"The House shall come to order. The House shall come to order. The Members shall be in their chairs. We shall be led in prayer today by Lee Crawford, the Assistant Pastor of the Victory Temple Church in Springfield. The guests in the gallery may wish to rise to and join us in the invocation. The guests in the gallery may wish to rise and join us in the invocation. Reverend Crawford."
"Let us pray. As we elevate our mind, as well as our hearts, before God. Most gracious and most kind God, You are the eternal giver of life. We ask that You judge over us, as we stand before You as loyal sons and loyal daughters of Your divine plan. We pray to Thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of Your great favor and glad to do Your will. So, I ask that Your presence would be upon us, that Your spirit of might would strengthen us, that Your spirit would guide us and that Your counsel would advise us. This we kindly pray with humble hearts and humble mind. Amen."
"We shall be led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Representative O'Brien."
O'Brien - et al: "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."
Speaker Madigan: "Roll Call for Attendance. Representative Currie."
"Thank you, Speaker. Please let the record show that Representative Ronen is excused today."
"Representative Poe."
"Let the record show that Representative Pankau is absent today."
Speaker Madigan: "Mr. Poe. Mr. Poe. Did you want that 1 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 Representative to be excused?"
"Yes."
"Okay. Let the record reflect those excused absences. Mr. Clerk, take the record. There being 115 Members responding to the Attendance Roll Call, there is a quorum present. Mr. Clerk."
Clerk Rossi: "Committee Reports. Representative Barbara Flynn Currie, Chairperson from the Committee on Rules, to which the following measures were referred, action taken on January 27, 1999, reported the same back with the following recommendations: 'to the floor for consideration' House Resolution 34, Rules recommends be adopted. Introduction and First Reading of House Bills. House Bill 266, offered by Representative Smith, a Bill for an Act to amend the Illinois Pension Code. House Bill 267, offered by Representative Smith, a Bill for an Act to amend the Illinois Pension Code. House Bill 268, offered by Representative Smith, a Bill for an Act to amend the Pension Code. House Bill 269, offered by Representative Smith, a Bill for an Act to amend the Illinois Pension Code. House Bill 270, offered by Representative Smith, a Bill for an Act to amend the Illinois Pension Code. House Bill 271, offered by Representative Smith, a Bill for an Act to amend the Illinois Pension Code. House Bill 272, offered by Representative Durkin, a Bill for an Act to amend the Criminal Code. House Bill 273, offered by Representative Durkin, a Bill for an Act in relation to athletic agents. House Bill 274, offered by Representative Burke, a Bill for an Act to amend the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Act. House Bill 275, offered by Representative Burke, a Bill for an Act to amend the Illinois Vehicle Code. House Bill 276, offered by 2 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 Representative Lang, a Bill for an Act in relation to school construction projects. House Bill 277, offered by Representative Lang, a Bill for an Act in relation to the licensure of employee assistance professionals. House Bill 278, offered by Representative Lang, a Bill for an Act to amend the Criminal Code of 1961. House Bill 279, offered by Representative Lang, a Bill for an Act to amend the Illinois Procurement Code. House Bill 280, offered by Representative Lang, a Bill for an Act to amend the Illinois Pension Code. House Bill 281, offered by Representative Lang, a Bill for an Act to amend the Code of Civil Procedure. House Bill 282, offered by Representative Lang, a Bill for an Act concerning construction contractors. House Bill 283, offered by Representative Lang, a Bill for an Act to amend the Humane Care for Animals Act. House Bill 284, offered by Representative Lang, a Bill for an Act concerning liability for the provision of health care. House Bill 285, offered by Representative Lang, a Bill for an Act to amend the Civil Administrative Code. House Bill 286, offered by Representative Lang, a Bill for an Act to amend the Illinois Vehicle Code. House Bill 287, offered by Representative Tenhouse, a Bill for an Act to amend the Public Utilities Act. House Bill 288, offered by Representative Hartke, a Bill for an Act to amend the Livestock Management Facilities Act. House Bill 289, offered by Representative Hartke, a Bill for an Act making an appropriation to the Department of Natural Resources. House Bill 290, offered by Representative Hartke, a Bill for an Act making an appropriation to the Olney Fire Department. House Bill 291, offered by Representative Hartke, a Bill for an Act to amend the Airport Authorities 3 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 Act. House Bill 292, offered by Representative Hartke, a Bill for an Act making an appropriation to the Allison Drainage District. House Bill 294,(sic-293) offered by Representative Fritchey, a Bill for an Act in relation to governmental immunity. House Bill 294, offered by Representative Fritchey, a Bill for an Act to amend the Election Code. House Bill 295, offered by Representative Fritchey, a Bill for an Act to amend the Criminal Code of 1961. First Reading of these House Bills. Supplemental Calendar #1 is being distributed. Introduction and First Reading of House Bills. House Bill 301, offered by Representative Hannig, a Bill for an Act to amend the School Construction Law. House Bill 302, offered by Representative Hannig, a Bill for an Act to amend the General Obligation Bond Act. House Bill 303, offered by Representative Hannig, a Bill for an Act to amend the build Illinois bond Act. First Reading of these House Bills."
"The Chair recognizes Mr. Parke. Mr. Parke."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good afternoon. Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, upon adjournment of both the House and the Senate, the Economic and Fiscal Commission will be meeting in Room 122-A. And, I wanted the Body and any parties interested in attending. Again, it'll be in the Capitol in Room 122-A, upon adjournment of both the House and the Senate, the Economic and Fiscal Commission will be meeting. Thank you, Mr. Speaker."
"Chair recognizes Mr. Hannig for the purpose of an announcement. Mr. Hannig."
"Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. While we're awaiting some business, I'd like to announce that the Nokomis North Elementary School is here with us today. And I'd like to welcome them to Springfield." 4 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999
"The Chair recognizes Representative Cowlishaw. Would the Members please give their attention to Representative Cowlishaw?"
"Mr. Speaker. Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I must report to you that Senator Beverly Fawell, on Saturday, lost her son Steven. He was 45 years old. He leaves behind three young children without their father. The funeral was held this morning and by now has concluded. I know that Senator Fawell would greatly appreciate a card or a note from each of us expressing our sympathy. Thank you for permitting me to make this announcement, Mr. Speaker."
"Mr. Parke."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I also forgot to mention that retired Senator Dave Regner lost his wife, Joan. I believe it was Friday and the wake was on Monday and the funeral was yesterday. So anyone who would like to contact retired Senator and let him know your concerns for the loss of his wife, Joan."
"Introduction - First Reading of House Bills. House Bill 296, offered by Representative Feigenholtz, a Bill for an Act making an appropriation. House Bill 297, offered by Representative Feigenholtz, a Bill for an Act to amend the Illinois Income Tax Act. House Bill 298, offered by Representative Feigenholtz, A Bill for an Act to amend the Hypodermic Syringes and Needles Act. House Bill 299, offered by Representative Hannig, a Bill for an Act in relation to state government. House Bill 300, offered by Representative Hannig, a Bill for an Act to amend the General Obligation Bond Act. First Reading of these House Bills."
"Representative Feigenholtz." 5 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to remind all of the women of the Conference of Women Legislators, that today at 4:00 p.m.. we will be meeting here in the House chamber with the Commission on the Status of Women. And I hope everybody will be here and attend. Thank you."
"Mr. Poe. Mr. Poe."
"Yes, Mr. Speaker. In the Speaker's Gallery, I have a class from the first grade in the Tri-City Buffalo area. And they're up above you and let's give'em all a big welcome."
"Mr. Black."
"Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have an inquiry of the Chair, if I might. Is legal counsel with you today? All right, I have an inquiry of the Chair regarding the new Ethics and Gift Ban Act that took effect January 1. If I could have a little order in the chamber, I might be able to illuminate what I think is a problem here. And I'm going to need your guidance, Mr. Speaker."
Speaker Madigan: "Could the... Would the Members please be in their chairs? Would the staff please leave the chamber? Would the Members be in their chairs. Would the staff leave the chamber. Would unauthorized personnel leave the floor. Would unauthorized personnel please leave the floor. Mr. Black. Mr. Black."
"Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. This... What I'm about to inquire about of the Chair has a great impact on every Legislator. As all of us know as of January 1, 1999, things changed in Illinois about what Legislators can do, what gifts they may be able to accept, what kind of employment may or may not be available. And my question to the Chair, Mr. Speaker, under this new sweeping reform legislation, is there any prohibition on a Member of the General Assembly, also, while a sworn Member of the General 6 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 Assembly, also being a male model?"
"Mr. Black, you know that Mr. Kasper has left."
"Yes, much to my chagrin, Mr. Speaker. And I am sure yours, but I think this young fellow that you have with you, as soon as he graduates from high school and completes his law degree. How old is the young fellow by the way? He looks like about 18 or 19, and I assume he does have a law degree."
Speaker Madigan: "All right now let's start with this, he's a native downstater."
"I compliment you on your choice."
"Right. He's from the Western part of the state."
"Outstanding!"
Speaker Madigan: "Right, and he has suggested that it would probably be advisable if he were to take your questions back to his chambers and to review it."
"Well... Mr. Speaker. I... I have had many constituents call me and come to my office regarding a full page advertisement in the Chicago _________________ Sun Times on December 9, 1998. First of all, they wanted to know if this male model, was in fact, a Representative in the General Assembly. I am not sure. The name under this picture is,... oh, I see it says John Fritchey. He's modeling... he's modeling here for O'Brien's Restaurant and Bar. And under the... the question that many constituents have, obviously, 'could a Legislator do this?' And secondly, if I could get Mr. Fritchey, if in fact this is permissible, to autograph the picture. There are many lonely women in my district who were literally swept off their feet by this picture. And I am not sure that the new Ethics Act would allow Mr... Representative Fritchey to take any renumeration 7 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 (sic-remuneration). Now it's one thing if he did this for free. But Mr. Speaker, my question to your new advisor, if he accepted compensation for this full page ad, in which I assume he was a paid model and spokesperson, is that now permissible? Or did his career begin and end with this one ad of December 9, 1998? I admit to you it was prior to January 1, but if this is going to continue we would like advance notice. Can he do this, Mr. Speaker? I mean, next month do we expect to see him in Teen _________ Beat magazine, as a you know, hunk of the month or something. Is Mr. Fritchey with us today? Yeah, Representative, perhaps while we're seeking a legal opinion as to your source of outside employment, perhaps you could autograph this for some constituents in my district, who really were extremely smitten by the cut of your suit, the rakishness of your smile and the fact that down below it says, 'Cigars are welcome'."
"Representative Lindner."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker."
Speaker Madigan: "Ladies and Gentlemen, could you give your attention to Representative Lindner?"
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Republicans would request an immediate caucus in Room 118."
"Mr. Hartke."
"Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Democrats also request an immediate conference in Room 114."
"The House shall stand in recess for the purpose of party caucuses and would all Members, but especially the Democrats, immediately go to caucus. Thank you."
Speaker Madigan: "The House shall come to order. The Members shall be in their chairs. Mr. Clerk. Bill Introductions."
"First Reading of House Bills. House Bill 304, 8 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 offered by Representative Leitch, a Bill for an Act to amend the Illinois Municipal Code. House Bill 305, offered by Representative Leitch, a Bill for an Act to amend the Illinois Municipal Code. House Bill 306, offered by Representative Leitch, a Bill for an Act to amend the Illinois Municipal Code. House Bill 307, offered by Representative Mautino, a Bill for an Act to amend the Department of Veterans Affairs Act. House Bill 308, offered by Representative Mautino, a Bill for an Act making appropriations. House Bill 309, offered by Representative Slone, a Bill for an Act to amend the Illinois Fertilizer Act. House Bill 310, offered by Representative Slone, a Bill for an Act to amend the Illinois Pesticide Act. House Bill 311, offered by Representative Slone, a Bill for an Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act. House Bill 312, offered by Representative Howard, a Bill for an Act to amend the Children and Family Services Act. House Bill 313, offered by Representative O'Brien, a Bill for an Act to amend the Illinois Vehicle Code. House Bill 314, offered by Representative O'Brien, a Bill for an Act concerning vehicles. House Bill 315, offered by Representative O'Brien, a Bill for an Act regarding disabled persons. House Bill 316, offered by Representative O'Brien, a Bill for an Act to amend the Illinois Pension Code. House Bill 317, offered by Representative Bost, a Bill for an Act to amend the Alternative Health Care Delivery Act. House Bill 318, offered by Representative Ryder, a Bill for an Act to amend the State Finance Act. House Bill 319, offered by Representative Capparelli, a Bill for an Act to amend the Illinois Pension Code. House Bill 320, offered by Representative Capparelli, a Bill for an Act to amend the Illinois Pension Code. House Bill 321, offered by 9 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 Representative Zickus, a Bill for an Act to amend the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Act. House Bill 322, offered by Representative Giglio, a Bill for an Act concerning utilities. House Bill 323, offered by Representative Gash, a Bill for an Act to amend the School Code. House Bill 324, offered by Representative Stroger, a Bill for an Act to amend the Illinois Pension Code. First Reading of these House Bills."
"On the Order of Supplemental Calendar #1, there appears H.R. 34, Representative Currie. Representative Currie."
"Thank you, Speaker and Members of the House. House Resolution 34 contains the proposed rules for the 91st General Assembly. Essentially most of the changes are technical, for example, changing the words 90th General Assembly to current General Assembly and of course, listing the new committees. You've seen that list. But, if you want to refresh your memory, you'll find those changes on page 12 of House Resolution 34. There are three additional changes; Rule 22 would require Bills heard in our appropriations committees to be agency by agency Bills, that is the appropriations that we consider in committee will be appropriations dealing with one agency, one directorship, one institution at a time. That proposal came from the Chairs of our Budget Committees, in the 90th General Assembly, and it's my understanding that that proposal was made by Minority Spokesman and Minority Members of the Budget Committees, as well. Some would like this particular rule change to have gone further, to have precluded us from ever voting on Budget Bills, except one agency at a time. We believe that would not be a practicable rule, for we cannot control the Senate. We 10 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 can't control the Governor's office and we believe that at the end of the day there is no virtue in engaging in Legislative impasse with the chamber across the rotunda and spending the months of June, July, and August, in our fair capital city. So, we have required that our appropriations committees will be able to look at Budget Bills, agency by agency. We think that's an important step in making sure that our Members act responsibly and understand the issues that are before them. Second, we would propose to limit debate on Motions to overrule the Chair. Now, initially you'll remember, the Speaker proposed in December that there be no debate on Motions to overrule the Chair. The rule that you see before you however, does not go that far. In fact, this is a clear response on the Speaker's part to a plea from one of our Minority Members, Assistant Minority Leader, Bill Black. Bill Black didn't like that proposed rule. He thought that was too much to say 'no debate at all' on Motions to overrule the Chair. He does say however, and I quote, 'I could support a change to make Rule 57, that's the Motion to override the Chair, subject to short debate, but to allow no debate at all would be a mistake, he goes on to say, in my humble opinion.' So, the rule before you would propose that the maker of a Motion to overrule the Chair would have two minutes to make the point. This mind you, after having raised the procedural issue already, before you get to the point of moving to overrule the Chair, would enable a respondent two minutes to argue the opposite side and would then give the proponent one final minute to make the case. Those of us who were here in the 90th General Assembly, will remember perhaps with rue, that day in December when we spent substantial periods of time on this House Floor debating a 11 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 Motion to overrule the Chair. A Motion that was made on the basis of no possible interpretation of the rule, whatsoever. That Motion was to say that you don't need unanimous consent to over... to discharge the Rules Committee, whereas the plain language of the rule is that you do. What we found ourselves doing was spending half an hour not even on the question, what procedural reason should there be for overruling the Chair. But, we spent half an hour talking about the merits of a Bill, it was too late for the 90th General Assembly to pass. I don't mind it, if the Minority Party in this chamber, decides that it wants to begin the year 2000 election campaign, 22 months ahead of time, but I do mind it when they decide to bring that partisan decision to the floor of this House. The taxpayers have a right to expect from us that we do the people's business that we don't engage in partisan claptrap. And, I think this proposed change in the rule with respect to overruling the Chair will help make sure that we focus our attentions on our legislative not our political business. And the final substantive change would restore a rule from the 89th General Assembly, when Representative Daniels was Speaker of the House. It would provide for a 60 rather than a 71 vote majority in order to close debate. As I say, that's a repeat of the rule of the 89th General Assembly. It's your rule, and I'd have to suggest that imitation is, of course, the sincerest form of flattery. There will be discussion about how that's going the wrong way, and how the Republican Leadership now understands the error of its ways. It was wrong, crocodile tears is what I would suggest. In fact, there's no reason to invoke this rule if people are moving forward, dealing with the legislative agenda. There is no need to do so, 12 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 unless Members of this chamber decide that their job is obstructionism is in order to... say to make sure that we don't get on with our business. And I can't imagine that we would find this rule used, if at all, then only sparingly. And I would quote to you from a part of the rules debate two years ago, when Representative Ryder suggested that it was odd for Speaker Madigan to raise the vote requirement from 60 to 71 votes. Quote, 'I find it curious for a gentleman who commands 60 votes in the majority that you would arbitrarily disenfranchise the 60 by requiring 71.' Well, I suspect the Speaker read the transcript, thought it through, concluded that Mr. Ryder was right, and so we have the 60 vote rule before us today. Finally, let me make this point. The rules are rules on paper. The question isn't so much what the rule says, the question is how this House operates. I would have to say to you that in this last biennium, essentially, with the same rules that are proposed in House Resolution 34, this House operated fairly. It operated effectively. And it operated so as to make sure the rights of Minority Members in both parties were given a fair shot. Those who were here in the 89th General Assembly might remember that under substantially these rules, these rules; the proportion of Bills that were adopted by this chamber at the end of that Session, the proportion that were sponsored by Democrats under 5%. Under these rules, yes these could be draconian rules and in the last biennium in the just completed 90th General Assembly, under these same rules, more than half the Bills that were approved were sponsored by Members of the Minority Political Party. These rules are a guideline. They're the guideposts. They just set the structure, during which we determine how we do the people's business. 13 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 And I would urge Speaker and Members of this House, that we recognize that the House has been operated fairly and openly under rules almost identical to these during the last biennium and I have every confidence that with your support and your cooperation we will be able to achieve that same bipartisan spirit in the 91st. I urge adoption of House Resolution 34."
"Mr. Daniels, Mr. Black."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before we get started, an inquiry of the Chair pursuant to Rule 49. I assume that we will be given a Roll Call vote on the Resolution and I am obviously joined by five of our Members pursuant to Rule 49 asking for a record vote on the Resolution. Is that your understanding?"
"Yes."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker."
"Mr. Daniels."
"Thank you. It's rather interesting to listen to the strident comments of Majority Leader and her references to these rules and the strident effect of them as she tries to portray a bipartisan atmosphere. I think that this side of the aisle was very clear in its desire to work with your side of the aisle, Madam Majority Leader, by our Motion for Acclamation for Speaker. We had high hopes. This side of the aisle, also, has told the Speaker that we would like to communicate more with him. So we are very, very disappointed when these rules were given to us at 9:00 last night and told that we were going to debate them today. We had hoped, of course, for more. Now, in so doing and listening to your comments in reference to the 90th General Assembly, apparently you feel that that General Assembly was not successful. And I would also refer to the fact 14 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 that when we had to move to override the Chair, let us examine some of things that we moved to override the Chair on. For those of you that are new to the General Assembly and we welcome all of you new Members. This side of the aisle, on frequent occasions, did move to overrule the Chair. And we did debate that, because it was the only forum that we could debate. Some of those issues that we moved to override the Chair on was to debate the issue of cost of living increase for social security workers and for social service workers. You may know that passed, but only after the insistence of this side of the aisle, after lengthy debate. We also moved to overrule the Chair because the Chair refused to bring up the issue of teacher retirement. We moved to overrule the Chair on the issue of circuit breaker, issues that were debated as a result of our insistence and a lengthy debate in the Motion to overrule the Chair when it refused to go to that issue of business. We also moved to overrule the Chair on the issue of property tax relief, property tax relief for the citizens of Illinois which the Majority Party refused to bring up and allow to be debated on this House Floor. The only thing we could do to bring that before the General Assembly was to move to override the Chair when it refused to go that Order of Business. These by the way, are the things that the Majority Leader has said they didn't like, they didn't want to go to, property tax relief, increases for social workers, teachers retirement, HMO Bill of Rights and Patients' Bill of Rights. And yes, diversions from the Road Fund and a Road Fund Program that if we had passed the program we were talking about some of the difficulties in the roads that we're having today throughout Illinois, as the result of the act of God, would not be as dire 15 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 consequences that we are seeing right now. So, we believe very strongly that the Bill should have been brought for debate before the General Assembly. This great vestige of debate, an opportunity for all of us to present our views. Now, for more than twenty years I have served in the House of Representatives under various leaders. I served under Bill Redmond for three terms when he was Speaker and everyone in the State of Illinois considered him to be one of the fairest Speaker's and most open Speaker's in the history of our state. I served Bud Washburn as my leader when I first came and under George Ryan, 'as Minority Leader and then Speaker of the House' and I saw various unique approaches that were brought to the process over the years and I have gained a lot of respect for the General Assembly. But, what I've been watching, is as an institution, as an area... an arena for discussion, we all have one common goal in mind as to represent our constituents. We may have different views on that but we all have a desire to bring our feelings, our needs, and our thoughts to the General Assembly for debate and that shouldn't be stymied. Where the Democrat Party in Washington today is arguing that the Republicans are not reaching out for consensus from the Democrats we have the exact reverse here right in the Illinois House of Representatives where the Democrat Party as stated by the Majority Leader, is not reaching out to Republicans to work with them on the creation of rules which we think works for everyone's benefit, not just for ours. We have no desire to stay here for a minute longer than you do. All we want to do is make sure that this new administration that came before us, now, and has stated its desire to work in a bipartisan fashion, as evidenced by one of the first acts 16 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 that George Ryan took in meeting with the Mayor of Chicago and trying to work out programs together, would find its way to the Illinois House of Representatives where we would not have Members' debate stymied. Now I remember when I was Speaker of the House and I remember that we had a rule that limited debate by 60 votes and moved the previous question. But, I remember also the hours, and hours, and hours which my colleagues on the other side of the aisle spent in debate because they were to lead that debate and make sure that it stayed open and we didn't shut it off. It went for hours. Every major piece of legislation, every one that we had brought before us was debated at length. And so, for you now to return back to the 60 vote rule after you said in the 90th General Assembly with great fanfare that the 71 vote rule was the way to go in a bipartisan effort because you didn't like it, because we wanted to hear property tax relief, HMO reform, teachers' retirement, circuit breaker action, and yes, because we wanted more in front of the General Assembly on the Bradford incident. Now you are saying that you didn't like that. So now you want to be able to not only limit our debate on the previous question with 60 votes, you want to limit the debate on Motion to overrule the Chair perhaps one of the most detailed and important Motions if brought before the General Assembly. So, when I look at this legislative Body I hope that we all remember that the state legislative bodies are the greatest debate forums in the country today. I don't want to be like Washington, and on the Federal level where there is so very little debate taking place in the floor, it's all done in the backrooms and the deals are cut in the backrooms and that's why some of our proposals that we would like to discuss with our 17 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 colleagues on the other side of the aisle make a lot of sense for all of our rights. It makes a lot of sense for instance, that appropriation Bills be dealt with in a single fashion. Yeah, there are 60 to 80 agencies. Excuse me, how many times do we vote each year in this General Assembly? You mean we can't spend the time to debate and vote on 60 to 80 agencies on an individual legislative proposal. You know as you sit there that this is the right way to go because we should look at each agency's expenditures on an individualized basis, and you know that this is a better way to do it and an improved way to do it. Now just two years ago, Speaker Madigan addressed the 90th General Assembly and made several promises to the House. He promised to manage the affairs of the House in a very fair and cooperative manner and proceed in a spirit of cooperation with the determination to work together towards a common goal. And I believe he was saying the same thing when he was reelected as Speaker of the House in this recently Inaugural Session. But the rules that are proposed now, do the exact opposite of that. I'm kind of curious as to how some of the new Members on the other side of the aisle are going to react to this. Like many of you, I followed every campaign throughout the State of Illinois. I know what you said when you were campaigning. I know what you were talking about in your legislative districts. It's a matter of record and so do many of you know what each one of us said in our districts. But I know, for instance that Susan Garrett said she's independent. As a matter of fact, she highlighted a Republican record. And I know that Susan Garrett said when she got to the General Assembly, she was going to be independent and fair. And I'm sure that Susan Garrett today is not going to want to 18 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 stand up on the House Floor, in her first meaningful vote, vote to strip Members' rights and to limit debate, her first meaningful vote. Jack Franks from McHenry County, in a Republican County, we know that it was an interesting election and we know that he worked hard for that and won. Now we have different views on how that election should have come out but Jack Franks touted himself as an independent, too. So, is Jack Franks today going to stand up in his first vote strip Members' rights. How about seasoned veterans like Judy Erwin, Lauren Beth Gash, Jeff Schoenberg, the epitome of independence. Are you going to strip Members' rights? And how many times did you stand up privately and talk to people on an individual basis and say, 'It's wrong, some of the things that are occurring here. We need to hear more about it.' Well, now we've looked at the Amendments being proposed to reduce the votes needed to move the previous question is a mistake. To impose limits on the debate on Motions to overrule the Chair is a mistake. And not to extend the single department rule to floor action is also a mistake. So, consequently, we have proposed five Amendments to the rules that are contained in the filings that we did in House Resolution #11. The first, if the Rules Committee fails to assign a Bill to a standing or special committee within 15 days of its introduction, it shall automatically be referred to the Executive Committee at the Sponsor's request. The second, if a Bill has been favorably reported by a committee and the Speaker has not called the Bill within 15 calendar days, the House shall upon the Motion of the Chairperson or the Minority Spokesperson of the committee that referred the Bill if joined by at least one Member of the opposite political party and approved by at 19 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 least 60 Members, order that the Bill be advanced to the Order of Third Reading and called for a vote. The third, would require Floor Amendments to be considered by the full House before a Bill is moved to the Order of Third Reading. The fourth, would require individual appropriation Bills for each agency or department. And the fifth would... discharge to the Rules Committee upon a vote of 71 Members, 71 Members which would require, of course, both sides of the aisle. I offer that we hold a hearing to discuss the Speaker's Rules and the rules that we are proposing so we can stop the deterioration of Members' rights in this House. We can develop a compromise that protects and insures each individual Member and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will give the House a chance to vote on my counterproposals because I believe that they protect our institution from the further erosion of free exchange in ideas. Now, I urge you to join in opposing these rules, so that we can establish a better set of rules. This is not meant to eliminate the possibility of adopting rules because we all know with 60 votes you can do it at every time. But if you are sitting there thinking to yourself that you want more input into this process, then join your Republican colleagues who are seeking that themselves, instead of walking lockstep and just feeling that you're going to get the best of all worlds. Well, last year, you didn't get property tax relief. And last year you didn't get a Patient's Bill of Rights and you talked about it again in the Inaugural Speech about HMO rights and you could have had it two years ago if you had worked together with both sides of the aisle. That's what these rules are presented for and meant to do. And I believe that the bipartisanship means working together not one that says 20 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 just agree with us and we will make it bipartisan. Work together, discuss ideas, reach solutions and with the whole aura set by our new Governor, George Ryan, this can be the most productive legislative Session that we have had. Are we looking at the campaigns in the future? Of course, we are and so are you. Let's not fool anybody. You've already got your people out in the districts working on the elections of 2000. You know that and I know that. And I have a greater respect for you than to assume that you aren't doing that because you are. But that's for another matter and another day. We can get things done in this Body. We can pass a road program that means a great deal to Illinois. We can provide property tax relief for our citizens throughout the state. We can add to a school construction fund. We can pass 51% of all new revenues for education and make that a reality now. And we do that because each Member will have a right to be heard on this floor and not to have your voice stifled. So, those of you that are new and the very first vote that you are going to cast, let's make sure that it's a vote that you cast to open the process to expand our Members' rights and not reduce them. This is your opportunity. I hope you stand up for your constituents and I hope you stand up for democracy."
"Mr. John Turner." Turner, J.: "Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Lady yield?"
"Lady yields." Turner, J.: "Madam Majority Leader, in all due respect, you just began the 91st General Assembly by making about a 10 minute speech in which, frankly, you disparaged the Republican Party and many of my colleagues. Named some of us by name. Suggested that partisanship was only on the Republican side 21 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 and not on your side. And I have to frankly ask you, are you suggesting to this Body and to the Members of the press that might be here today that the speech you just gave to start the 91st General Assembly was not a partisan one?"
"Representative, my effort was a plea to take partisan politics off the floor of the Illinois House. My plea was to make sure that we, acting as Legislators in this chamber, get about the people's business not about partisan political business. And I think that's a view that you share with me. And I believe, given the remarks of the prior speaker, so does your Leader. I am hopeful that bipartisanship and cooperation will characterize the work of the 91st General Assembly and I believe adoption of these rules will help make sure that it does and that the people's business is our mission, not political sniping." Turner, J.: "Well, thank you for the response. However, as I understand the rule changes you are making, there are three. One would reduce the votes needed to move the previous question. In my humble opinion that does have the effect of eliminating debate and I fail to see how eliminating debate in this Body, whether it be by your side of the aisle or by this side of the aisle, promotes bipartisanship. I would suggest to you that your change on the Motion to overrule the Chair has the same effect. The old rule, as I understand it at least, and certainly I know you will have the chance later on to correct me if I'm wrong, allotted two proponents and three opponents along with a Sponsor to talk to the Members and to the public and to be heard that six different persons that could speak to that particular question. Your rule change however, would allow only one person being the proponent and one opponent to speak and that means that only two people in this 22 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 important question on the Motion to overrule the Chair. A ruling that has the effect in many cases of either killing the Bill or eliminating debate can only be spoken to by two different Members for a very short period of time. And again, I suggest to you that that does not promote bipartisanship. It also does not promote fairness. I am not speaking and trying to be partisan. I am not speaking just on the Republicans' behalf. I am speaking on behalf of the Members on that side of the aisle, too. And I reach out to you. I know that even when you have been in control, let me suggest to you that during the last Session there was at least one Member on your side who did move to overrule the Chair. And that does happen from time to time and although we have all by acclamation elected Speaker Madigan, from time to time we do disagree and I think bipartisanship must allow us to have a debate. The debate we're asking for, my goodness sakes, is not unfair or unheard of. You suggested as you gave your speech that the last General Assembly worked well and indeed, that General Assemblies before that had worked well. If it worked well, if the rights of the Minority were protected, if the rights of each individual Member of this Body was protected, I would suggest to you that the changes you're asking us to make today are unneeded and unnecessary. And Mr. Speaker, I know that it was just a couple of weeks ago that you spoke about being bipartisan and I know that you meant that and indeed when you were elected Speaker during the last General Assembly you also mentioned bipartisanship and I think some of our elected officials are indeed listening. I think we need to look to Governor George Ryan, who's pledged to be bipartisan and stated as much in his inauguration. Leader Daniels, if I might, set the, I 23 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 think, appropriate tone for this Session by dispensing with the needless partisan protocol that usually proceeds the election of the Speaker, again promoting bipartisanship. All of us talked about starting anew, talked about working together. We talked about finding common ground, getting results from the Body for the people that we represent. In all honesty, choking off debate as we have suggested, or that as you are suggesting today, is hardly bipartisan, does not promote democracy and should not be voted in favor of by Members on this side or on that side. There is no need to change rules that you have said have worked to allow the process to proceed in an orderly fashion. I think preventing the people's House from voting on certain measures dealing with a piece of legislation, it's not just unfair, suppresses the rights of the Members and it suppresses the rights of the individuals that we represent in our respective districts. And in closing, I would just suggest to the Members on that side of the aisle that I am attempting not to be partisan and I know that Leader Daniels was doing the same. And I think that in order to be bipartisan that you could certainly set the tone today by voting against these rules and taking a look at the rules promulgated by the Republicans that do give more rights to Members in House Resolution 11. Thank you, Mr. Speaker."
"Representative Mulligan."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a number of issues on this. I notice Madam Majority Leader brought up and quoted some things that were said in the debate in the 90th General Assembly on the rules. She did not quote me when I asked one point of you Mr. Speaker, what happens when you limit debate to Majority and Minority opinions when someone 24 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 in the Minority may be siding with the Majority opinion. On some issues I have done that, particularly since I am a Republican that... serves in appropriations. I work on issues that deal with immigrants. I am a Republican with large immigrant. I have supported issues back and cross the aisle that maybe my leadership position wasn't with that until I got up to speak. An issue particularly on imposing limited debate on Motions to overrule the Chair, I'd like to point out that two years ago one of the most nonpartisan issues was an issue oriented Motion to overrule the Chair, was on a gun Bill. And whether it needed 71 votes or 60 votes and that certainly was not along party lines where you could pick a opponent or proponent to speak to a Bill on a party side one or the other. It went back and forth with Members from both sides of the aisle, voting at will on how they felt about guns and how they felt about overruling the Chair. Some Members voted partisan. Some did not, because they were very adamant about the issue. The way you're imposing this rule, that certainly would limit that debate. When I first was elected to the General Assembly, my seatmate was Virginia Frederich, who had been here and represented her district well as a moderate Republican voice for 16 years. In the last three terms, they have had a new Representative in each term. How can someone stand up and propose to represent that district when they cannot even allow themselves to be a Member that will be able to debate on the House Floor? Because you're a Member of the Majority, does not necessarily mean you will be allowed to get up and debate. Normally, when debate is limited, the Members that are chosen to speak to an issue, are those Members that are Floor Leaders. And so, new Members very rarely get an opportunity to learn to 25 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 get up and speak and debate on a House Floor on an issue. When I was elected in 1992, I came in one of the largest new classes. There were 44 new Members, 20 on the Democrat side and 24 on our side. Many of us who were brand new had an opportunity, because there were so many of us that were new, to be able to get up on the House Floor and speak to issues. When we came in I did not like the way we did the rules and I spoke up about it. But I was reminded that at the end of the 88th General Assembly there were two roll calls, an official roll call and a roll call that had Bills that listed only Democrat Bills in alphabetical order. And if you were a Member of Majority that did not agree, your name was skipped over in that alphabetic order and how the Bills were called and your Bill might not have been called. And so we came in and imposed rules that many of us reminded our leadership team, as the year went on, were not good rules. But I think what I opposed most in these new rules, is the illusion and I would say the illusion, that appropriations are being changed. As someone who has served in appropriations for the six past years that I have been here, both as Chair and Minority Spokesman of Human Service Appropriations, I feel that I can stand here on the House Floor and say without a doubt that there are a handful, only a handful, of Members in this Body that have any clue what is in any appropriations Bill that comes out at the end of the Senate... at the end of the Session. If I see that Bill at 9:00 and were voting on it at midnight, I can't even scroll through the Bill even though I have been working on those issues, to tell if what we want is in there. I can have Members on both sides of the aisle that would walk into committee and say, 'Please tell me when that director is coming in to present 26 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 the budget because I want to be able to talk to him about what's in the budget.' What better way to talk to a department head about their budget then to vote on their budget individually. The fact that you're trying to make it appear that we're going to have individual Bills but you're not saying that we're not going to roll all those Bills over in the end into one committee Bill, is strictly a sham. In our class with 44 new Members who met bipartisan as freshmen, the biggest single issue that we pushed and Representative Lindner has continually put that Bill in, is to have single issue Bills for different departments. Last year, this passed out of the House and was not addressed in the Senate. What these rules do, give the illusion that we're addressing that, when we are not, it is a total sham. As someone who has stood here for years trying to assure Members that what they need in that budget is in there, saying this is nothing but putting out the perception that you're doing it, when you know very well that's not what's... that's going to happen, because we can still roll all the Bills into one large Conference Committee Report, one large Bill. And so Members seem to think that they're getting what they want, when that's not the case. There are Members on both sides of this aisle that are fairly independent and speak to issues, not only with their leadership, but individual issues. Many of us have talked about how bad the rules are, what we're going to do. I'm extremely disappointed if Members on the other side of the aisle do not join many of us because their idea... in speaking to you and I know there has been at least a handful of Members that could defeat these rules that have spoken to you personally about changing these rules and this has not developed. It would be very easy to 27 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 just say don't take a vote, so they're not embarrassed by voting against you on a partisan issue, but to go back and rework these. At one point, particularly, if you take a look at how we're doing the budget, we should have a Constitutional Amendment that changes when the budget message is introduced. It should be moved to February, so we have a longer time to debate these Bills. When we changed the end of Session from June to May, we have never addressed that. I was so irritated with the way the rules were being submitted. I was... I would have introduced a Bill right now that would have a Constitutional Amendment that would allow the Speaker to be elected by popular vote. If I can't get up and represent my district, debate or introduce a Bill even though I am in the Minority what's the point in my being here. If you're in the Majority and you anger the Leader and they're not going to allow your Bill or it's a Bill that doesn't go along with the Majority Members, you will not get your Bill out either. Why would anyone want to continue to limit these rules? Why are we here, if the only people that are going to rule the whole Body are the leaders? We might as well just phone in our votes like they do in Congress. We might as well not even be here and we're not allowed to debate. I think this is a bad way to do things. I think your Members should prevail upon you. Our Members should prevail upon our leaders. It's a time for change. You're taking away every bit of power that every individual Member has. And the fact that it's just a very arrogant way of doing it is beyond belief."
"Mr. Biggins."
"Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. To the Resolution. This is really a 28 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 disappointing day and a disappointing Resolution to come before us. I did an interview Monday and was asked if the tone in the House would remain the same in the 91st General Assembly as it was in the 90th. And I said, 'I hope so, because it was a very, I thought well-run operation compared to the first year I was down here in 1993.' But one of the things I'm disappointed about is the lack of representation there'll be for Members on this side of the aisle if this Resolution is passed. And I particularly want to relate to a friend of mine who I worked with on the other side of the aisle, Kevin McCarthy. Now, Mr. McCarthy, I was very happy to support him when he had, I thought, a wonderful idea for school children throughout Illinois and I was happy to support his Bill we passed out of the House. I thought he had a great idea. But I know when he runs for office he always touts his independent leadership. The reason I know this, is I happen to have copies of some of his flyers that tout his independent leadership. Independent leadership, Kevin McCarthy. Independent leadership. Now it's true that on these independent leadership flyers there is a notation that they're paid for by the Democratic Party of Illinois mailed out of Springfield. But that doesn't mean there still can't be a lot of independence in a person. And so, I want to know what Kevin McCarthy is going to say to the residents of Orland Park when part of them will be represented by the Majority on this side, the other side. But a part of them will not be. Because they are in the 38th District and not the 37th. This vote today is about power and partisanship and the desire of the Members to work together, use the tools that we have to encourage debate not to use the tools that the Majority has to limit 29 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 debate. We could make our Legislature a symbol of cooperation and unity for Legislators across the nation. But, first, we have to have the opportunity to speak, work together and have the same rules on each side to give every Member the same opportunity to speak their position. This cannot happen with the Resolution and the rules put before us this afternoon. We can do better for all the citizens of Illinois and we can prove to them they're worthy. We are worthy of the slogans that we give our campaign. So I would ask my friend, Kevin McCarthy, to demonstrate your independent leadership and join with Members on our side and hopefully some more on your side in voting against this Resolution before us."
"Mr. Cross."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Incidentally, I don't know if anyone's called for it but we'd like a verification on the Roll Call.
"Okay."
"Is that acknowledged?"
"Acknowledged."
"There's someone shaking behind you. I didn't know if you'd changed the rules on verification but it is acknowledged? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now, Mr. Speaker, it's become rather prevalent over the last few weeks and I guess the last couple of months, throughout this country to talk about bipartisanship cooperation. We have heard it at the Federal level. We've heard it at Congress. We've heard it from Constitutional officers. We've heard from both Republicans and Senators here in Illinois and as I said throughout country. It's become the old or I should say, new buzz word in politics. And rightly so. I think the public throughout this country, specifically in the 30 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 State of Illinois where we deal, have become genuinely frustrated, genuinely frustrated with government, with politicians, including ourselves, with Members of Congress, with statehouses throughout the country because they're tired with the fact that we are not getting anything accomplished. We only fight. We only bicker. I had the privilege of being in this nation's Capitol when the new Congress was sworn in. And if you recall, Dick Gephardt said, 'it's time to bury the hatchet.' Denny Hastert, the new Speaker, in fact this is the 'hatchet' that Dick Gephardt was referring to. Denny Hastert, the new Speaker, said ok to all of us as a country and to the Democrats and Congress, 'I'm willing to cross the aisle to meet you halfway but I expect you, also, to meet me halfway.' A real bipartisan approach is important to all of us and the people of this state if we intend and really intend to restore people's faith in all of government, to erase their cynicism and erase their doubt with government. What does it mean for all of us? What does it mean for this state? It means that each of us and not just Republicans, this isn't a Republican issue today, this is a Democrat issue as well. It's an issue for the 100,000 people that I represent and every one of you on the Democratic side, represent as well. It means that we can all contribute here on the floor, that we... so we can reach compromised solutions for problems that come before us. But we can't even give this spirit of bipartisanship a chance with the initiation of these rule changes, which if adopted, will take us in the exact opposite direction that this country and this state want us to go. These rules are so restrictive. They're like a snake. They are grabbing us. So, we have nowhere to go. We are an incredible 31 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 institution. You look around, and for many of us we still get ... and I think I speak for everybody, we get goosebumps when we see this capitol. We get goosebumps when we walk in here. You see Abraham Lincoln. This is a wonderful institution and under these rules and the current rules that the Speaker's provided, we are letting all of our work get reduced, get diminished. We might as well not be here. We might as well let this state run in the Speaker's Office, and forget about even coming to Springfield to do the people's business. Because that's what these rules are doing. They're eroding the power of everybody on this side and they're eroding the power of all of you and don't let the Speaker kid you. He might as well just go meet in his office from here on out, because that's where we are headed in this country and definitely where we're heading in this state. These rule changes will allow the smallest majority of Members, only 60 of you, to silence 56 on this side of the aisle. Do you know what that means? That means 5,000,000 people, 5,000,000 people, in the State of Illinois will not have an opportunity to be heard because your Speaker and your rules will prevent that by cutting off debate and you know that. This is a poor start. It's a poor start to the new spirit that we've talked about. Bipartisanship, cooperation, it's a new day. Well, this takes us in the exact opposite direction. Your rule changes give your party absolute power, absolute power that cannot be challenged by anyone on the Minority Party or I guess even if you want to stretch it, by God himself. Can you imagine? Can you imagine reducing the votes needed to move the previous question from 71 down to 60? Do you know what that means? Someone on this side can introduce a Bill. You can move the previous question. There's no 32 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 debate and we're going to vote without any opportunity to debate a Bill. How are any of you on that side of the aisle, any of you on that side of the aisle, going to have an opportunity to ask a question if the Speaker decides that he doesn't want the Bill to be called or at least debated? It will be called but there'll be no debate. Limiting debate on Motions to overrule the Chair, what kind of farce is that? That's going to hurt you as well as it's going to hurt us. The appropriation sham that you are presenting with your rules, is just that, a sham. If any of you were honest, including us on this side of the aisle, how many people know about the appropriation process in this chamber, if you are really being honest? How about raising the hands? Charles Morrow. That's one out of 118. Charles, you ought to be with us on this side, cause you're not going to have any power when we're done today, Charles. The appropriation issue, as I said, is a sham and I think you need to take a strong look at this rule. Is this the spirit of bipartisanship that the Speaker talked about? And for those of you that forgot, have forgotten what happened the opening day of this legislative Session, let me remind you what the Speaker said, I'm very sincere in what I said earlier, that I will continue with my program and my efforts to proceed on a fair and equal basis, on a bipartisan basis and I implore all of you, all of you, to join me in that effort. Because you all know, because most of you know, that this place works much better when people make a sincere effort and get along and work cooperatively. So again, I say thank you. I guess Ladies and Gentlemen, the honeymoon is over. It was short-lived. And should we be surprised by that honeymoon being such a short-lived time. I guess not. These proposed rule changes are 33 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 nothing more, nothing more but a power play by the Speaker that will just diminish the people's respect for this House, the people's respect for all of you and obstruct action on very important issues. As I said earlier, the people of this country and the people of this state want us to come together. They want us to work together. They want to be heard and they want us, actually, to get things done. This is not the way to get things done. I would encourage you to look for ways in the reverse, to encourage debate and not shut it down. We should be looking for ways to protect and expand the rights of individual Members on both sides of the aisle. I rise in strong support of an alternative set of rules which were presented in the Rules Committee today. And this may come as a shock to all of you, the rules we presented lost in the Rules Committee. I think that is a shame. Yes, believe it. These changes put forward by Leader Daniels would insure that legislation is assigned to committees for debate in a timely fashion and allows 71 Members to move a Bill stalled in committee to the floor for discussion and debate. And I think you've heard the other changes. You know as we were discussing this issue among Members today, several Members said, 'Oh it's a slam dunk. We're wasting our time.' I don't think it's a slam dunk. You know Representative Franks, Representative Garrett, you have created an image at home that you're independent. You've created an image at home that you can think for yourselves and that you're willing to work for other people... work with other people on this side of the aisle. Well, if you really mean that Representative Franks, if you really mean that Representative Garrett, go to all those people on your side of the aisle that when we're not in this chamber and say, 34 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 'I really don't like the way the Speaker runs this place. We don't have any options. We don't really get to do what we want to do. It's all run by the Speaker.' Well, now is the time to set the tone of how we want the next General Assembly, the next two years to go. Do we want us to control this process or do we want one person to control this process? You can make a difference. And the two of you, Representative Franks and Representative Garrett, have a challenge in the next few minutes. You alone can't make that difference. You alone can't be the only two votes. You've got to reach out, reach out to Representative Schoenberg. Reach out to Representative Gash. Reach out to Representative Erwin, Representative Feigenholtz. They can tell you what's been going on over here the last two years. They're tired of it just like you are. Now if you really stand for what you believe in in your campaign, do you really mean that and you are not talking about political rhetoric then vote 'no'. Vote 'no' on the Speaker's rules. Vote for your constituents not for one person, but for the 100,000 people that you represent. And I urge you all to vote 'no'. Thank you, Mr. Speaker."
"Mr. Winkel."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr Speaker, I rise in opposition to this Resolution. I rise with a deep sense of disappointment. It was just two short weeks ago that in this chamber Members were talking about acting in a spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship. And now we're told that we're making some technical changes, some changes to things that are merely, well they're called guidelines now today. But these changes are not technical. These changes aren't merely to guidelines. These changes are the rules that actually govern how we engage in debate in this House. 35 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 These changes restrict our ability to debate the issues in this House. It goes to the very fundamental reason why we're here. It goes to the very fundamental reason that we're here to give a voice, to give flight to the ideas of our constituents here in Springfield, to stand up and speak for them in this chamber. We have a long tradition in this state of having free and open debate but these rule changes, these rule changes are described as technical this kind of a soft sell. It's done with a smile, but these changes are insidious. It's an insidious erosion of our very basic and fundamental rights as individual Members. It's a shifting away of our ability to speak to the issues, to have free and open debate on this floor. It's a surrendering of power to a Leader, to one. It's only just two weeks ago that Members in this House were embracing Governor Ryan's offer of working in a bipartisan spirit. Again, I find it very disappointing today that here two weeks later Members are willing to compromise their word, as well as their rights and their privileges, as individual Members. Now, I understand that in order to run the House, the Speaker has to have a certain amount of power and authority. But party loyalty, party loyalty should never limit our ability to discuss or debate the issues concerning our people's House, concerning the things that matter to the people who elected us, who sent us here to voice their concerns, to represent their issues. Many of us feel very strongly about this. And while some people see the House rule changes that are being proposed as mere technicalities or guidelines, they're, in fact, the foundation of our deliberations. The one unifying set of mandates that determines how we perform our duties. Ladies and Gentlemen, I urge you to take these proposed changes 36 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 very seriously. There is no greater ally to those who serve the public than the truth. And sometimes truth only reveals itself through the debate by impassioned advocates and impassioned advocates cannot rise and address the issues, cannot arrive and reveal the truth if debate is stiffled in this Body. What can possibly be gained by restricting Members' rights in debate? Is finding the answer to that question worth sacrificing more of our rights as individual Members? The House of Representatives is your House and mine. Please join in protecting the one tradition that makes the Illinois House such an effective instrument for the people who we serve. Ladies and Gentlemen, I think it's very important that we not rush to adopt these changes. What's the rush? Why the rush? Why 'ramrod' these changes through this chamber? Let's take some time. Let's have some full and open debate. Let's have a hearing on these proposed changes. House Republicans are willing to sit down tonight and hold the full hearing on all the proposed changes to the rules. Ladies and Gentlemen, to conclude, I believe that all the changes that are being proposed here in this Resolution contradict the very meaning of representative government and they do, indeed, erode Members' rights. This is something not to be taken lightly. I sincerely hope that no one is taking this issue lightly. Together in a true spirit of bipartisanship, we can work to protect our rights as Members of this House and maintain honest, open and representative government. I would vote against, and I strongly urge you to vote against House Resolution 34. Thank you."
"Mr. Winters."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the 37 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 House. I rise as one of the more junior Members of this House. I've now served two terms and I wanted to speak to some of the new Members who are first taking their seats. This will be the first important vote that you cast, since the only other vote that we've taken was one of acclamation. Four years ago when I first took my seat I was very excited. I had an idea that the representative democracy that we operate under was one of open debate, where we would debate the ideas on an intelligent and intellectual basis. We would select the best policies for our state, for all the citizens. But what I have found over the past few years, that the rules that we operate under, in fact, determine whether or not our representative democracy can work. I've served both in the Majority and in the Minority. And looking at another term as a Minority Member, I wish it was Majority, these rules will determine much of what I am allowed to say on this floor. If debate is cut off, if Motions to overrule the Chair are not allowed to be debated, then my role of representing my constituents has been abrogated. I feel that I have very good relations on both side of the aisle and I wanted to speak to you as a colleague, not as a Republican not as a Democrat, but as a person who is down here working on behalf of his citizens. In fact, I must say that one of my more controversial Bills, I had even more support from the Democratic side of the aisle than I had from the Republicans over here. So, I would like to talk to you on one on one when I run that Bill again this year. I thought that this General Assembly was going to get off on a very good start when two weeks ago Governor Ryan in his Inaugural Address spoke overriding... his overriding concern was getting the job done for the citizens on a 38 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 bipartisan baker... basis. He was echoed by the Secretary of State. He was echoed by the Treasurer. He was echoed by every other elected official. When we came in to elect the Speaker of this chamber, the vote was not a partisan vote. It was a part of acclamation that, in fact, Mike Madigan has operated this. He knows the rules of the game. He has proved in the past that we can get the job done. That vote was a sign that we were willing to work with the other party, the Majority Party, but when we look at these rules, I don't think they're healthy. They're not healthy for this chamber. They're not healthy for this state. They're not healthy for this democracy. To shut off debate on Motions to overrule the Chair, no debate allowed other than the one person objecting and one person defending that Motion, is such a limitation on our power to operate this House. Motions to overrule the Chair determine whether or not we can have any influence on how this chamber is being operated. Allowing only 60 votes to move the previous question means that if somebody comes out here they have a relatively noncontroversial Bill and the Speaker's running behind, we simply move the previous question. Only 60 votes are needed to pass that Motion and again, there may be pertinent questions. We've seen Bills fly out of here under limited debate and suddenly we find that we have problems we've got $30,000,000 of technology grants that are not being forwarded by the Comptroller to the school districts that need them because we did not have full and proper debate. Mistakes like that should be caught, if not in committee, our last chance is to catch them on the House Floor. With that 60 vote Majority, all that is necessary to move the previous question, we've lost that opportunity. As a downstate Legislator, I wanted to speak to some of the 39 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 downstate Democrats and say there were times in the last Session when you were very frustrated with the actions of the Speaker. Bills that were incredibly important to your constituents, in fact to you yourself, were put into ad hoc committees that were handpicked and selected by the Speaker for the result that he wanted. That was a... not a democratic action and we under these rules would have even less power to challenge the rulings of the Chair than we had before. This is your chance to say to the Speaker, 'Can we modify this?' If this Resolution is defeated, I'm sure that by tomorrow, 24 hours from now, we'll have another set of rules that would gain Majority vote. I'd also like to speak to one specific Member who I have a connection with. Mr. Franks, who represents McHenry County, represents an area that is rapidly growing, part of it is urban much of it is rural. It is a district very similar to mine. My district is only 20 miles west of his. We represent many of the same type of constituents. In fact, Mr. Franks, you and I both ran without any party support. The only difference between them, between us, is that the first time out you won. I lost. I came back and I am in the chamber now but we have had the same independent flair, the feeling that we could represent our people. Now, if the first vote that you take after declaring your independency is to instead enhance the power, the centrality of power, held by the Speaker, I think your constituents will feel betrayed. That your independent spirit that you obviously showed in the campaign has not really down bone deep in your body. But instead, you're going to come down here and become a part of the Democratic machine. Last week, in the Daily _____________ Herald the quote that you gave is, 'I will be more responsive than 40 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 a Republican.' Well, I, as a Republican, resent that a little bit because I think I am pretty responsive. You might have phrased it differently, 'I will be more responsive than some Republicans, but maybe not all.' But for you to be most responsive, would not a vote to say these rules are too restrictive, would that not be an appropriate vote for you to cast? You will instead, by voting there, prove that you are more responsive than any Republican, but only to Speaker Madigan. That's who you'll be responsive to. They give the Speaker, one man, more control over what we are allowed to discuss on this floor, Mr. Franks. That means your ability to represent your constituents is being eroded with your vote. You should stand up and fight for the rights of your constituents. In fact, if you are going to vote for this, let me make a suggestion, as you ran as an independent and if you instead vote for the Speaker to be even stronger than he is today. Maybe the correct decision for you to take now over the next ten months is to instead of running as a Democrat or Republican, that you should file your campaign papers as an Independent next fall. That would probably be the only thing that will save you in the eyes of your constituents after this vote. I urge all Members to consider their constituents to vote against House Resolution 34 and work with the bipartisan coalition for an empowering set of House rules. Thank you."
"Mr. Meyer."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the passage of House Resolution 34. Once again it appears that the Illinois House of Representatives may move itself from a Legislature willing to listen to the needs of every Member in the district, to an assembly that 41 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 only hears and only listens to the Leadership of one party. During the last several months I have watched with interest the circumstances surrounding our Federal Congress and I hope that most of our Members would take an interest in the impeachment hearings just because the historical significance and the future constitutional ramifications. However, there are also contemporary issues that have come forth from the partisan debate that's presently occurring in Washington D.C. Number one, our constituents are sick and tired of bipartisan bickering and number two, our constituents feel like never before that their individual voices are not heard by their government and their Representatives. To me those things are very disturbing. Mr. Speaker, we have an image problem that we owe ourselves and our constituencies a chance to address. During the past year, we've seen public opinion polls about Legislatures drop. The very people we swore an oath two weeks ago to serve are feeling underrepresented, underserved and underappreciated. We see it in the little interest being shown in the impeachment hearings. We see it in the smaller amount of people showing up to cast votes on election day year after year. And we see it in the increased amount of people who are saying, 'Stop fighting and get back to running our country and our state.' Today each one of us has a duty to hand our government back to the people. We need to ask ourselves some simple questions about each of these changes. Do the changes that are proposed here today prevent an individual Member, individual district, or an individual interest from being heard? Do these changes facilitate partnership in government or do they override the will of our constituencies and residents of this state and lead us back 42 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 into political bickering? And finally, do these proposals move to further concentrate the power of this chamber and in our government and I believe they do. The answers are simple in this case. By passing these changes we're going back to our inaugural... we're going back on our inaugural promise of bipartisanship or even better of nonpartisanship. Instead of closing the doors of government, we should be welcoming the people back into these chambers, making time to hear each and every concern from our constituents. And we should be pledging to the people of this state a new spirit of working together for the common good. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I ask that you reconsider your rules changes and compromise, not with the House Republican Caucus, but instead compromise with the people of our great state. Their voice is calling for a new era of nonpartisanship and open to debate. Let their voice be heard. Thank you, Mr. Speaker."
"Representative Lindner."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield?"
"The Sponsor yields."
"I, too, feel as my colleagues that this has put a real damper on the bipartisanship that we started out with. I like to read philosophical articles on government to try and make sense about why we're here, if the Members do have any power, or if we are just baa baa blacksheep following whoever happens to be the leader at that time. And any article you read on good government says that the right to debate and... is part of the nature of politics, and that the right to debate among competing interests should let all sides advocate their points of view. I don't see these rules, particularly the one reducing the votes to move the previous question, going along with that good government 43 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 point of view. Now this House is often chaotic and a lot of people don't hear what is being said, but there are many times that people don't know the issue in a Bill and do want to hear what certain sides have to say. This rule would not allow us to do that. So, I am asking you, I assume, that what both Representative Cross and Representative Winters referred to is the truth concerning this first rule that at some time a Bill could be introduced and somebody could move the previous question before there would be any chance to debate the Bill."
"Well, Representative, first of all let me point out to you that you voted. You voted. You and every single person on your side of the aisle who has spoken about these rules, every single one of you voted for a 60 vote requirement to close debate in 1995. Now, I don't know what you thought that rule did then, but I assure you, it does the same thing now. I understand that there's a lot of crocodile tears, a lot of breast beating going on among my minority colleagues, but I just have to tell you, that with the 60 vote requirement, I assume from your perspective that the 89th General Assembly did not fall to pieces. There is no effort, there will be no effort to stop this Body from full debate. Some have argued that we think we're a debating society, and that in fact, we spend more time debating minutia than we do spend figuring out what is sensible public policy for the folks back home. But there will be no effort to shut off legitimate debate when this rule passes as I believe there was not in the 89th General Assembly."
"I'm glad you made that point that we did not shut off debate, but you did not answer my question. So, I assume that what I stated and what Representative Winters stated 44 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 and Representative Cross, could be the case. Plus the fact..."
"...Could be... Could be as true as it was in the 89th General Assembly..."
"... I'm sorry... I don't think I asked a question. I didn't ask a question. I just made a statement. But I do believe that as in politics, we should take a lesson from life, too. We all try and grow and learn and certainly our side of the aisle grew also. And I think our leader had said that he would... did never exercise that rule and in fact, does not think that is a good rule now and would not initiate that rule again. So, we have certainly shown growth on our side of the aisle and I think by reintroducing this, you have not shown that. But I also want to address because it is very dear to me, since I have carried the Bill for the single appropriations the entire time I have been in the House, and as Representative Mulligan mentioned, it was a real initiative of our caucus when we as freshmen came in, and I might remind everybody in this House that that Bill passed the House last year with 112 'aye' votes, and 0 'nay' votes. And I do not... my Bill was to have single appropriation Bills for all agencies, have groups of Representatives work on those Bills so we could truly cure, curb some of the bureaucratic excess around here, truly get the Members involved in the budget process, which they are not now. But I do not see your rule as being the same as my Bill, which is truly the will of the House and what everybody wants, if your Bill does not also apply to Committee Amendments and Conference Committee Reports. So, I hope that everybody will remember how they voted on that Bill, how you as Members really wish to enter into the budget process and vote these rules down. 45 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 Thank you."
"Representative Righter."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also rise in opposition to House Rule 34 and I want to take a few minutes and discuss in particular, two of those proposed rule changes. The first of which would reduce the number of votes needed to close off debate from 71 to 60 and the second which would restrict debate on a Motion to overrule the Chair. Now, all of us here are sent to argue and debate and discuss issues, whatever those issues might be. And I think that all of us expect and the almost 100,000 people that we all represent, they all expect this chamber to be an open forum, where we can get up and talk about our constituents, talk about their cares and their concerns and what they want to be seen done here in the State of Illinois, whether we're talking about education or taxes, or crime, or welfare, or any other issue. These rule changes will take away from Members' rights, and they will consolidate more power in the Speaker's Chair. It will take away from, not just this side of the aisle, but all Members' rights, to stand up to the microphone like this and talk about what your constituents need and what your constituents believe. I'm going to oppose House Resolution 34, not because the Sponsor of the Resolution is a member of the Democrat Party, but rather because, my constituents expect me to come to this chamber and fight for the ability to voice my opinion and voice their opinion. And I'll oppose these because my constituents deserve better than to have me represent them in a chamber where I cannot speak out on their behalf. Now my appeal against House Resolution 34 is directed toward all 118 Members. But it is directed especially toward the newer members, like myself, and 46 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 perhaps those of us who just went through our first election cycle. I hope all of us remember that this proposed rule change goes beyond party. Because whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, we all share certain goals for the State of Illinois, with regards to our children's or grandchildren's education, with regards to taxes, with regards to making our streets safe. And all of us also share the desire and the want to be able to come to this chamber and tell the other Members what your constituents believe and what your constituents need. Now, all of us in that campaign proclaimed independence, independence during the campaign and pledged independence if you were sent to the 91st General Assembly. All of us promised to work on behalf of the constituents you represented, and not the party leader. And all of you pledged to work, to owe allegiance to the constituents you were sent here to represent and not the party leader. There's only one vote here today on this House Resolution 34, that demonstrates that you will work on behalf of the people you represent and not the party leader, that will demonstrate that you owe your allegiance to your constituents and not to the party leader, and that is a vote against House Resolution 34. Thank you, Mr. Speaker."
"Mr. Tenhouse."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I have tremendous respect for this Body. And I guess I think back to two weeks ago with great optimism when I heard Speaker Madigan's speech. He talked about bipartisan cooperation. But again, here we go again. I... it's frustrating when we realize that there is a simple choice here. We talk one way, but we walk another and I guess no matter how we want to put it together, the bottom 47 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 line is we're doing differently than what we're trying to send that message out. So the press releases may sound good, but the bottom line is we are having our Members' rights infringed upon and people have to realize that. We've got two simple choices. The House Republican proposal that's sitting in the House Rules Committee would give more empowerment to the Members. We've talked about those five issues, but certainly, for any of us who served here under the appropriations process the way it used to be would have an appreciation of how much more power that that would put into the Members' hands. We addressed that question. It's kind of a hollow answer when we look at the Democratic response in terms of the fact of introducing, basically vehicle Bills, which could pass back and forth, still allowing us to use Conference Committee Reports and Amendments to come up with one big omnibus Bill. Right, wrong, or indifferent, that's the way it is. I look at this question, I just think it's a simple answer. The House Republican proposal empowers the Members. The Majority proposal restricts Members' rights. You know all the school kids and visitors that've come here, you know most of us have an institutional memory of what happens in this great place. I think back to you know, family history. I think a lot of us, my great grandfather served here in this Illinois House. I think he'd be ashamed of what's happened in terms of Member rights and the fact that the 100,000 people that reside in my district don't seem to have the same number... the same rights as some of those that reside in the Majority Leader's or Speaker's district. I've just got one word... one statement, and that is, return the people's House to the people of Illinois."
"Mr. Black." 48 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999
"Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I rise not so much in opposition of the Resolution before us, but I believe a Resolution that has not been allowed to come to the floor might have some better ideas embodied in it. You know, next week I will celebrate my 13th anniversary as a Member of this Body. Now that gives me pause to think perhaps I've been here too long. During that 13 years, I have carved out a nitch for myself, whether by accident or design, I'm not sure and many of you who have served with me know I can be fiercely partisan, I mean fiercely partisan, because on occasion that can be my job, and I can also be fiercely independent, because I think that to a degree is the job the people who voted for me and sent me here, expect me to do. There have been times when my arguments have been directed towards Members of my side of the aisle, more so than your side of the aisle. So, I think that qualifies me to say a few things that I'd like to say, not in a partisan nature, but I'd like to go down the Resolution that your Majority Leader has presented and just make four points. If you'll bear with me and you would give me a modicum of attention, I'd be forever grateful. Let... let me take the first point. The Majority Leader says we're going to change the rules to reduce the votes needed to move the previous question from the old 71 to the new of 60 votes. Ladies and Gentlemen of the chamber, they can shut off my microphone by that, but they can also shut your's off. And if you don't think that can happen, wait and see. You may feel very strongly about a Bill that is being debated. You want to speak in favor. You want to speak in opposition, somebody moves the previous question. Generally, it's a voice vote. Your views will not be heard. The Majority 49 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 Leader has said repeatedly, 'it's... it's your rule.' You did it. You did this. It's your rule. Why in heaven's name can't you now stand up and say that it wasn't right? You know, I'm reminded of what my mother said years and years ago, when I would try to use that as an excuse, 'Well, everybody else is doing it, Mom' and my mother would tell me, 'Two wrongs don't make a right.' So don't say the reason you're doing it is that we did it. If you thought it was wrong then, and you did, and our Leader has publicly stated in the press that he, upon reflection, thinks it was wrong. Don't throw it back in my face and try to consider that two wrongs, therefore, make a right. You know, my memory fades, but let me very briefly go back to 1964 when the late, great Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen represented the State of Illinois in Washington, D.C. He was the Chief cosponsor of Lyndon Johnson's historic Civil Rights Bill of 1964. The most far-reaching civil rights legislation to ever be presented, let alone passed, in Washington, D.C., I dare say prior to '64 and after as well. And the press, the press, the guardians of all that's right, were really on Everett Dirksen's case, and I recall, if memory serves me right, they were on him saying, 'Senator Dirksen, you've never, in your long and illustrious career sponsored or voted for civil rights legislation. Your record on civil rights is abysmal, Senator Dirksen. How can you in good conscience stand here today as one of the chief architects of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?' And if memory serves me correctly, you know what Senator Dirksen, the Gentleman from Pekin, Illinois said, 'Ladies and Gentlemen of the press, I'd rather be right than consistent.' I'd rather be right on the Rule of 71, than consistent on the Rule of 60, because my rights 50 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 and your rights can be abridged by a very simple voice vote majority of this chamber. Let me tell you, because my name was mentioned, and if you want a copy of the letter that I faxed to Majority Leader, you're more than willing to... I mean, I'm more than willing to have you pick one up. I faxed a letter to Majority Leader Currie on January the 7th of 1999 and let me tell you why I did that. That was a Thursday. On that same Thursday, I received a memorandum from the Office of the Speaker, that same morning telling me we were going to change Rule 57, so that we could not debate a Motion to overrule the Chair. And let me quote as she did earlier, but she didn't tell you as Paul Harvey would say, the Majority Leader deliberately didn't tell you 'the rest of the story.' I would like to do that. I wish to go on record as being opposed to a proposed change to House Rule 57. While any Parliamentary Motion can be abused, a Motion to overrule the Ruling of the Chair is most generally a very serious one. It is usually made when a Member feels, a Member, not me, you, anybody in this chamber, when a Member may feel strongly that his or her rights have been violated by a ruling made by the Speaker. At times a Member may feel so strongly, that a ruling has been egregious in nature and that Member should be allowed to express and debate the reason for the Motion to overrule the Chair. You know, it wasn't very long ago that a Democrat made a Motion to overrule the Chair when you were in the Majority. So, it can happen on either side of the aisle. I go on to say in my facsimile, and if I had been given constructive notice I wouldn't have had to do a facsimile. I could support a change to make Rule 57 subject to Short Debate but to allow no debate at all would be a mistake in my humble opinion. Ladies and 51 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 Gentlemen of the House, get out your rule book, Rule 52, Subheading 1 and 2. Rule 52, we can extend Short Debate to Standard Debate in the following way: If I am joined by seven Members of this Body, all on my side of the aisle, or three and four, whatever, any of you being joined by seven Members can ask that Short Debate be extended to Standard Debate, where we have more time to debate the issue, and Standard Debate is what we normally use around here. So my letter, in good faith, was turned around and thrown back in my face, insinuating that uh, that's okay, if you want to do Short Debate. So when I finally get your actual proposal in writing, what do I see here? Mandatory Short Debate. The maker of the Motion gets two minutes. The honorable opponent gets two minutes and the maker of the Motion or his or her designee gets one minute. Can you find in the rules, anywhere where we state there is Mandatory Short Debate? There is no such category in our rules. So one inquiry of the Chair at the appropriate time, Mr. Speaker, you're asking me to vote on a Mandatory Short Debate item, which is not referenced in House Rules. There is nowhere in our House Rules, that there is a Mandatory Short Debate Rule and yet, I think by reference, you're going to include it in your Resolution and at the appropriate time, it will be my job to say that you have violated the House Rules by doing so. You are referencing a rule that has never existed in this chamber and does not exist today and as far as I'm concerned, if you pass your Resolution, Mandatory Short Debate will still not exist because it isn't referenced and will not be referenced in your rules. If you think trying to overrule the Chair is simply a partisan Motion, you haven't been here as long as I have. As I tell you, it's been less than a year ago, a 52 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 Democrat ruled to overrule the Chair. The Democrat was not successful and I've always wondered what the conversation might have been upon adjournment with the Democrat, who had enough independence to make the Motion. I would have liked to have been there for that discussion. The third point I'd like to make is single department appropriations for House Bills and Committee Amendments. Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, 112 of us voted just a few months ago to make this law. We sent it to the Senate, the Senate did not agree. And I can't control what goes on in the Senate anymore than you can. But 112 of us, bipartisan voted to go back to the process of single Bills for appropriations. I've a lot of confidence in all of our appropriation chairs and spokespeople. But when I came down here, I'll give you an example. How many of you, like me have some back child support cases that you're trying to work out, right now with Public Aid? You don't have to raise your hand, but I dare say, it's most of us. When I came down here 13 years ago, if I could not get that agency director to respond and clear up that backlog, and help me help my constituents, I could call that director and say come to my office. And if we could not make a Resolution, I would tell that director, until we resolve this problem of back child support, it is my intention to file an Amendment to your appropriation Bill, limiting your appropriation to $1.00. I guarantee that got their attention and it empowered every Member in this chamber. Now, there were reasons why we got away from that: To speed up the process, to make things go more smoothly. Well think back just a few months ago when we voted on the budget. How many of us here, I had a Representative earlier said that he knew and I... I don't have any doubt that he knew what was in his appropriation 53 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 section of that Bill. But most of the Members of this Body are given an hour or two or three to look at hundreds of pages and vote on the State of Illinois'$35,000,000,000 budget that could be collapsed into one Bill, one Conference Committee Report or maybe one Bill and three Amendments or four Bills and two Amendments or three Conference Committee Reports. I submit to you, that's not right. And over the years, as individual Members, we have lost our ability to effectively represent our constituents because we can't go after a director who is not responsive, not to us, but to the people who pay that director's salary. It's incumbent upon that director to do his or her job. And if your office looks like mine, on back child support complaints, somebody needs to come and talk to us about how we're going to resolve that problem. If you're like me, I must have 30 people who have their income taxes intercepted every year. They're in arrearage, they say. They bring in their records and I call the department, and I say for the eighth consecutive year, 'You've intercepted John Doe's taxes, he is not in arrearage in child support. Why do you do this? You're right Representative, we're going to straighten that out. It'll never happen again.' I can tell you it'll happen again. But we have given up some of our ability to access those agency directors and try and get things done. So don't be fooled by Rule #3, it says, 'single department appropriations for House Bills and Committee Amendments,' but look, look at your Resolution. It does not apply to Floor Amendments, Conference Committee Reports, or Joint Action Motions. We're right back where we started. And I think the sense of this Body, the sense of this Body is: we would like to vote on those agency appropriation Bills, so we know how much money they're 54 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 being given, what they plan to spend it on, and if we don't agree with some of that spending, we have the ability to say, 'I want that taken out of there. I don't think that should be increased. I think this should be increased.' Folks, I'm in the twilight of my service in this Body and many of you are just beginning. If it continues this way, there will be a time when you can take these laptops home and you can just vote your laptop over a modem. You won't even need to be here, because we gradually have given up individual Member power. I've read many of your articles and direct mail pieces during the election on both sides of the aisle, about how it was different when we were 177 Members, how the power can now be, if we're not careful, consolidated into four very powerful leaders. And so, every time we get a chance to stand up and say, 'No. I'm elected, too.' I... certainly we're going to follow our party-line most of the time, that goes without saying, but there are times when we feel strongly that what we're doing or the direction we're taking is not best for our district or perhaps not best for our own personal and philosophical concerns. Lastly, let me, let me deal with something that isn't even addressed in this Resolution, that I think is particularly egregious. You freshmen may have a Bill that you're very interested in this year, very, very interested in and it languishes in the Rules Committee and is never assigned. You can't have a committee hearing. You have 8, 9, 10 people in your district who want to come down and testify. The Rules Committee absolutely will not let it out. So, you come to the floor and you say, 'Mr. Speaker, I move to discharge the Rules Committee and assign my Bill to the Committee on Revenue.' Do you realize that takes an unanimous vote? It doesn't even take a vote. You won't 55 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 even get a roll call. One person, and I can tell you 99% of the time who that person will be, if it's a Republican Motion. I know who that objector will be. One person, the Majority Leader will rise and say, 'I object to the Motion to Discharge Rules.' That's the end of it. I can't even get a roll call. I can't even go home and answer my constituents. Bill, you said you'd work on this. The Bill's never had a hearing. What are you doing? I don't even have a roll call to show I tried. If we continue to allow the Leaders of the Majority Party to consolidate his or her power, at the expense of the Minority, none of us are doing the job that we were sent here to do. Last, but not least, I'd like to quote from a seconding speech that I thought was particularly good. Two weeks ago in nominating the Speaker, 'I believe, we must elect someone who will treat us fairly. Someone who will give each of us a chance to advance our agenda, someone who will allow both Democrats and Republicans to advance ideas. Someone who will allow liberals, conservatives, and moderates an equal chance. Someone who will treat downstaters', pause for emphasis, 'suburbanites, and those from Chicago fairly. We could accomplish much by working together. Much more than fighting with each other.' That was from a nominating speech made just two weeks ago and here we go with a Resolution that consolidates power in the hands of the Speaker and the Majority Party as, as it shall be. You have the majority votes, but you know your most difficult task in the Majority, and I learned this, and I learned this the hard way, when I was privileged to serve in the Majority and stand at the Speaker's Rostrum. The most difficult task of the Majority is to ensure the rights of the Minority and I have no grand illusions that we'll 56 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 probably do anything but do a party-line vote on this, and that's too bad, because whether you're Democrat, Republican or Independent, and some of you ran as Independents. Although, I must admit to a chuckle on one mail brochure that I received, someone was running as an Independent. A strong voice for their district, an Independent, and I looked to see who had mailed the brochure, and it was paid for by the Illinois Democrat Party. So perhaps your,... perhaps it's appropriate that your definition of 'independent' and mine might be a little different. And keep in mind that the Speaker, who is a very powerful individual by tradition in this chamber, the Speaker of this House, is also the Chairman of the Illinois Democrat Party. I can't remember a time in history when so much power has been invested in the hands of one person. That's not to say that he hasn't earned it and that he hasn't worked hard for it, but Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, if my rights can be trampled on today, yours can and most likely will be, trampled on tomorrow. So, I... I would hope that we could perhaps not approve House Resolution 34 today, and perhaps get to a Discharge Motion on House Resolution 11, although that takes unanimous consent. But you know, Mr. Speaker, what I'd really like to do, and I'm not sure you'll permit me. I've gone on and it's probably not in order. We did this about a year ago, under Rule 18(f). I would ask the Speaker if we could resolve ourselves into a Committee of the Whole and discuss not only House Resolution 34 but also House Resolution 11. Let's resolve ourself into a Committee of the Whole as we did with then, Representative Phelps, now Congressman Phelps, on the very important issue of education, and I might remind you that that open discussion might have been 57 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 the precipitating factor that caused me to vote with you. So a meeting of the Committee of the Whole can perhaps change minds and can perhaps... when you see the differences and you analyze the differences and maybe we could reach a compromise between House Resolution 34 and House Resolution 11. Maybe we can, honest to God, work together and come up with rules that not only give the Majority the right to govern, you've earned it, you won the election. I'm not trying to change that. But you could ensure the rights, not only of the Minority, but of each and every Member in this chamber and that really is the issue. Not Republican/Democrat. But empowering each Member of this chamber so that you can fairly represent the people who send you here on issues that may not be popular with the majority or even a majority of those voting. But you should have the right to advance that agenda. So, Mr. Speaker, in closing, I beseech you. And I have a lot of respect for you. I'd really like to have a hearing where we can compare and contrast House Resolution 34 and House Resolution 11 and who knows, we might be able to come up with some compromises on this. And that I think is what I heard you speak to two weeks ago. That is what I heard Leader Daniels speak to two weeks ago. We're ready to work with you on some compromises and begin the process of once again empowering the Members to truly represent their districts. So Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure whether it's in order, but pursuant to Rule 18(f), I would move that we resolve into a Committee of the Whole and continue the discussion on the two Resolutions to see if by chance, we could reach a meaningful compromise. And I make that in the spirit of someone who has enjoyed everyone of my 13 years here, and I know what this Body is capable of on its 58 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 best day. I, unfortunately, know what the Body is capable of on its worst day."
Speaker Madigan: "The Chair recognizes Representative Currie to close."
"Thank you, Speaker and Members of the House. As I close this first open and heated debate of what I am sure will be many in the 91st General Assembly, I'd like to offer an invitation to my Republican friends in this chamber, an invitation of bipartisanship, an invitation of independence. Yes, it's possible that some of you have been on the road to Damascus and have undergone a major conversion on the issue, whether it's 60 votes or 71 that ought to close debate. But surely, not all of you were on that road at the same time. Some of you must want to stick to your guns. So I invite those among you who are of independent frame of mind, to join us in supporting that change in House Resolution 34. I remind all of us, that the rules are but a framework for the actions of this General Assembly. They are not going to guarantee good things or bad things. It is how we behave to one another and how we respect the institutions of debate and policymaking in this chamber that will make us succeed or make us fail. These rules will serve us well, if we choose to do the job that the folks back home sent us here to do. If we eschew partisan rhetoric and bickering, and if we move on the legislative agenda, these rules will serve us well. And as a mark of bipartisanship, bipartisanship, I've heard that word from all of your lovely little lips, bipartisanship. I am told by Capitol ____________ Fax that should we adopt these rules this afternoon, it is likely that there will be three Republicans chairing House Committees and two Republicans co-chairing two other House Committees. Now, 59 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 what could be more bipartisan, what could be more cooperative than that? Now, I didn't hear anybody suggest that in the 89th General Assembly, when the Republicans were in charge, there was any sharing of the goodies, any largess for the Democratic Members, and as I remember it, there was not. But if you're concerned about cooperation and fair play and the rights of the Minority Members, I can assure you that these rules will make it happen in ways that will inure to all of our benefit and to the benefit of the people back home. So I urge us all to work cooperatively, and I urge us all to vote 'yes' on House Resolution 34."
"The question is, 'Shall the Resolution 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. On this question, there are 61 'ayes', and 55 'noes' and there is a request for a verification. Mr. Cross. Mr. Cross."
"Yes, Mr. Speaker, with my lovely little lips, I would like the verification used. I would still want to respond with the verification... go on with the verification. We're ready to go."
"Mr Clerk, read the names of those voting 'yes'."
Clerk Rossi: "Poll of those voting in the affirmative. Representatives Acevedo, Boland, Bradley, Brosnahan, Brunsvold, Bugielski, Burke, Capparelli, Crotty, Barbara Currie, Julie Curry, Dart, Monique Davis, Steve Davis, Delgado, Erwin, Feigenholtz, Flowers, Fowler, Franks, Fritchey, Garrett, Gash, Giglio, Giles, Granberg, Hamos, Hannig, Harris, Hartke, Hoffman, Holbrook, Howard, Lou Jones, Shirley Jones, Kenner, Lang, Lopez, Joe Lyons, 60 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 Mautino, McCarthy, McGuire, McKeon, Eugene Moore, Morrow, Harold Murphy, Novak, O'Brien, Pugh, Reitz, Schoenberg, Scott, Scully, Silva, Slone, Smith, Stroger, Art Turner, Woolard, Younge, and Mr. Speaker."
"Mr. Cross."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker, That independent-minded Representative who just voted for a Bill to strip Member's rights, Representative Garrett."
"The Lady is in her chair."
"Representative Schoenberg."
"The Gentleman is in the aisle."
"The individual who vowed not to walk lockstep with the Speaker, Representative Franks."
"Mr. Franks is in, the Gentleman is in the chamber."
"Representative Dart. Representative Gash."
"The Lady is in her chair."
"Representative Erwin."
"The Lady is in the chamber."
"Representative Lopez."
"Mr. Lopez. The Gentleman is here."
"Representative O'Brien."
Speaker Madigan "Representative O'Brien is in her chair."
"Representative, not the one that talked about lovely little lips, but the other Representative Curry."
"The Lady is in her chair."
"Nothing further."
"There are 61 'ayes' and 55 'noes' and the Resolution is adopted. Are there any announcements? Mr. Clerk, do the Agreed Resolutions."
"Agreed Resolution, House Resolution #5, offered by Representative Cross, House Resolution #14, offered by 61 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 Representative Howard, House Resolution #16, offered by Representative Granberg, House Resolution #17, offered by Representative Durkin, House Resolution #19, offered by Representative Morrow, House Resolution #20, offered by Representative Tim Johnson, House Resolution #21, offered by Tim Johnson, House Resolution #22, offered by Representative Tim Johnson, House Resolution #24, offered by Representative Tim Johnson, House Resolution #25, offered by Representative Tim Johnson, House Representative #26, offered by Representative Tim Johnson, House Resolution #27, offered by Representative Tim Johnson, House Resolution #28, offered by Representative Novak, House Resolution #29, offered by Speaker Madigan, and House Resolution #30, offered by Representative Tim Johnson."
Speaker Madigan: "The Chair recognizes Representative Currie. Who moves for the adoption..."
"The adoption of the Agreed Resolutions."
"The Motion is to adopt the Agreed Resolutions, those in favor say 'yes'; those opposed say 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. The Motion is adopted and the Agreed Resolutions are adopted. The Chair recognizes Representative Lindner. Linder."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to remind all the women to please remain on the House Floor, that there is a COWL meeting in conjunction, in conjunction with the Commission on the Status of Women who are waiting to meet with us now. So please stay on the floor."
"Mr. Parke wants to know if he can attend the meeting?"
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm always interested in learning more from my colleagues, and if they invited me, I certainly would be there. But, I just remind everybody 62 STATE OF ILLINOIS 91ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 4th Legislative Day January 27, 1999 upon adjournment, the Economic and Fiscal Commission will be in 122A. And one other question, Mr. Speaker, does this mean that there will be no Session on Thursday? Is that what this means?"
"Mr. Parke correctly points to the bulletin, which was just released that indicates that there'll be no Session on Thursday of next week."
"Thank you, Mr. Speaker."
"Thank you. I'd like to call to the attention of the Membership, the announcement on page 2 of the Calendar. Tomorrow, the United States Secretary of Defense, Mr. William Cohen, will address the House of Representatives. Session will begin at 11:15. Is there anything further to come before the House? Representative Currie. Representative Currie moves that the House does stand adjourned until 11:15 tomorrow morning. Those in favor say 'aye'; those opposed; say 'no'. The 'ayes' have it. The House does stand adjourned until 11:15 a.m.. tomorrow morning." 63