Chair be so kind as to instruct us and let us know just why this is not in order? I mean, it seems to me that this one was drafted to the Bill as amended, and we have one drafted to the Bill as not amended. And I believe, overall, the Bill is in order. It amends the right Section, the right statute, the right Act, and I'd like to hear from the Chair just why it's not in order. And so on and so on. And besides that, it's the right thing to do."

"On behalf of the Speaker, the Amendment is not in order because it creates either two Section 6's or two Section 7's."

"Are there further Amendments?"

"Amendment #52..."

"For what purpose does Mr. Vinson seek recognition?"

"A parliamentary inquiry."

"Proceed."

"What language in the Amendment does that?"

"Mr. Vinson, we'd be happy to take it under 124  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 advisement and sit and discuss it with you."

"Well, let's do that. I mean, what language..."

"Come on up to the podium, Mr. Vinson."

"I'm just curious to know because I can't see there's any language in this thing at all that does that."

"You don't have to be afraid. You can come up here."

"You are such a sweet, generous guy that I would never be afraid to go anyplace with you."

"Are there any further Amendments?"

"Amendment #52, offered by Representative Giorgi, Hallock and Tuerk."

"Mr. Giorgi. Mr. Bullock."

"Question whether or not this Amendment is in order."

"The Amendment is not in order. Are there further Amendments?"

"Amendment #53..."

"Mr. Hallock."

"As a Joint Sponsor of 52, I'd like to find out just why that one's not in order."

"On behalf of the Speaker, the Amendment is out of order because it refers to Section 46.6(a) in Section 8 and it is not contained in that Section."

"Mr. Hallock."

"Could you have the Parliamentarian instruct us as to what page that is on so we can double check and make sure that's the correct decision?"

"That's page 44 of the Bill."

"Well, I have page 44 of the Bill here in front of me. It appears that a Section 46.6(a) is necessary in that Bill."

"Mr. Vinson."

"I was just going to sit and make the same point that Mr. 125  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 Hallock made."

"Thank you."

"Mr. Hallock."

"I would suggest, perhaps, this Bill be taken out of the record until we can research that and resolve that point."

"Are there any further Amendments?"

"Amendment #53, offered by Representative Curran and Oblinger."

"Mr. Curran."

"Is the Amendment in order?"

"Yes."

"After all this time, I'm sorry to say, Mr. Speaker, that this Amendment was based upon a presumption one of the earlier Amendments would pass. It now doesn't make any sense to introduce this Amendment, so I'd ask to withdraw it."

"Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #54, offered by Representative Preston."

"Mr. Preston."

"Mr. Speaker, this Amendment is no longer in order and I'd ask leave to withdraw it."

"Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #55, offered by Representative Shaw."

"Mr. Shaw."

"Leave to withdraw."

"Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #56, offered by Representative Younge." 126  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984

"Representative Younge."

"Leave to withdraw."

"Leave is granted. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #57, offered by Representative Shaw."

"Mr. Shaw."

"I'd like to know if this Amendment is germane?"

"The Amendment is not in order. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #58, offered by Mr. Shaw."

"Mr. Shaw."

"Well, I know if the other one wasn't, Mr. Speaker, I know that this one is. Is this one germane?"

"Is your question... the Amendment is in order. Mr. Shaw, this Amendment is in order, but it is not germane. Are there further Amendments?"

"Floor Amendment #59, offered by Representative Daniels."

"For what purpose does Mr. Friedrich seek recognition?"

"Mr. Speaker, it's tea time and we'd like to give the Democrats a little time for that and we'd like an hour for a Republican conference."

"Mr. Friedrich, having spoken with Mr. Daniels, we shall allot one half hour for a Republican conference. Correct, Mr. Daniels? There will be a Republican conference for an hour in Room 118. The Democrats will meet in Room 114 immediately. So, both Republicans and Democrats shall go to conference for one hour. We shall return to the floor at twenty minutes to five. Message from the Senate."

"A Message from the Senate by Mr. Wright, 127  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 Secretary. "Mr. Speaker, I am directed to inform the House of Representatives the Senate has refused to concur with the House in the adoption of their Amendments of the following Bills; Senate Bills 1217 and 1524, action taken by the Senate June 28, 1984. Kenneth Wright, Secretary.""

"The House shall come to order. The House shall come to order. Messages from the Senate."

"A Message from the Senate by Mr. Wright, Secretary. "Mr. Speaker, I am directed to inform the House of Representatives that the Senate has refused to concur with the House in adoption of their Amendments to the following Bill, to wit; Senate Bill 1612. Like Messages on Senate Bills 1746, 1794, 1853, 1881, 1911, 1928 and 1939, action taken by the Senate, June 28th, 1984. Kenneth Wright, Secretary.""

"Mr. Greiman. Mr. Greiman. Mr. Greiman in the Chair."

"Alright. We will return to Second Reading, Senate Bills a little later on. Representative Jaffe, for what purpose do you seek recognition?"

"Mr. Speaker, I would like to have leave to put Senate Bill 1790 into an Interim Study Committee of the Judiciary Committee, return it to the Judiciary Committee for Interim Study."

"The Gentleman from Cook asks leave to place Senate Bill 1790 into the Interim Study Calendar of the House Judiciary Committee. Does the Gentleman have leave? Leave is granted, Mr. Jaffe. We will return to the Order of Concurrence on page six of the Calendar appears House Bill 3143. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"House Bill 3143, a Bill for an Act concerning anticipation of units of local government and school districts of revenue from any source, together with Senate 128  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 Amendment #1."

"The Gentleman from Kane, Mr. Kirkland."

"Thank you, Mr... Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. The original Bill created and creates a new Act authorizing issuance by local units of government, including school districts, of revenue anticipation notes in a similar way that, I guess, tax anticipation notes are issued, with a limit of 12 months or less on those revenue anticipation notes and limited to 85% of the revenue anticipated. The Amendment added in the Senate was a... a technical Amendment to take out any reference to tax anticipation notes in this revenue anticipation Act so that there would be no conflict between this new Act regarding revenue anticipation and anticipation of real estate taxes, that is tax anticipation notes. So I ask for concurrence."

"The Gentleman from Kane moves that the House concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3143. And on that, is there any discussion? The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Cullerton."

"Will the Sponsor yield?"

"Indicates he'll yield for a question."

"Representative, I understand that we did pass this Bill out of the House. I understand that, and that the Amendment is technical. Is this Bill... There's been some talk about helping the Chicago Public School System by allowing them to get some money by selling tax anticipation notes secured by the revenue that they're going to get next year.. Does that... Does that have anything to do with this Bill?"

"Not that I know of at all."

"What... What does this Bill do then?"

"It... It allows districts to..." 129  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984

"School districts?"

"And... And units of local government to issue revenue anticipation notes. And what it does is now the law is that you can issue notes in anticipation of ad valorem taxes, real estate taxes, but you... but there's no authority to issue anticipation notes in... in... for other types of revenue. And this would allow that. The Bill has a series of safeguards, a couple of them which I mentioned in terms of being only 12 months in length and other things. I can enumerate them, but it has a series of safeguards so that the process can take place without abuse."

"So this would apply to the Chicago Public School System."

"Well, perhaps we should have discussed this before. I'm not aware of... of how the Chicago Public School System would or could use this, you know, use this new Act. It... This is one of the Municipal League Bills, and it did not originate for that purpose."

"But I mean, it's not... The way it's drafted now, it could apply to the Chicago Public Schools. Does it... Isn't the theory behind it that they can... they can get money now based on tax revenues that are coming in the future?"

"Well, except... except if you're talking about real estate taxes, then I think they already had... have that authority."

"No, I'm talking about state aid formula for next year."

"You're talking about what?"

"For example, the state aid formula for next year. Would that work this way in this Bill?"

"Boy, I wouldn't... I guess that isn't one of the ideas 130  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 we'd consider. Just a second. Okay. I'm just told that... that the Chicago Board would need full... full faith and credit of the state behind any funds they would... to be able to find buyers of such notes and that this Bill does not allow that... does not address that."

"Okay. So they'd have to have another Bill to do what that... what I had suggested."

"That's what he says."

"Can we trust him?"

"Excuse me?"

"Can we trust him?"

"Absolutely."

"Mr. Speaker..."

"Mr. Cullerton..."

"... would you like to speak to this Bill? Do you know anything about this Bill?"

"Mr. Cullerton, I've been following the debate rather closely."

"Is it okay?"

"I can't enter into debate, Mr. Cullerton."

"Okay. Well, let's let it go then."

"Further discussion? Being none, the question is, 'Shall the House concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3143?' All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', those opposed vote 'nay'. This is final action. Voting is now open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 78 voting 'aye', 16 voting 'no', 16 'present', and the House does concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3143. And this Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. On the Order of Concurrence appears House Bill 3148. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill." 131  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984

"House Bill 3148 amends an Act in relationship to loans made by schools and municipalities, together with Senate Amendments #1, 2, 3 and 4."

"The Gentleman from Kane, Mr. Kirkland."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and, again, Members of the House. If you liked that last one, you'll love this one. This is a... This was a Christmas tree Bill and had a couple of Amendments added over here and four Amendments added over on the other side, so I'll get through it as quickly as I can. The original Bill is to allow cities and school districts to borrow money from financial institutions in the... with the same limitations as they are allowed by statute to have interfund borrowing. There were two Amendments added over here; one having to do with allowing agricultural land that's been subdivided to be eligible for tax increment financing, and the other to permit municipalities to enter into cooperative agreements with other governmental entities or nonprofit service groups to... in order to provide senior centers transportation and social services for the poor and aged. The Senate... There were four Senate Amendments. The first one went to the agricultural property within the tax increment financing statute and simply says that that will go into effect as of June 30, 1984, regardless of when the Governor signs. The second Amendment is an Amendment by Senator Rock creating the Commercial Paper Security and Liquidity Act, which is simply to authorize local governments and school districts to provide additional security and liquidity for bonds and notes with bond insurance and letters of credit and allows them to issue variable interest bonds in accordance with criteria established by the board. Home rule units currently use some of these features, and this would allow non-home rule 132  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 units to get into that Act. Amendment #3 brings back House Bill 3144, which allowed... which passed out of here almost unanimously, I believe, and... just a moment, and allows a local government to have a county collector set up an escrow for funds coming in to pay a bond to give those bonds a little more security. This is... The difference between this and 3144 which was tabled in the Senate is that this is limited to 60 days from the day it goes into effect. And Amendment #4 was House Bill 3141, which I think inadvertently was not called in Senate Rules, and is the same draft of... of that Bill that went out of here, again I believe, unanimously. And I ask for concurrence of those Amendments."

"The Gentleman from Kane asks that the House concur in Senate Amendments #1, 2, 3 and 4 to House Bill 3148. And on that, is there discussion? The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Cullerton."

"Yes, will the Sponsor yield?"

"Indicates he'll yield."

"With regard to Senate Amendment #4, is this Amendment drafted in the same fashion that your House Bill was drafted after we amended it?"

"Absolutely."

"Okay. And Senate Amendment #2, was that part of, if you know, Prairie Dog 2000, Senator Rock's plan?"

"I don't know that."

"I'm sorry. Prairie State, excuse me. I got used to it."

"Prairie Dog."

"Other people made it Prairie Dog, and I go caught there. Prairie State 2000, is that a part of that?"

"I don't know. It isn't part of the Prairie State 2000 that passed last year apparently, because here it is again 133  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 on this Bill. So... I... I simply do not know whether it was... whether it was a part of that package last year that did not pass."

"But you... you personally, yourself, have no problem with the Amendment. You've read it..."

"I've read it. I've analyzed it as best I can, and I have no problems."

"Seems like a good idea to you? That's why you want to concur in it, right? You don't think the Senator's trying to sneak something through in on you or anything like that?"

"You never know, I guess, do you?"

"Okay. Well, I think they're fine Amendments and that I would support your Motion to concur."

"Okay. Thank you."

"The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Marzuki. The Gentleman from Effingham, Mr. Brummer."

"Yes, will the Sponsor yield?"

"He indicates yes."

"Is there anything in here dealing with an Amendment to the Section dealing with life safety bonds under the School Code?"

"No."

"Is there anything in here which authorizes a tax increase in any manner?"

"No."

"Thank you."

"The Gentleman from McLean, Mr. Ropp."

"Mr. Speaker, would the Sponsor yield?"

"Indicates he'll yield for a question."

"I didn't gather exactly, and can you explain what you were talking about when you mentioned... increment for agricultural land?" 134  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984

"Yeah. Sam Vinson, Representative Vinson added an Amendment over here that allows property that's been used for agriculture but has been subdivided within the last five years, although still being used for agricultural use, to be included within property eligible for tax increment financing..."

"Just within the last five years, is that what..."

"Yes, I think so. Yes."

"Okay. Thank you."

"There being no further... being no further discussion, the question is, 'Shall the House concur in Senate Amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4 to House Bill 3148?' All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', those opposed vote 'no'. Voting is now open. This is final action. Final action. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 114 'aye', none voting 'no', 1 voting 'present', and the House does concur in Senate Amendments #1, 2, 3 and 4 to House Bill 3148. And this Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. On the Order of Concurrence appears House Bill 3193. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"House Bill 3193 amends the Environmental Protection Act together with Senate Amendment #1."

"The Lady from Cook, Ms. Currie."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. I move the House do concur in Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 3193. Senate Amendment 1 provides for a fee schedule for permitting and inspecting hazardous waste disposal facilities. In effect, it implements the provisions of Senate Bill 143, which we passed last year. The fee schedule ranges from 29,000 dollars a year for off-site landfills to 4,800 dollars per year for deep wells. The 135  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 fee schedule seems to me to be reasonable. I hope it will seem so to you. I'm happy to answer questions, and I urge your support for the Motion to concur with Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3193."

"The Lady from Cook has moved that the House do concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3193. And on that, is there any discussion? The Lady from Marshall, Ms. Koehler."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Would the Sponsor please yield for some questions?"

"Indicates she will."

"Thank you. Representative Currie, I know that you have worked long and hard on both the underlying Bill and the Senate Amendment, I think, should be of interest to many here in the House of Representatives also. On Senate Amendment #1, I know that there was a great deal of controversy among many of the industries throughout the State of Illinois about the Department's rule making proposals with regard to these fees. Can you tell me whether or not this has... is an Amendment that has been more or less signed off on by many of the people involved in industry in the fact that it does seem to be much more reasonable than those original rules that were promulgated by the Department?"

"The problem with the Pollution Control Board's rule making process was that the actual fees were dependent on appropriations by the General Assembly, year after year after year. I think that the... the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency agreed with us and with major industries that that was not the most effective way to set a fee schedule. The fees that are the substance of Senate Amendment 1 were fees that were ultimately agreed to both by the Environmental Protection Agency and by the State 136  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 Chamber of Commerce."

"Thank you, Representative Currie. And now with regard to the underlying Bill, I have one question that I want to ask on behalf of Representative Brummer. Is this the... Is this the Bill that would take care of his salt water problem?"

"It is, Representative. The Bill provides for a three step ground water protection process, a three step program that begins first of all with a study to find out the state of our current ground water problems. That study is not just a study of hazardous waste and how hazardous waste might contaminate ground water supplies but all substances, all hazardous substances including agricultural run off, leaking underground storage tanks, allegedly nonhazardous waste storage treatment and disposal facilities. It will, I hope, deal with Representative Brummer's problem. It will give us a... a very clear sense as to what the state of ground water is all across the State of Illinois. The second step is to create a ground water monitoring net... network so that we can be made immediately aware if there is further degradation to the state's ground water. And the final third, and perhaps most important step, is the the formulation of a ground water protection plan so that we can identify and search for the kinds of contaminations that could, over the long run, further erode the quality of the state's ground water."

"Thank you. Those are the major provisions of the underlying Bill. Is that correct?"

"In addition... In addition to the ground water protection plan program that I've just described, there also is in the underlying Bill a proposal that the Department of Energy and Natural Resources do a study of the degree of hazard of hazardous waste substances." 137  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984

"Yes, I think that's a very important part of this legislation, because that seems to be one piece of information that is woefully lacking as to the degree of hazard of many of these substances. And I have one additional question. Does this ground water study also have to do with regional pollution control facilities or is it just with regard to the hazardous waste sites?"

"It is with regard to the all of the state's ground water, not just the regional pollution control facilities. So that it is... it is meant to be a study of ground water problems wherever they may arise."

"Pardon? I could not hear. You did say with regard to regional pollution control facilities, too?"

"Oh, certainly, it will include regional pollution control facilities, but my recollection is that it is a broader based study than just that."

"Well, thank you. And Ladies and Gentlemen, to the Bill. I think that this is certainly an important piece of legislation. And many of you will find that citizens back home in your districts will be very glad to know that the ground water, which they believed to be very important, is going to be protected by this particular piece of legislation, and we are going to find out much more about these things than we have know previously. And I would also ask for your support."

"No further discussion, the question is, 'Shall the House concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3193?' All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', those opposed vote 'no'. Voting is now open. This is final action. Have... Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 112 voting 'aye', 1 voting 'no', none voting 'present', and the House does concur in Senate Amendment #1 138  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 to House Bill 3193. And this Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. On the Order of Concurrence appears House Bill 3204. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"House Bill 3204 is an Act to protect the public from electronic trespassing and computer fraud, together with Senate Amendment #1."

"The Gentleman from Knox, Mr. Hawkinson."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would move to concur in Senate Amendment #1. This House Bill, the original Bill, specified that access to a computer system or to cause a computer system to be accessed by... false, or fraudulent pretense or with the intent to defraud to obtain money, property or services is unlawful. The Senate Amendment was adopted at the request of the Illinois Retail Merchants Association, who were concerned that the word 'false' might be construed to pertain to nondeliberate erroneous billing; therefore, the word 'false' was removed by the Senate Amendment. And I would urge the... that we concur in... in the Senate Amendment #1."

"The Gentleman from Knox moves that the House do concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3204. And on that, is there any discussion? There being none, the question is, 'Shall the House concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3204?' All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', those opposed vote 'no'. Voting is now open. This is final action. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 115 voting 'aye', none voting 'no', none voting 'present'. Mr. Hallock. Hallock vote 'aye'. On this question, there are 116 voting 'aye', none voting 'no', none voting 'present', and the House does concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3204. And this Bill, having 139  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. On the Order of Concurrence appears House Bill 3205. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"House Bill 3205 amends the Fish Code, together with Senate Amendment #1."

The Gentleman from Edgar, Mr. Woodyard."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would move to concur with Senate Amendment #1 to 3205. The underlying Bill does remain intact in which the Department of Conservation can enter into reciprocity agreements with other states on the landing of craft on either shores. Amendment #2 is also in the Bill that was requested by fish... the Organization for the Protection of Habitat, in which four days a year may be set aside for free fishing. Senate Amendment #1 that was added to the Bill at the reguest of Representative McAuliffe to cure a problem that we seem to be having with some of the surrounding states of Lake Michigan. Presently the State of Illinois does not charge for a permit for charter boats. And when our boats go to neighboring waters, such as Wisconsin, Michigan or whatever, they're charged up to 400 dollars for a permit, yet we are not charging them. What Senate Amendment #1 does is say that if another state charges our boats a fee, then we will also charge their boats fees when they come into Illinois waters. I would ask for the adoption of... or for the concurrence."

"The Gentleman from Edgar moves that the House concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3205. Is there any discussion? The Gentleman from Effingham, Mr. Brummer."

"Yes, will the Sponsor yield?"

"He indicates he'll yield for a question."

"I'm not so concerned about the Senate Amendment. I 140  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 understand, I guess, that's technically what we're considering on concurrence, but if we concur, this will be final passage. Would you review again what the underlying Bill does? I know it deals with the issue of reciprocity... on fishing license between adjoining states. What happens if I, as an Illinois resident, am fishing on the Wabash River between Illinois and Indiana and wonder over into that portion that is deemed to be part of the State of Indiana. What happens under this Bill?"

"Yeah, you would have to have a license in the other state. And Representative, this was initiated... Evidently there's a problem that the Department had in the area of Calumet Harbor, and I think more so even than those two problems that you mentioned on the river."

"How does that change existing law, though, with regard to the necessity of having the fishing license from the adjoining state?"

"Well, at this time, evidently, the Department of Conservation does not have the authority to enter into those reciprocity agreements with the other states. In other words, in the Calumet Harbor area, Indiana water, as I understand it, comes right up to the Illinois shore. Why that is, I don't know. It's in Representative Panayotovich's district."

"Thank you."

"There being no further discussion, the question is, 'Shall the House concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3205?' All in favor signify by voting 'aye', those opposed vote 'no'. Voting is open. This is final passage. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 114 voting 'aye', 1 voting 'no', none voting 'present', and the House does concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 141  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 3205. And this Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. On the Order of Concurrence appears House Bill 3206. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"House Bill 3206 amends the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois, together with Senate Amendments #1 and 2."

"The Gentleman from Hardin, Mr. Winchester. Mr. Mays, could you sit down? Thank you."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I would move that we concur with Senate Amendments #1 and 2 to House Bill 3206. Amendment #1 is merely a technical Bill (sic - Amendment). It inserts the words, 'or exchange,' into the legislation. Amendment #2 creates the Illinois Historic Sights Fund and states that all monies received in connection with this program will be deposited into this new fund. The Amendment further states that, subject to appropriation, the money in the fund shall be used by the Department for historic preservation purposes only. I would ask for a favorable vote."

"The Gentleman from Hardin has moved that the House do concur in Senate Amendments #1 and 2 to House Bill 3206. And on that, Mr. Cullerton, the Gentleman from Cook. Alright. There being no discussion, the question is, 'Shall the House concur in Senate Amendments #1 and 2?' All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', those opposed vote 'no'. Voting is now open. This is final passage. Final action. Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 114 voting 'aye', none voting 'no', none voting 'present', and the House does concur in Senate Amendment #2... #1 and 2 to House Bill 3206. And this Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. On the Order of Concurrence appears House 142  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 Bill 3208. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"House Bill 3208, a Bill for an Act in relationship to the Department of Transportation, together with Senate Amendment #1."

"The Lady from DuPage, Ms. Karpiel."

"Yes, House Bill 3208 is a Department of Transportation land conveyance Bill. I move to concur in Amendment #... Senate Amendment #1, which simply makes some technical changes in the Bill, really technical. It corrects a digit... transposition error, inserts the word 'feet' where it's need and replaces 'of' with 'at'. I don't think this is too controversial."

"The Lady from DuPage has moved that the House do concur in Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 3208. There being no discussion, the question is, 'Shall the House concur in Senate Amendment #1?' All in favor signify by voting 'aye', those opposed vote 'no'. Voting is now open. This is final action. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 113 voting 'aye', none voting 'no', none voting 'present', and the House does concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3208. And this Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. On the Order of Concurrence appears House Bill 33..., 3221. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"House Bill 3221 amends the Unemployment Insurance Act, together with Senate Amendment #1."

"The Gentleman from DuPage, Mr. Hoffman."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I move that the House concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3221. It provides for some technical changes for the administration of the work-sharing plan, Section 407.1 of the unemployment... of the UI Act. It's agreed to 143  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 by business, labor, and the Treasurer's Office, and I would move for the adoption of Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3221."

"The Gentleman from DuPage has moved that the House concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3221. And on that, the Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Levin."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I rise in support of the Gentleman's Motion to concur. He is correct. The Senate Amendment is purely technical, and it was agreed to by both labor and management in anticipation of Senate Bill 25 going into effect on July 1st. I urge its adoption."

"There being no further discussion, the question is, 'Shall the House concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3221?' All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', those opposed vote 'no'. Voting is now open. This is final action. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 112 voting 'aye', none voting 'no', none voting 'present', and the House does concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3221. And this Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. Mr. Cullerton in the chamber? Alright. Out of the record. On the Order of Concurrence appears House Bill 3231. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"House Bill 3231 amends the Code of Civil Procedure, together with Senate Amendment #1."

"The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Cullerton."

"Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I move to concur with the Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3231. The Amendment simply says that the city council must approve of any exercise of the quick take provisions of the Eminent Domain Law, which were covered in 144  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 the... in the House Bill. It really is... The Amendment doesn't really do that much. It's somewhat duplicative because there has to be city council approval of determining which areas are blighted in the first place. So it's a harmless Amendment, and I would move to concur with it."

"The Gentleman from Cook moves that the House concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3231. Is there any discussion? The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Huff."

"Yeah, Mr. Cullerton, could you explain what a quick take is? That's the first time I've heard that term."

"Mr. Cullerton."

"Yes, quick take has to do with the area of law dealing with eminent domain. And right now it allows for... The law right now allows for tollways and airport authorities in the eminent domain proceeding to first take title to the property and allow for the debate as to how much money the owner should be compensated for. That would be decided in the future. Under normal eminent domain, you have to have long litigation to determine how much the value of the land is and how much the owner should get. So in a quick take, it would allow for the title to actually transfer and then the litigation over how much money will be done in the future."

"Well, I know that property ownership is an absolute, but taking the property without due compensation seems a little bit unconstitutional to me."

"Right, and this does not in any way say that the person isn't compensated. The owner is compensated. It just reverses the... the time in which the actual title to the land shifts."

"Well, does the owner... does the owner enter into any agreement to that effect that he understands..." 145  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984

"It's in the court. Right. This is a court proceeding."

"...that his property's being taken..."

"Right. This is a court proceeding, and he receives a notice. And then later on after the quick take has been exercised, he litigates the actual amount of money that he shall be reimbursed."

"Alright. Thank you."

"The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Preston."

"Would the Gentleman yield for a question?"

"Indicates that he will."

"Representative Cullerton, could you describe what this quick take procedure is? How does a municipality determine that they want a piece of property, and how long does it take them to acquire that piece of property?"

"Could you repeat that question, please?"

"How does a municipality make the determination that they want a piece of property, and how long does it take for them to acquire that piece of property?"

"Well, this would be limited only to areas that the city council has determined to be commercially blighted or business district property in need of redevelopment. And that's how they determine whether or not they... the area... They're limited to those particular areas. And then with regard to the time, I, quite frankly, I really don't know the answer. I do know that the quick take is a... is designed to speed up the process rather than to... rather than just go through a normal eminent domain proceeding."

"Mr. Speaker, if I might speak to this Bill."

"Proceed, Mr. Preston."

"I think we should look at this very carefully. It concerns me greatly that a municipality can go in a quick 146  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 procedure to acquire private property belonging to private individuals, and then, thereafter, litigate the amount of money, if any, or whatever that amount may be that they are paid for that property. Those who are familiar with the whole concept of real estate law know that a piece of property is in itself unique. No two pieces of property are the same. One piece of property may have a tree on it that has a certain aesthetic value. Another piece of property might have a view that is unique to that one piece of property. And property ownership is something that... that should be carefully guarded. To allow a municipality without a lengthy court procedure that will establish, one, whether or not the... the municipality has all the right to go after that property; two, to have some indication on the front end in advance whether or not that municipality is offering what might be considered a reasonable compensation for that property, I think is very important. Some of these issues were brought up, I believe, by Representative Greiman in Committee. I think it is very important that we look at this Bill carefully. I'm going to vote against concurring with Amendment 1 to... to House Bill 3231 because I don't think there should be a quick take of property. I think that's a bad procedure, and it's one that we should guard against."

"There being no further discussion, the Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Cullerton, to close."

"Yes, I... Perhaps I should address the issues raised by Representative Preston. This does involve a court proceeding. It... That land owner does go to court, and they are compensated. The only difference is that under quick take the issue of the compensation is determined at a future date, and the title passes, you know, immediately. The... The Bill, of course, passed out of here 147  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 overwhelmingly, and the Senate Amendment is, as I indicated, does very little. It says it shall be only with the city council approval, but city council approval is needed in the first place for the... to determine which areas are going to be eligible in the first place. So it's not... It shouldn't be a controversial issue, and I would appreciate your support."

"The question is, 'Shall the House concur in Senate... in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3231?' All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', those opposed vote 'no'. Voting is now open, and this is final action. Have all voted who... Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 52 voting 'aye', 54 voting 'no'... Shaw... Shaw 'aye'. There are 53 voting 'aye'. Mr. Van Duyne."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In explaining my vote, I'm voting 'no' because I don't believe in this. I would find it a little bit less objectionable, though, if when a city was looking for a quick take provision that they may have something that Representative Davis tried to put into a Bill we had a couple of years ago where... where the city had a project on the... on the front burner and they had acquired like three-fifths, or three-quarters or 75% of all the other property involved in it and one cantankerous owner was just trying to hold them up high and dry to get, you know, to get his extra buck out of them. But maybe through my explanation of vote, Representative Cullerton might make a Motion now to nonconcur and take that into consideration."

"The Gentleman from DuPage, Mr. Barger."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In support of or in explaining my vote in support of Mr. Cullerton's position, two or three appraisals, whichever your local municipality 148  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 require, are required to be made prior to making an offer to the property owner. So the property owner does have the appraisals, so that when this does go to court all the necessary information is there. This just allows the municipality the opportunity to not be held up for four to five years in litigation that's totally unnecessary and isn't going to change the circumstance other than adding a considerable amount of cost to the project that is going on. So I think this is a good Bill, and it should be supported."

"The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Turner."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Based on Representative Barger's explanation of this Amendment, I'm going to change my vote from 'present' to 'aye'."

"Alright. Mr. Turner votes 'aye'. Mr. Marzuki. Yes, Mr. Van Duyne."

"Mr... Mr. Speaker, I don't want to... I don't want to be, you know, an obstructionist, but you know, you did say, 'Take the record...'"

"That's right, and until I declare the Roll..."

"And it has already has lost, you know."

"Until we declare the Roll Call, Sir, we take changes of votes. That is the custom. Mr. Marzuki."

"You can change my vote to 'aye'."

"Mr. Marzuki. Vote Mr. Marzuki 'aye'. Mr. LeFlore."

"Change my vote to 'aye'."

"Mr. LeFlore is 'aye'. Mr. Nash, were you seeking to explain your vote?"

"Change my vote to 'no', please."

"Mr. Nash votes 'no'. Mr. McNamara. Mr. McNamara..."

"Change my vote from 'no' to 'present'." 149  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984

"...from 'no' to 'present'. Mr. Cullerton to explain his vote."

"Yes, I didn't realize that this Senate Amendment was so controversial. This Bill passed out of here overwhelmingly. The concept of quick take we've had for 30 years with regard to highway... attaining property for highways. It's designed to speed up redevelopment in the City of Chicago. If you're opposed to this Bill, you're opposed to... If you're opposed to this Bill, you're opposed to going into commercially blighted areas in the City of Chicago and speeding up the redevelopment and the economic development of those areas. And it's absolutely absurd, I would think, especially for someone from the City to be opposed to this Bill which is designed to aid the City and is not in any way a revolutionary concept. We already have it, as I said, with regard to airport authorities, and we have it with regard to highways. And I think people should... who are... should reconsider their vote and switch to 'aye'."

"Mr. Pedersen, the Gentleman from Cook, goes from 'no' to 'aye'. It's Bernard Pedersen. Ms. Markette votes 'aye'. Mr. DeJaegher."

"Mr. Speaker, how am I recorded?"

"You're recorded as not voting."

"Would you put me in the affirmative 'aye', please?"

"Mr. DeJaegher votes 'aye'. Mr. Doyle."

"...Chairman (sic - Speaker), the explanation that Representative Cullerton gave you is such a very true example of what happens. And I can't for the wildest imagination understand why anybody would be against this. The Metropolitan Sanitary District has it. The state has it. The counties have it. All this does is stop the fact that if somebody really holding up the municipality or the 150  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 unit of government... This Bill certainly should be given to local municipalities. No doubt about it."

Speaker Greiman: "Ms. Karpiel. The Lady from DuPage, Ms. Karpiel. Ms. Karpiel votes 'aye'. Mr. Brummer. Mr. Brummer."

"Yes, only to make sure that everyone understands that the right of quick take is a relatively rare remedy. It is not something possessed by counties. It's not something possessed by townships. It's a rather controversial item. I'm voting green because it only affects Chicago, and I guess if the people in Chicago want their governmental unit to have the right to quick take that's alright. I really think that it's a controversial policy, and I will tell you quite candidly if it were applicable to downstate to grant units of local government downstate to write a quick take I would be here opposing it. So that's why I am voting green. But I think it's important that we not get carried away here and misunderstand that this is a widespread right that units of government have."

Speaker Greiman: "The Gentleman from DuPage, Mr. Hensel. Mr. Hensel votes 'aye'. The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Vitek. Mr. Vitek votes 'aye'. The Lady from Cook..."

"Excuse me."

Speaker Greiman: "Yes, Mr. Vitek."

"Yeah, I was a little confused there. I want to change my vote to 'no'."

Speaker Greiman: "Alright, Mr. Vitek, you are recorded as 'aye'. Mr. Vitek votes 'no'. The Lady from Cook, Ms. Wojcik, votes 'aye'. Ms. Wojcik votes 'aye'. The Gentleman from Jefferson, Mr. Hicks. Mr. Hicks votes 'aye'. Mr. Levin."

"Please vote me 'aye', Mr. Speaker."

Speaker Greiman: "The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Levin, votes 'aye'. Mr. Preston, for what purpose do you seek 151  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 recognition?"

"At the appropriate time, Mr. Speaker, I'd like a verification."

"Alright. Sure. Mr. Christensen. Christensen votes 'aye'. On this question, there are 63 'aye', 48 'no', 4 voting 'present'. Mr. Clerk, is that 118? I can't add that quickly. Are there... There's other... being no absentees to poll, Mr. Preston has requested a verification of the Affirmative Roll Call. Proceed to the verification of the Affirmative Roll Call. Yes, Mr. Cullerton. Mr. Cullerton."

"Okay. I just want the Clerk to double check to see if that comes up to 118, but go... he can proceed with the verification and later on if we find out that there happens to be absentees..."

"If there are any absentees, they'll have ample time to record their vote. Mr. Clerk. Yes, Mr. Berrios. Mr. Preston, Mr. Berrios would like to be verified. You have leave, Sir. Mr. Dunn would like to be verified and Mr. Turner and Mr. Matijevich. Mr. Preston, that's Mr. Turner, Mr. Matijevich, Mr. Dunn, Mr. Berrios. Yes, Mr... Nod your head 'yes', Mr. Preston. Thank you. Alright. Mr. Clerk, proceed with the verification of the Affirmative Roll. Ms. Braun would like to be verified, Mr. Preston. Alright. Mr. Vitek."

"I would like to be changed back to 'aye', please. I've studied the Bill now."

"Mr. Vitek votes 'aye'. Mr. Nash, after careful study votes 'aye'. Mr. Preston. Alright, Mr. Clerk, proceed with the verification of the Affirmative Roll. Yes, Mr. Flinn."

"Mr. Speaker, I don't know what order we're on, but I move the previous question, whatever it is." 152  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984

"Amen. Go ahead, Mr. Clerk."

"Poll of the Affirmatives. Alexander. Barger. Berrios. Bowman. Braun. Breslin. Brookins. Brummer. Bullock. Capparelli. Christensen. Cullerton. Currie. Daniels. DeJaegher. DiPrima. Domico. Doyle."

"Mr. Preston."

"Mr. Speaker, so as not to be dilatory, I'd like to withdraw my verification of this bad Bill."

"Alright, Mr. Preston withdraws his verification. Mr. Clerk, would you give me the numbers? On this Bill, there are... On this question, there are 65 voting 'aye', 46 'no', 4 voting 'present', and the House does concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 3231. And this Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. Alright. On the Order of Concurrence, going back into matters over which we have passed, on page three of the Calendar appears House Bill 2509. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"House Bill 2509, an Act in relationship to senior citizen and certain boards and Commissions, together with Senate Amendments #1 and 2."

"The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Levin."

"Yes, at the request of Leadership, I'm at this point moving to nonconcur in Senate Amendments #1 and 2. This is our fourth try at this one. Three times it's come out of the record. I'm not sure if this sets a record or not. But Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, the request of Leadership was to put this in a Conference Committee to take out the references to the three legislative Commissions which people anticipate will no longer be here after July 1st. That is its sole purpose. There is, I think, one technical change as far a number in the Bill, and those are the reasons for sending it to 153  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 Conference Committee. And so I would move to nonconcur in 1 and 2."

"So the Gentleman from Cook moves to that the House do nonconcur in Senate Amendments #1 and 2 to House Bill 2509. All those... Is there any discussion on that? There being no discussion, the question is, 'Shall the House nonconcur in Senate Amendments #1 and 2?' All those in favor signify by saying 'aye', those opposed 'no'. In the opinion of the Chair, the 'ayes' have it, and the House does nonconcur in Senate Amendments #1 and 2 to House Bill 2509. Okay. On the Order of Concurrence, page three of the Calendar appears House Bill 2395. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"House Bill 2395 amends an Act in relationship to fire protection districts, together with Senate Amendments #1 and 2."

"The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Steczo."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House. I would move that the House concur with Amendment #1 to House Bill 2395. The original Bill was one that said that a board of trustees of a fire protection district could be increased from three to five members upon the adoption of a front door referendum if petitions were submitted to the board by 5% of the electors of the district. Senate Amendment #1 says that if that board is going to be reduced from five back to three members, if that board was increased by referendum, then it would have to be decreased by referendum, and if it was increased by ordinance, then it would have to be decreased by ordinance and also allows for the provision of vote happen to the... the membership of the board if it were reduced and how long the five members would stay until the new three were appointed. And I would move for the adoption or for the concurrence in Amendment 154  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 #1 to Senate..., I would move for concurrence in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 2395."

"The Gentleman from Cook moves to concur... that the House do concur in Senate Amendment #1. Mr. Clerk, would you change the board? Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 2395. And on that, is there any discussion? The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Cullerton."

"The Motion is just with regard to Senate Amendment #1?"

"That's correct, Mr. Cullerton."

"Your intention on #2 is to nonconcur? No objection."

"There being no further discussion, the question is, 'Shall the House concur in Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 2395?' All in favor signify by voting 'aye', those opposed vote 'no'. Voting is now open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 111... 112 voting 'aye', 1 voting 'no', none voting 'present', and the House does concur in the Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 2395. Mr. Steczo."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would now move to nonconcur in Senate Amendment #2 to House Bill 2395. This Senate Amendment, Mr. Speaker, deals with community fire protection grants and... for fire protection districts and fire departments to the tune of about 178 thousand dollars. There have been a great many questions that have arisen relative to this program. It's a program the Governor vetoed last year, and I think there are more questions than we can resolve in the next couple of days, so I would move to nonconcur."

"The Gentleman from Cook moves that House do nonconcur in Senate Amendment #2 to House Bill 2395. Is there any discussion? The Gentleman from Bureau, Mr. 155  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 Mautino."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May... Will the Gentleman yield for a question?"

"Indicates that he will."

"Representative Steczo, if in fact this Amendment is not adopted, would there be a community action or a local grant program for those fire districts under the Department of Conservation as was in previous years, or by not concurring with this Amendment, would we be totally eliminating that grant program for local fire districts?"

"Representative Mautino, it's my understanding that the Department of Conservation currently has the rural fire protection program. That would continue as is. This was an additional program that was conceived by the Senate. And because of the questions that arise around that, we decided to... I decided to nonconcur in this Amendment. Let me add... Let me add, Representative Mautino, that I... the rural fire protection program, I believe, would stay. I assume that that's... that's partly federally funded. So I should say so long as those federal funds continue."

"One final question, Mr. Speaker, if I may. Is it your intention to include large municipal fire departments in this grant program through the Conference Committee?"

"Representative Mautino, my intention is to have the Senate Sponsor of Amendment #2 recede. I do not wish this Bill to go to Conference."

"Okay. Thank you."

"Further discussion? The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Keane. Mr. Keane. Alright. There being no further discussion, the question is, 'Shall the House nonconcur to Senate Amendment #2 to House Bill 2395?' All in favor signify by saying 'aye', those opposed say 'nay'. In the opinion of the Chair, the 'ayes' have it, and the House 156  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 does nonconcur in Senate Amendment #2 to House Bill 2395. Ladies and Gentlemen, we are now going to the Order of Nonconcurrence on page seven of the Calendar. On that Order, you may ask to recede from an Amendment that the House placed on a Senate Bill and that would be final action, or you may refuse to recede and request a Conference Committee. So that when... when I... the Bill is called, you may then state your Motion. Alright? On the Order of Nonconcurrence, page seven of the Calendar appears Senate Bill 833. Out of the record. On the Order of Nonconcurrence appears Senate Bill 1179. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"Senate Bill 1179, an Act in relationship to parentage, together with Senate Amendments #1, 3 and 4."

"The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Jaffe."

"Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would refuse to recede and ask for a Conference Committee."

"The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Jaffe, moves that the House do not recede from Senate Amendments... from House Amendments #1, 3 and 4. And on that, is there any discussion? There being none, the question is, 'Shall the House not recede from Senate (sic - House) Amendments 1, 3 and 4?' All in favor signify by saying 'aye', those opposed 'no'. In the opinion of the Chair, the 'ayes' have it, and the House does not recede from Senate (sic - House) Amendments 1, 3 and 4. And the Gentleman requests a Conference Committee. On the Order of Nonconcurrence appears Senate Bill 1430, Mr. Giorgi. Mr. Giorgi, do you wish to proceed?"

"Mr. Chairman... Mr. Speaker... Mr... Representative Leverenz has an Amendment he wants to recede from but he's not on the floor of the House so..."

"Alright, we'll take that out of the record 157  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 then. On the Order of Nonconcurrence appears Senate Bill 1538. Mr. Giorgi, do you wish to proceed on 1538?"

"Mr. Leverenz is in the chamber modulating towards his seat."

"Alright. Then we'll return then to Senate Bill 1538, Mr. Giorgi. Alright, yes, 14... Senate Bill 1430. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, 1430."

"Senate Bill 1430 amends an Act relating to purchase of certain public agencies together with Senate (sic - House) Amendment #3."

"The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Leverenz."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I would move that the House would recede from Amendment #3. This was the funding operation for new jobs. The Senate didn't want to go along with it. Someone also thought it would be a little bizarre, but it would be the funding utilizing corporate income tax. And since they won't go along, we may as well just recede and put the Bill on the Governor's desk. And I move now to do that."

"The Gentleman from Cook moves that the House do recede from Senate Amendment... from House Amendment 3 to Senate Bill 1430. Is there any discussion? There being none, the question is, 'Shall the House recede from House Amendment 3 to Senate Bill 1430?' All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', those opposed vote 'no'. This is final action. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. Mr. Rice 'aye'. On this question, there are 106 voting 'aye', none voting 'no', none voting 'present', and the House does recede from Senate... from House Amendment #3 to Senate Bill 1430. And this Bill, having received a Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. On the Order of Nonconcurrence appears Senate Bill 1538. Mr. Giorgi, 1538. Mr. Clerk, 158  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 read the Bill."

"Senate Bill 1538, an Act in relationship to interest rates on special assessments in certain sanitary districts, together with House Amendments #1, 2, 4 and 5."

"The Gentleman from Winnebago, Mr. Giorgi."

"Mr. Speaker, I move that we refuse to recede from Senate (sic - House) Amendments 1, 4 and 5 to Senate Bill 1538, 1, 2, 4 and 5."

"The Gentleman from Winnebago, Mr. Giorgi, moves that the House refuse to recede from House Amendments 1, 2, 4 and 5 to Senate Bill 1538. Is there any discussion? There being none, the question is, 'Shall the House refuse to recede to House... to House Amendments 1, 2, 4 and 5?' All in favor signify by saying 'aye', those opposed 'nay'. In the opinion of the Chair, the 'ayes' have it, and the House does refuse to recede from Senate Amendments... from House Amendments 1, 2, 4 and 5 to Senate Bill 1538 and requested a Conference Committee be appointed. On the Order of Nonconcurrence appears Senate Bill 1644, Mr. Stuffle. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill."

"Senate Bill 1644, amends an Act to eliminate the health hazards posed by the presence of the asbestos materials in Illinois schools together with House Amendment #4."

"The Gentleman from Vermilion, Mr. Stuffle."

"Mr. Speaker and Members, I would move that the House now recede from House Amendment #4 to Senate Bill 1644. The Amendment was placed on the Bill by Representative Levin. There is a technical problem with it in terms of fitting it into the Bill. I think that the Bill is clear in its intent without the Amendment. For that reason, I would move to recede."

"The Gentleman from Vermilion moves that the 159  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 House recede from House Amendment #4 to Senate Bill 1644. And on that, is there any discussion? The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Levin."

"I... I rise in support of the Motion to recede. It was my Amendment. The... the reference to Department was left intact by a subsequent Amendment, and rather than go to a Conference Committee, you know, I have no problem with... with receding. I would, however, just ask Representative Stuffle, is it your intention as one of the Sponsors of this Bill, that even though we are deleting Amendment #4, that the council would, in fact, conduct public hearings for the purpose of soliciting testimony from parents, students, school personnel and others concerning the health hazards of asbestos in the schools, and that they would, in their report to the General Assembly, summarize the results of that testimony?"

"Absolutely, that's the case, and that's the intent of the Bill, and the intent of this Sponsor, and the intent of the Senate Sponsor, Senator Beurman."

"Thank you very much, I support the Motion to recede."

"The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Piel."

"A question of the Chair, Mr. Speaker. If the Motion prevails or if the Motion is brought to a vote, that is final action on the Bill, correct?"

"That's right. This is a Motion to recede. So if the Amendment is... if we recede from the Amendment, that will be final action on the Bill."

"Right. The Gentleman basically explained the Amendment, but now, seeing as we are technically voting on the Bill, could he explain the Bill for us, please?"

"Well if you'd like to ask him questions about the Bill, you can certainly ask him."

"Will the Gentleman yield?" 160  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984

"Sure, he'll yield for questions."

"Would you please explain the Bill before we vote on it?"

"The Bill is the Asbestos Bill with regard to the public and nonpublic schools in Illinois, as we discussed here and in Committee at great, great length, and it came out of here on 113 or so votes. It now would require the state through the Department of Public Health, to begin an inspection of public and nonpublic school buildings and to report the results of that inspection by 1988 with regard to ascertaining the problems and the cost of those problems. It would require the entity that puts together as a council, not a commission that's unpaid, to provide a method of proposed state funding and report back to this General Assembly. It would then require when there is a state funding scheme in place, that we have remediation - either in whole or in part - of asbestos related problems in those schools, by three years from the date that a funding scheme with state money and/or federal money is put in place. It would require that federal money be used in lieu of state money, and it would of course, as I indicated, involve hearings that would allow interested parties in the schools, public or private, to raise questions about proposals regarding elimination of asbestos. And that asbestos removal plan could be complete, it could be partial, or it could involve encapsulation, as Representative Brummer asked on Third Reading."

"Thank you. One quick question. I noticed, Larry, that you mentioned private schools. Now if Amendment... if Amendment #2 is still... is that still on the Bill, doesn't this deal just with public schools, or does it also deal with private schools?"

"We, the Committee, took the nonpublic schools out. On 161  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 the floor they were put back in. Subsequent efforts to take them out failed, so they are still in."

"Thank you very much."

"There being no further discussion, the question is, 'Shall the House recede from House Amendment #4 to Senate #1644?' All those in favor signify by voting 'aye', those opposed vote 'no'. This is final action... final action. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 111 voting 'aye', none voting 'no', 3 voting 'present', and the House does recede from House Amendment 4 to Senate Bill 1644. And this Bill, having received the Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. On the Order of Nonconcurrence appears Senate Bill 1844, Miss Braun. Miss Braun in the chamber? Out of the record. On the Order of Nonconcurrence appears Senate Bill 1864, Mr. Vinson. Mr. Vinson? Out of the... Out of the record. On the Order of Nonconcurrence appears Senate Bill 1870, Miss Barnes. Out of the record. We will, as they say in show business, take it from the top. So that on the Order.... Order of Concurrence, page two of the Calendar appears House Bill 1563, Mr. McGann. Out of the record. On the Order of Concurrence, page three of the Calendar appears House Bill 2296, Mr. Hallock. Out of the record. On the Order of Concurrence, on page three of the Calendar appears House Bill 2388, Mr. Ewing. Mr. Ewing, 2388? Mr. Ewing, 2388? Out of the record. On the Order of Concurrence appears House Bill 2600, Mr. Bullock. Mr. Bullock, 2600? Out of the record. On the Order of Concurrence appears House Bill 2605, Mr. Stuffle. Out of the record. For what purpose does the Gentleman from Bureau, Mr. Mautino, seek recognition?"

"Mr. Speaker, the last couple votes we've been pushing 162  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 my button but the light doesn't come on. I'd like to have the... not the speak button but the 'yes', and 'no' and 'present' buttons. I'd like to have the engineer put it together or whatever. Will you please?"

"Okay. Mr. Mautino, for better or for ill, you are recorded on the last Roll Calls, so it is connecting here. It may be on your light. Turn Mr. Mautino on. Yes, you're recorded 'aye' on the last Roll Call. Alright, Ladies and Gentlemen, we are going to do some Agreed Resolutions. That is not a signal to leave. We have a great deal of business to do this evening. Agreed Resolutions."

"House Resolution 1134, McGann - Keane; 1135, Jane Barnes; 1136, McNamara; 1137 - Panayotovich; 1139, Johnson - Stuffle; 1140, McCracken; House Joint Resolution 177, Wojcik - Karpiel."

"The Gentleman from Winnebago, Mr. Giorgi."

"Mr. Speaker, 1134, by McGann, congratulates Lieutenant Hugh Smith; 1135, by Barnes, congratulates the Chief of the Lemont Police Department; 1136, by McNamara, honors the Harold L. Richards Girls' Varsity Softball Team; 37 (sic - 1137), by Panayotovich, congratulates Anthony Kowalski on his 20 years of leadership; 1139, by Johnson, commends a former colleague of ours, John C. Hirschfeld; and 1140, by McCracken, honors a soccer team; 177 (sic - House Joint Resolution 177), by Wojcik, notes that the Village of Hoffman Estates... 25th anniversary. I move for the adoption of the Agreed Resolutions."

"The Gentleman from Winnebago has moved for the adoption of the Agreed Resolutions. All in favor signify by saying 'aye', those opposed 'no'. In the opinion of the Chair, the 'ayes' have it, and the Resolutions are adopted. General Resolutions." 163  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984

"House Resolution 1133, LeFlore et al; 1138, Pangle; and House Joint Resolution 176, Vinson - Giorgi."

"Committee on Assignment. Representative Madigan in the Chair."

"On page three of the Calendar, on the Order of Concurrence there appears House Bill 2369. And on that question, the Chair recognizes Mr. Vinson."

"Mr. Speaker, I would move to nonconcur in Amendment... Senate Amendment #1 to House Bill 2368."

"Mr. Vinson, did you move to nonconcur? The Gentleman moves to nonconcur in Senate Amendment #1. Those in favor say 'aye', those opposed say 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. The House does nonconcur in Senate Amendment #1. For what purpose does Mr. Cullerton seek recognition?"

"Mr. Speaker, initially I thought that House Bill 2605 was on the board when we just had that Motion."

"Did you wish to call 2605?"

"No, I just wanted to know if the board was correct. Which Bill did he just nonconcur in?"

"Let the record show that we have just nonconcurred in House Bill 2368."

"Fine. Thank you."

"On page two of the Calendar, on the Order of Senate Bills Third Reading there appears Senate Bill 1733. Mr. Vinson, do you wish to call 1733?"

"No, thank you."

"You understand that today is the deadline for consideration of that Bill."

"Yes, I think we had a discussion on that yesterday evening."

"Thank you, Mr. Vinson. On the Order of Senate Bills Third Reading there appears Senate Bill 1790, Mr. Jaffe. The Clerk informs the Chair that the matter has 164  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 already been put on the Order of Interim Study. On the Order of Senate Bills Third Reading there appears Senate Bill 1850. The Chair recognizes Mr. Cullerton."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I would move to suspend the deadline for consideration of House... Senate Bill 1850 until midnight on Friday the 29th of June, 1984."

"The Gentleman moves to suspend the deadline for consideration of Senate Bill 1850. The Chair recognizes Mr. Daniels."

"Could he hold that Motion until we find out what kind of work we get done today?"

"We did a lot of work today, Mr. Daniels."

"Not enough. Where's the work?"

"Mr. Cullerton."

"We want to get along. That's the program, so I'd be happy to defer for the Minority Leader."

"Would everybody be a little quiet for awhile until we get things worked out up here? Alright, where's Zale? Zale? The Chair recognizes Mr. Daniels."

"Mr. Speaker, we have discovered that it will take at least an hour to print the Amendments that have been filed on the fair Bill. So in all fairness to the fair people that are here, we thought we would... should leave this evening and come back tomorrow at 10:00. And Jo Oblinger would like to stay and work the rest of the night. So with that understanding that she can stay, I would move to extend the deadlines in the following Bills until tomorrow night, midnight, Senate Bill 1733, Senate Bill 1850, Senate Bill 1889 and Senate Bill 1893. Those Bills are the tourism, that hyped package of tourism for the State of Illinois, the Compensation Pay Review Board Commission Bill and the 'FAP' 431. And as I understand, Mr. Speaker, that 165  STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 142nd Legislative Day June 28th, 1984 has your agreement, Sir."

"Mr. Daniels, you may wish to add Senate Bill 1562, which is an appropriation Bill."

"And Senate Bill 1562, which is an appropriation Bill."

"Right."

"Buddy."

"Mr. Daniels..."

"Sir..."

"...moves to postpone the deadline for consideration of those Bills until tomorrow. And the Chair recognizes Mr. Cullerton."

"Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to that Motion."

"Is there leave for the Gentleman's Motion? Leave is granted using the Attendance Roll Call. The Chair is prepared to adjourn unless there is some other matter to be brought before the Body. We plan to come into Session tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. And Mr. Cullerton so moves that the House stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. in the morning. Those in favor say 'aye', those opposed say 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. We stand adjourned." 166  10/09/84 15:46 STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DAILY TRANSCRIPTION OF DEBATE INDEX PAGE 1 JUNE 28, 1984 HB-0598 CONCURRENCE PAGE 6 HB-1375 CONCURRENCE PAGE 47 HB-1658 CONCURRENCE PAGE 6 HB-2350 THIRD READING PAGE 2 HB-2368 CONCURRENCE PAGE 164 HB-2391 CONCURRENCE PAGE 46 HB-2395 CONCURRENCE PAGE 154 HB-2509 CONCURRENCE PAGE 153 HB-2534 CONCURRENCE PAGE 7 HB-2783 CONCURRENCE PAGE 10 HB-3036 CONCURRENCE PAGE 45 HB-3041 CONCURRENCE PAGE 12 HB-3042 CONCURRENCE PAGE 14 HB-3057 CONCURRENCE PAGE 15 HB-3059 CONCURRENCE PAGE 16 HB-3060 CONCURRENCE PAGE 17 HB-3069 CONCURRENCE PAGE 21 HB-3072 CONCURRENCE PAGE 23 HB-3089 CONCURRENCE PAGE 25 HB-3092 CONCURRENCE PAGE 26 HB-3093 CONCURRENCE PAGE 27 HB-3099 CONCURRENCE PAGE 28 HB-3102 CONCURRENCE PAGE 29 HB-3123 CONCURRENCE PAGE 34 HB-3128 CONCURRENCE PAGE 48 HB-3136 CONCURRENCE PAGE 46 HB-3143 CONCURRENCE PAGE 129 HB-3148 CONCURRENCE PAGE 132 HB-3193 CONCURRENCE PAGE 135 HB-3204 CONCURRENCE PAGE 139 HB-3205 CONCURRENCE PAGE 140 HB-3206 CONCURRENCE PAGE 142 HB-3208 CONCURRENCE PAGE 143 HB-3221 CONCURRENCE PAGE 143 HB-3231 CONCURRENCE PAGE 144 HB-3255 CONCURRENCE PAGE 46 SB-1179 NON-CONCURRENCE PAGE 157 SB-1375 NON-CONCURRENCE PAGE 47 SB-1430 NON-CONCURRENCE PAGE 158 SB-1538 NON-CONCURRENCE PAGE 159 SB-1562 MOTION PAGE 166 SB-1644 NON-CONCURRENCE PAGE 159 SB-1733 MOTION PAGE 165 SB-1735 NON-CONCURRENCE PAGE 44 SB-1790 OTHER PAGE 128 SB-1850 MOTION PAGE 165 SB-1889 MOTION PAGE 165 SB-1893 SECOND READING PAGE 37 SB-1893 HELD ON SECOND PAGE 127 SB-1893 MOTION PAGE 40 SB-1893 MOTION PAGE 48 SB-1893 MOTION PAGE 165 SB-1933 OTHER PAGE 60 SB-1924 NON-CONCURRENCE PAGE 47 SB-1933 NON-CONCURRENCE PAGE 45 SUBJECT MATTER HOUSE TO ORDER - REPRESENTATIVE GREIMAN PAGE 1 PRAYER - REVEREND DON GLENN PAGE 1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PAGE 1 ROLL CALL FOR ATTENDANCE PAGE 1 AGREED RESOLUTION PAGE 1 SPEAKER MADIGAN IN CHAIR PAGE 37  10/09/84 15:46 STATE OF ILLINOIS 83RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DAILY TRANSCRIPTION OF DEBATE INDEX JUNE 28, 1984 SUBJECT MATTER RECESS HOUSE RECONVENES - SPEAKER MADIGAN IN CHAIR AGREED RESOLUTIONS DEATH RESOLUTION REPRESENTATIVE GREIMAN IN CHAIR SPEAKER MADIGAN IN CHAIR RECESS MESSAGE FROM SENATE HOUSE RECONVENES - SPEAKER MADIGAN IN CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE GREIMAN IN CHAIR AGREED RESOLUTIONS GENERAL RESOLUTIONS SPEAKER MADIGAN IN CHAIR ADJOURNMENT PAGE 2 PAGE 42 PAGE 42 PAGE 42 PAGE 43 PAGE 73 PAGE 86 PAGE 127 PAGE 128 PAGE 128 PAGE 128 PAGE 163 PAGE 164 PAGE 164 PAGE 166