Illinois House Floor Debate — May 22, 2003

“The House shall come to order. The Members shall be in their chairs. We ask you to turn off your cell phones, your pagers, your computers. We ask the guests in the gallery to rise and join us for the invocation. We shall be led in prayer today by the Reverend… by the Reverend Donald Bethel of the Williams Prairie Baptist Church in Marion. Reverend Bethel is now retired from that church, but at the request of Representative Gary Forby has joined us today for our invocation.”

“We shall be led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Representative Forby.” 09300063.doc 1  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 Forby – 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.”

“Roll Call for Attendance. Representative Currie.”

“Thank you, Speaker. Please let the record show that there are no excused absences among House Democrats today.”

“Mr. Bost.”

“Clerk shall take the record. There being 117 Members responding to the Attendance Roll Call, there is a quorum present. Mr. Clerk.”

“Mr. Franks, you are the Sponsor of Senate Bill 75. Did you wish to move the Bill? Mr. Clerk, what is the status of the Bill?”

“Third Reading. Mr. Clerk, Senate Bill 75, put that Bill on the Order of Second Reading. Representative Nekritz, you are the Sponsor of Senate Bill 275. Did you wish to move the Bill? The Lady indicates she does not wish to move the Bill. Representative Krause, you are the Sponsor of Senate Bill 726. Did you wish to move the Bill? Mr. Clerk, what is the status of the Bill?”

“Representative Krause on the Amendment.”

Speaker Madigan: “The Lady moves for the adoption of the Amendment. Those in favor say ‘aye’; those opposed say ‘no’. The ‘ayes’ have it. The Amendment is adopted. Are there any further Amendments?”

“Third Reading. Mr. Fritchey, Senate Bill 274. Mr. Clerk, what is the status of the Bill?”

“Mr. Fritchey on the Amendment.”

“Thank you, Speaker. Floor Amendment #1 represents an agreement between all interested parties: the Trial Lawyers Association, the Illinois State Medical Society, and the hospitals with respect to distribution of proceeds from a lawsuit. There’s gonna be a lot of work put in by all these parties and be happy to answer any questions, but there are no known objections to the Bill at this point.”

“The Gentleman moves for the adoption of the Amendment. Those in favor say ‘yes’; those opposed say ‘no’. Mr. Parke.”

“Sponsor yields.”

“Oh, what the Amendment does is provide for a distribution of proceeds with respect to health care providers for health care liens, for attorney liens, and distribution to a plaintiff in a lawsuit. Under a recent Supreme Court ruling, the way that it had been done for decades in this state was kind of thrown into question, so there’s now been an agreement between the parties as far as what the percentage of distribution would be between all these interested parties so it’ll cover their costs.”

“Well, you may… you may have a lawsuit, let’s for ease of reference, where there was a judgment in the amount of $10 thousand. Now, you may have health care liens in a certain amount on that judgment. You may have the attorney liens in a certain amount on that judgment. And what we’ll now provide for was at 40 percent… I believe it’s 40 percent, I’ve gotta look at the numbers again, Representative, would be distributed among the health care providers and the hospitals, 30 percent to the attorneys, 30 percent to the plaintiffs. There were certain situations prior to this where you could have wound up with a situation where after the health care providers and attorneys had received their proportionate shares, that 09300063.doc 6  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 there would have been nothing left for the plaintiff which would have obviously take away any incentive to go forward with the proceeding. So, what they’ve done is come up with a way in which the Medical Society feels covers their interests, the trial lawyers feel that their interests are covered and the hospital association feels that their interests are covered. In light of the fact that it was agreed, this Bill came out without dissent in the Judiciary Committee yesterday when it was heard.”

“Well, candidly, I think, if anybody was gonna take less here, it would be the attorneys prior to the way the law would read right now, absent this Bill.”

“That would lo…”

“No one… nobody is cut out. What it sets forward is a framework for distribution of the proceeds from the recovery.”

“No. As I said, there were no… Well, maybe I didn’t say this, but there were no slips in opposition and it’s been represented to us by all interested parties that there are no parties out there in opposition to this Bill.” 09300063.doc 7  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“Thank you for your questions.”

“Representative Novak in the Chair. Any further discussion? The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Miller.”

“I don’t… Will the Gentleman yield?”

“The Gentleman yields.”

“Thank you. I don’t know if… I don’t know if the definition of controversial, just depends in whose eyes it is. Representative, you said a few minutes ago that this was negotiated. Can you give me just a little bit of background on the process of those negotiations?”

“There have actually been hours of meetings between… actually, this stems back several months, but just over the past month there have been numerous meetings between representatives from the State Bar Association, from the Trial Lawyers Association, the Medical Society, as well as the hospital association coming up with an agreement that they felt covered everybody’s interests.”

“Well, you said that the attorneys would lose, when a former Gentleman had spoken, how would the attorneys lose, based on what you said?”

“There were questions before as far as the equity of recovery from health care liens which could be considerable 09300063.doc 8  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 and sometimes, you know, in excess potentially of the judgment amount. And what we’ve tried to do is come up with a parameter where we say health care liens will be distributed proportionately among the providers up to a certain level, that the doctors would have a certain percentage, the hospitals would have a certain percentage, the attorneys would have a certain percentage and the injured party would have a certain percentage.”

“Okay. When you talk about doctors, I mean, are you referring to physicians, are you referring to dentists, are you referring to rehab therapists, are you referring to PTs? What are you… I mean…”

“It would…”

“…is this… does that… does that definition include all those professionals within that category?”

“It would cover anybody that has a recognized lien under the law today.”

“It’d be under the physicians’ portion.”

“Correct. What… It doesn’t change who is entitled to file a lien, it doesn’t expand or narrow that. It just says that if there are recognized liens there, there’ll be a framework for the proportional recovery of those liens.”

“Yeah, based on that 40 percent though, that would be the max on that?”

“When the total medical liens would exceed 40 percent of the judgment, there would be 20 percent to the doctors, 20 percent to the hospitals.” 09300063.doc 9  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“Once again, and how is it defined as ‘doctors’? I mean, so, for instance, it could be a $10 thousand dental bill and you know, $10 thousand for… for rehab therapy. How is that divided, that 40 percent…”

“I…”

“of that additional 20 percent?”

“Again, this Bill does nothing to change what liens are recognized liens or what are valid liens pursuant to that lawsuit. What this does, is deals solely with the distribution of those liens. We’re not coming in and saying that there are new parties that are now entitled to file a medical lien or that there are parties that are no longer entitled. If you were entitled to file a valid lien before, you still are. Nothing in this Bill changes that.”

“But then why… then why do it because then, I mean, even the genesis of this… you’re saying what… what was the problem with a health care provider being compensated for the work that they do?”

“Oh, absolutely, none whatsoever. What we needed to do was come up with a framework in light of the recent court rulings that would set forth recovery for the health care providers as well as the hospitals, as well as the attorneys, as well as insuring that the plaintiff will, in fact, get recovery himself or herself.”

“Okay. I’m not gonna belabor this, but I just would like everybody and I’ll comment on this when it goes to Third and I know this is gonna be adopted, but be very mindful of this that it’s truly not fair to the health care 09300063.doc 10  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 providers in the state. The fact that they’re being limited on based on work they did do and that the fact that there’s different overhead involved and I’ll get in those comments later on. Thank you.”

Speaker Novak: “Any further discussion? Seeing none, the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 274 pass?’ All those in favor… Oh, I’m sorry, excuse me. Seeing no further discussion, ‘Shall Floor Amendment #1 pass… be adopted?’ All those in favor say ‘aye’; those opposed say ‘no’. The ‘ayes’ have it. And the Amendment is adopted.”

“Third Reading. Senate Bill 46. Excuse me. House Bill 46, the Gentleman from Randolph, Mr. Reitz. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.”

“Mr. Reitz. Mr. Reitz on the Amendment.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Amendment #4 is the cleanup language we discussed yesterday on the ethanol Bill. It takes out farmer-owned co-ops and it removes the $1 million for research. And I’d be happy to answer any questions.”

“Is there any discussion? Seeing none, the Motion is, ‘Shall Floor Amendment #4 be adopted?’ All those in favor say ‘aye’; all those opposed say ‘no’. The ‘ayes’ have it. And Floor Amendment #4 is adopted. Third Reading. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill.” 09300063.doc 11  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“Mr. Reitz.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is the Bill we discussed the Amendment yesterday in-depth and I said we adopted Amendment #4 to make the changes that we had spoken about. This Bill, I think, is going to be a very good piece of legislation to help grow the ethanol industry. The energy…”

“Mr. Reitz…”

“Bill…”

“…excuse… Mr. Reitz, excuse me. Mr. Clerk, is there another Amendment on this Bill?”

“Wait…”

“Please withdraw Floor Amendment #5. I guess, forget it.”

“Well, Mr. Reitz, Floor Amendment #5 has been referred to the Rules Committee hasn’t… The Rules Committee has not acted upon it yet.”

“Can we… Mr. Speaker, if I could file a Motion to Table Floor Amendment #5.”

“You don’t need to do anything, Mr. Reitz.”

“Thanks.” 09300063.doc 12  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“Just continue…”

“Perfect.”

“…continue with your presentation, Sir.”

“Thank you. The Bill as it reads right now is an effort to create a program for incen… for grants to build ethanol plants. It includes project labor agreement, that’s a component of getting the grant. We think this has the opportunity to help grow the ethanol industry. As I said, the energy Bill includes a number of additions on the federal level. It’s going to grow this industry from 3 to 5 billion gallons. Appreciate your help. This will do a lot for the ethanol… We… this… it’s a very compromised piece of legislation that will help agriculture, will help the environmental community, will help labor and we, ya know, we’re looking forward to putting this through. I’d appreciate your support.”

“Is there any discussion? The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Parke.”

“State your inquiry, Sir.”

“Correct.”

“The Sponsor will yield.”

“That’s correct. With Amendment #4 removed… removed that preference that said ‘farmer-owned’.”

“They’re strong proponents of that and the Farm Bureau agreed that we should remove this and their reasoning being that there are… there really is no way with that… there’s no way to have a hundred percent farmer-owned ethanol facilities. They want to leave that to the discretion of the department and we have… we are going to try and discuss that and with the department and make sure that they… they will give preference there, but we don’t wanna put that in the law.”

“Yes.”

“This is new legislation. It’s all voluntary. If they wish to apply for this grant for construction of ethanol plants, one of the components of receiving that grant is going to be a signed project labor agreement.” 09300063.doc 14  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“Correct. That’s correct.”

“No, it’s… it’s the… it’s the project labor agreement, the prevailing wage language is in there in case they don’t take a project labor agreement, but the department is going to require that they sign a project labor agreement.”

“Their opposition is based on putting prevailing wage into this legislation. That’s… the Municipal League was not opposed until the prevailing wage language was added to this Amendment.”

“Amendment 4, no, amended the Bill, took out farmer-owned co-ops and struck Section (b) under… or Section 20(b).”

“The Bill, as amended, creates a grant program subject to appropriation up to $15 million, says that one of the 09300063.doc 15  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 components is… of receiving this grant is going to be that they have a signed project labor agreement and then leaves the rest… the rules to be promulgated by the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs, actually under the Bill, but the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity. So, they will promulgate that and they will do it as they do any other economic development grant. The only additional component in here is that it will have a signed project labor agreement.”

“No. No, that’s… I appreciate your concern on that, but this… we have a funding mechanism built into this Bill, it’s a companion, this is a package of… actually, under the negotiations of House Bill 1212 which passed… Senate Bill 1212 which passed out yesterday of House Bill 46 which… this is what creates the grant program and Senate Bill 46, which passed out of Executive Committee this morning. And Senate Bill 46 we are ramping up the ethanol exemption from the current law of 70 percent to 80 percent exemption where they remit 80 percent of the tax on ethanol fuel. That will create, according to the Department of Revenue, 16 to 17 million dollars in additional revenue for the state 09300063.doc 16  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 based on last year’s gallonage. So, we are taking that 16 or 17 million and taking 15 million of that and putting it into a program to create this grant program. So, it’s revenue neutral for the state and in addition to that, we would also like to urge the administration to add some money into the AgriFIRST Program, which was the genesis of Amendment #4, to work on research.”

“The $17 million comes… will be from Senate Bill 46.”

“Okay. The funding source comes actually from the gasoline dealers across the state, when they sell gas and when they remit their tax to the state they currently send 70… pay 70 percent of the fuel price… of the tax on the fuel to the state. We are ramping that up to 80 and that creates about 16 to 17 million dollars in additional revenue for the state.”

“It’s going… it’s all going into the General Revenue Fund.”

“Correct.”

“It can be used… it’s all subject to appropriation, it could be used for anything, but what we’ve tried to do here is package where in this set of Bills, that we have a funding mechanism to help grow the ethanol industry.”

"To the Bill.”

“Thank you. Further discussion? The Gentleman from Crawford, Mr. Eddy.”

“The Sponsor will yield.”

“Yes. And that’s still… that’s still there.” 09300063.doc 18  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“With these additional funds, they will. If their… if the current program and I… to be honest, I’m not sure whether the status of that is in… the appropriation… well, we don’t have a Bill yet.”

“So, I don’t know where the status of any existing funds. I do know that the AgriFIRST Program where is most of the feasibility studies and things of that nature came over is still part of the Agriculture Department, it’s still part of current law.”

“Well, the… it’s actually… it’s there to create an incentive to spur ethanol plants. We think there are a lot of… a lot of reasons. So, that’s… it’s there to create an incentive to build ethanol plants.”

“This is a separate pool of dollars.”

Speaker Novak: “Further discussion? The Gentleman from McHenry, Mr. Franks.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield?”

“Sponsor will yield.”

“Representative, I’m reading our analysis and I just have a couple of questions. I’m a little… I need a little clarification. And I’m looking here at the three-phase tax exemption that we’re talking about. Is that…”

“It’s… just for clarification on the analysis, it has moved to a two-phase with Amendment #4… 3. Yeah. The Bill as it is, is a two-phase now.”

“Oh.”

“It goes to 80 percent effective July 1 of this year and then goes… it sunsets in ten years. So, it’s a two-phase as opposed to a three. And what… what we have done is that… that is where we got… we put the additional money in there. We initially had this as an $8 million grant program and in agreement with the industry we have ramped that up another 5 percent which creates another $8 million in revenue for the state that we can put into this fund. Because we believe there’s a tremendous potential out there to build ethanol plants in somewhere in the Midwest or in the United States and we would like those to come to Illinois.”

“What is the tax rate now? When I’m reading this and I can’t tell whether we’re lowering taxes or increasing taxes.” 09300063.doc 20  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“We are… we are increa… the tax rate is currently 70 percent and the way that that works is when they remit their taxes… so on a gallon of… a gallon of motor fuel they remit a hundred percent of the six and a quarter, six and a half percent, whatever the tax rate is on that.”

“Right.”

“So they remit a hundred percent on a motor fuel. On ethanol products that have at least 70 percent ethanol… that have ethanol products, I mean, they… they remit 70 percent of that tax.”

“So this is a tax break, it’s a tax decrease for people who are using ethanol or for the ethanol producer.”

“Yeah, correct. We’re going… this will sunset in this year. We’re extending it, but we’re ramping it up from 70 to 80 which creates around 16 to 17 million dollars additional revenue for the state and we are using that as a funding mechanism to build… for grants to build new ethanol plants. The ramp-up is an agreement with the industry. It’s addition… actually, it’s more… it will be less of a tax break…”

“Okay.”

“…for the people that pay the tax.”

“All right. So the difference is now, they’re only paying tax on the first seven cents of every ten cents when they sell?”

“Correct.”

“Now, you’re gonna move it up where they pay tax for the first eight cents out of the first ten?” 09300063.doc 21  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“Correct.”

“Okay. So, it’s a bit of a tax increase, but it’s… it’s earmarked for creation of new ethanol facilities. Is that correct?”

“Yes. Well… actually, but it… the Bill as a whole is not really an increase ‘cause the actual law sunsets in July of current… what they’re currently doing, you know…”

“Oh, so they would’ve lost the tax break altogether.”

“They would’ve lost it completely, yes.”

“Okay.”

“So, this extends the tax exemption and in discussions with the ind… everyone involved in this we don’t really think that it will have much impact at the pump. And it seems to be a disparity between northern Illinois where you have to deal with the attainment zones and use the oxygenate that ethanol provides or downstate Illinois where we don’t seem to get as much of a tax break between regular motor fuel and ethanol.”

“I appreciate your answers. Thank you.”

“Thank you.”

“Before… we have two other people wishing to seek recognition, when we conclude with this Bill. But I wanna announce now that Representative Poe is providing a wonderful chicken dinner for us this afternoon. Lunch is outside of the chambers doors, the east and Legislators are urged to get their lunch during the first half hour, during this next half hour. So, we have two more individuals 09300063.doc 22  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 wishing to seek recognition. Further discussion? The Gentleman from Will, Mr. Meyer.”

“Sponsor yields.”

“Yes.”

“Yes.”

“Yes, that’s our intent.”

“Any further discussion? The Gentleman from DeKalb, Mr. Wirsing.”

“You’re welcome.” 09300063.doc 23  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“Thank you.”

“Mr. Reitz yields.”

“My response to them is one, there’s nothing within any project labor agreement that precludes anyone, union or nonunion, from entering into that agreement. And the second part is that this is all voluntary. There’s nothing in this Bill or in Senate Bill 46 that precludes anyone from building an ethanol plant without… they just basically 09300063.doc 24  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 don’t apply for this grant. They can… they can do whatever they want there, but if they want to access the monies that we’re passing in this piece of legislation, they are going to have to exhibit between them as owners of the plant and the labor unions a project labor agreement. But there’s nothing that precludes them from going ahead to do that, although we would hope that they work with their local labor people to build this plant.”

“I would think that’s probably one of the best things about a project labor agreement, it is just an agreement between the entity that’s building whatever it would be, in this case an ethanol plant, and… and the trades that are involved. And they can split up, ya know… ya know 70 percent of the union, a hundred percent whatever it can do or this… ya know, these trades are going to do this, these 09300063.doc 25  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 trades are going to do that. They… it can be crafted however they want, there are no parameters that the department will have basically that will oversee the project labor agreement itself. That will be done at the local level.”

“My response to that one, in anything it’s a negotiation. The project labor agreement is a negotiation and the labor people in whatever local area it is, their main intent is going to be to put their people to work. And we’re going to have to make sure that in negotiating this out, if whoever is putting up the money to build this plant does not go forth and build this plant, they don’t… their people don’t have jobs. So, I think it’s a negotiation process and whoever’s going to put up the dollars to build this or whatever contractor is going to be involved, they’re going to have to negotiate that out with the local labor union. But the overwhelming intent of the labor union, I can assure you, is to put their people to work. And if these people aren’t making the investment to build this ethanol plant, then their people aren’t going to 09300063.doc 26  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 work. So, it de… ya know, it depends on every area is… of the state, I believe is different depending on how the labor and how the available trades are. So, it would… I think it’s a good process for them.” Wirsing: “I don’t want to put you on the spot, Representative. Have you had any experience or any knowledge of how, ya know, from the nuts and bolts of putting together this agreement on a project that has state dollars involved, that… that… whether that went well or whether it became very tentative as far as the negotiation process between the contractor, between the unions, between the ownership, et cetera?”

“There is one that I’m familiar with and working with and of course… it’s actually two, and they seem to… one is going very well, the other I think in its infancy stages, but it seems to be going very well in the one case, in Representative Smith’s area. It seems to be going very well as far moving toward a project labor agreement. And as I said, every area is different, but the bottom line for all of these people is they just don’t have to apply for this grant if they don’t want to, so they could do… then they could do whatever they want.”

“I think the over… One, the underlying Bill and the reason the start of this Bill came from Senate Bill 46. We want and need to extend the ethanol tax credit. And that is the number one priority for the Farm Bureau, for the renewable people, for everyone involved in ethanol and this has been exhaustive negotiations trying to get to this. This is a very good compromise, I think, and at the end of the day the initial Bill was just to extend the credit. I think at the end of the day we have a vehicle here now that we can build new ethanol plants and we can compete with the states that surround us with a grant program that will help build it. And bottom line for the Farm Bureau, speaking on their behalf then, and for the farmers in my district and throughout Illinois is, the more ethanol plants we build, the more corm we use. Also, a part of this…”

“Yes and their main concern…”

“…all throughout this process, that it was just voluntary, whatever we do it is voluntary. So, they are very comfortable with the project labor agreement and even the prevailing wage, as long as it is voluntary.”

“Thank you.”

“Thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen. Before we vote on this Bill, I would like to make an announcement. If you… if I can direct your attention to the gallery 09300063.doc 28  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 behind the chambers. We are a… have a… auspicious moment in Illinois history here today. We have a visitor from Illinois, representing Illinois, and she is Miss America. Miss America, hello. As you know, Erika Harold is from Urbana and her mother and father are also joining her today. So, Erika, congratulations to you and your family. And thank you for visiting the Illinois House of Representatives. Thank you. Erika Harold. Mr… Mr. Reitz to close.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate all the interest and all the input and all the questions. As I said earlier, I think at the end of the day with this package of Bills that we have we’re going to promote the ethanol industry and help, as I said, we’re going to help… and in this Bill especially, we help agriculture, we help… we help the labor movement, we help… we help everyone involved in renewable fuels and we provide a good viable source for the only oxygenate that we have out there to meet the Clean Air Act requirements. So, I appreciate your help.”

Speaker Novak: “And the question is, ‘Shall House Bill 46 pass?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Representative Currie. Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk… Mr. Brady. Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 117 voting ‘yes’, 0 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. And having reached the required Constitutional Majority, House Bill 46 is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 1503, the Lady from Lake, 09300063.doc 29  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 Representative Ryg. Is Representative Ryg in the chambers? Out of the record, Mr. Clerk. Senate Bill 1506, the Gentleman from Winnebago, Mr. Jefferson. Do you wish to call your Bill? Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.”

“Mr. Jefferson.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Senate Bill 1506 amends the Trademark Registration and Protection Act to make changes concerning the classification of goods, amends the Business Corporation Act of 1983. It also adds grounds onto which the Secretary of State may administratively dissolve a corporation, make changes concerning withdrawals of a foreign corporation, revocation of foreign corporation’s authority to transact business in this state, the collection of interest by the Secretary of State, expedited service fees and the Business Services Special Operations Fund. Amends the General Not-For-Profit Corporation Act, makes changes concerning administrative dissolution of a corporation, revocation of a foreign corporation’s authority to conduct affairs in this state, fees charged by the Secretary of State, all other matters. Amends the Limited Liability Act. And I would move for an ‘aye’ vote. Thank you.”

“Is there any discussion? The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Parke.”

“Sponsor will yield.”

“Yes.”

“I don’t think there is.”

“I’m sorry?”

“Yeah. I don’t see a fee increase.”

“To the Bill.”

“Thank you. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 1506 pass?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 117 voting ‘yes’, 0 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. And having reached the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 1506 is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 1503, the 09300063.doc 31  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 Lady from Lake, Representative Ryg. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.”

“Representative Ryg.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Senate Bill 1503 simply clarifies language in the Child Support Act. It provides that a payer who knowingly fails to withhold child support designated in an income withholding notice shall be fined. Currently, the law only addresses the failure to pay the amount to the State Disbursement Act and the fine of $100 per day does not change by this change. I’m open to any questions. Thank you.”

“Is there any discussion? Seeing none, the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 1503 pass?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 117 voting ‘yes’, 0 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. Having reached the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 1503 is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 1521, the Gentleman from Madison County, Mr. Davis.”

“Mr. Davis.” 09300063.doc 32  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 Davis, S.: “Yes. Thank you, Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Senate Bill 1521 is a companion Bill to House Bill 2816 that passed out of here in March 27. It deletes one line in the… in the Recreational Trails of Illinois Act. And it removes the existing prohibition against the use of Off-Highway Vehicle Trail Fund for the purposes of constructing motorized recreational trails on land owned or managed by Department of Natural Resources. Be happy to answer any questions on the Bill.”

“Is there any discussion? The Lady from Peoria, Representative Slone.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Gentleman yield?”

“The Gentleman will yield.”

“Mr. Davis, Representative Davis, does this legislation allow motorized vehicles to operate on existing state hiking trails?” Davis, S.: “That’s not what the Bill says, Representative.”

“Does it allow…” Davis, S.: “What it does, it only allows the department to use moneys from the Off-Highway Vehicle Trails Fund should they choose to construct ATV trails on public lands now. This doesn’t mean that they’re gonna go out and start constructing ATV trails on state parks. DNR owns other lands other than state parks in the State of Illinois. And it also allows ‘em to go out and buy property to construct off… ATV trails.” 09300063.doc 33  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“So, this… this takes a fund that currently exists and allows it to be used to buy land to build recreational trails for ATVs. Is that right?” Davis, S.: “That’s correct. And that’s currently what the purpose of the fund is to use that money to buy properties for off… off… all-terrain vehicles.”

“What’s the source of funds for… for the fund?” Davis, S.: “I’m sorry?”

“What is the funding source?” Davis, S.: “The funding source comes from the sale of ATVs in the State of Illinois, there’s a fee associated… every time they sell an ATV in the State of Illinois goes into the off… off trails fund.”

“And how much money is in the fund now?” Davis, S.: “I don’t have that answer, but I think it’s around $600 thousand.”

“Do you know what the money’s currently used for?” Davis, S.: “It’s used for grants to go out and buy properties to establish these ATV trails and ATV parks. That’s the pur… that’s the sole purpose of the fund is to allow ATV owners to have a place to ride their vehicles, so we established this fund. We established the fee on the sale of ATVs, so they could go out and establish ATV parks and use it as a grant source.”

“So, now, this would expand that to allow them to do it on state land… on public land. Is that right?” Davis, S.: “It allows the… the… Yes. It allows the department to use those funds. Currently, they are not allowed to use 09300063.doc 34  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 those funds to construct on public lands. This is only permissible.”

“Mr. Speaker, to the Bill. To the Bill.”

“Yes.”

“Thank you, Mr. Novak.”

“All right.”

“…Mr. Speaker. Ladies and…”

“To the Bill.”

“Ladies and Gentlemen, this allows the… this allows the off-trail vehicle funding to be used to buy land and build all-terrain vehicle trails on state-owned land. Illinois is one of the states of the Union that has the smallest amount of public land, 95 percent of the land mass of the State of Illinois is in private hands. I think that, you know, people who want to have ATV trails can buy and build ‘em on private land. I think expanding that to public land owned by the Department of Natural Resources is a really dreadful idea and I would urge a ‘no’ vote.”

“Further discussion? The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Parke.”

“Sponsor will yield.”

“Is there any further discussion? Mr. Davis, you wish to close?” 09300063.doc 38  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 Davis, S.: “Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I want to thank Representative Poe for the chicken. Great job, Representative Poe. And I would ask for an ‘aye’ vote.”

“And the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 1521 pass?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Forby. Representative Flowers. Representative Scully. Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 99 voting ‘yes’, 18 voting ‘no’, 1 voting ‘present’. And having reached the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 1521 is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 1523, the Gentleman from Cook, Mr. McCarthy. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.”

“Mr. McCarthy.”

“Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And I’m glad to see your lunch didn’t deter you from calling this Bill. Senate Bill 1523 is an initiative of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Commission. It basically makes certain provisions to the Act that established that commission. First of all, it says that the members will serve until their successors are appointed and qualified. The commission has had some problems where they have some members whose terms expire and the new people haven’t been on there yet. They’ve been down to as few as four members. It also clarifies the 09300063.doc 39  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 powers and duties of the commission, the powers and duties of the director. It clarifies that the commission rules are in accordance with the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act. And it also has a fiscal note of no anticipated fiscal impact. It passed the Senate 58-0. And I would appreciate your support of this measure.”

“Is there any discussion? Seeing none, the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 1523 pass?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Colvin. Jerry Mitchell. Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 118 voting ‘yes’, 0 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. And having reached the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 1523 is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 1530, the Gentleman from McHenry, Mr. Franks. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.”

“Mr. Franks.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Bill deals with the prohibition for corporate felons dealing with the Illinois Procurement Code. This passed the Senate and we’ve made an Amendment in the House to make it a little tougher. We… It became the Bill and what this Amendment requires, instead of allows, the contracting agencies to declare a contract void if it is determined that the contractor is in violation of the section. And what we were trying to 09300063.doc 40  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 accomplish here is amending the Illinois Procurement Code and by adding a new section that prohibits a business from bidding or entering into a contract with the State of Illinois or any state agency if an officer, director, partner or other managerial agent has been convicted of a felony under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 or a Class III or Class II felony under the Illinois security laws. And I’d be glad to answer any questions.”

“Is there any discussion? The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Fritchey. The Lady from Cook, Representative Davis, Monique Davis.” Davis, M.: “Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield?”

“Sponsor will yield.” Davis, M.: “If a person has been convicted of a felony, Representative, do they serve any time?”

“If they’re so chosen to by a judge.” Davis, M.: “What is the smallest time a felon can serve?”

“I don’t know.” Davis, M.: “So, after the felon has served prison time, the State of Illinois wants to say, well, you can’t have a business here and you can’t do contracts here. Is that right?”

“No, Ma’am. That’s not what it says. What this…” Davis, M.: “You don’t…”

“What this Bill does is it bars someone who is convicted of a felony to contracting with the state agency for five years and it’s only if convicted under a felony under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which is corporate 09300063.doc 41  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 fraud. So, we’re looking at businesses… this is like the Enrons of the world and the… and when accounting firms have done this and we’ve been… I’d be glad to answer any further questions. I wanted to clarify that.” Davis, M.: “Okay. But you know what, Representative, help me with this.”

“Okay.” Davis, M.: “When a person has been convicted of a felon in Illinois…”

“Well, let’s talk… let’s not talk about person here, we’re talking about a corporate entity, Representative.” Davis, M.: “Well, you’re still talking about a human being. Is that correct?”

“No. We’re talking about a corporate entity that does not have a heart or a soul.” Davis, M.: “You’re talking about a corporation?”

“We’re talking about a business entity, not an individual.” Davis, M.: “Is it applicable to a person who is a part of that corporation?”

“It would be applicable to the corporation.” Davis, M.: “So, if an individual that we’re speaking of, let’s be real, Representative.”

“No, we’re not talking about individuals. It’s being real.” Davis, M.: “Okay. All right.”

“We are talking about a corporate entity.” 09300063.doc 42  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 Davis, M.: “All right. So, what you’re saying then is, if I’m John Smith and I’m a part of Enron, that’s a corporation. Enron can no longer do business with the state, but Mr. Brown can. I can do it. Is that right?”

“If you have, personally, have not been convicted of any fraud, yes.” Davis, M.: “If I personally… Well, suppose the company I worked for had been convicted.”

“That’s not… doesn’t deal with you. It’s only with the corporation.” Davis, M.: “Pardon?”

“It doesn’t have anything to do… If you happen to be an employee, an honest employee of a corporation like Arthur Andersen, okay, or let’s say, Enron. And the corporation, itself, has found to be have committed corporate fraud. That corporation would be barred from doing business with the State of Illinois, but an honest employee like yourself, who just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, working for a corrupt corp… company, okay, that purposely defrauded the state, the individual would not be barred from contracting with the state or working for the state.” Davis, M.: “To the Bill. Thank you, Mr… Representative.”

“To the Bill.” Davis, M.: “To the Bill, Mr. Speaker. My concern is, it appears in Illinois that after people have served their prison time, we are lengthening their sentence. We are saying, well, if… it’ll be five more years before you can 09300063.doc 43  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 do that in Illinois, it’ll be ten more years before you can do this. And it’s almost like we’re… we’re inviting recidivism. The families of the people you’re talking about are not guilty of a crime. That wife and those children and that mother-in-law or grandmother, they’re not guilty of a crime, but they’re all being punished. And I’m really concerned, Representative Franks, about the laws being passed in the State of Illinois to widen the net, to reduce the opportunity. Now, when people go to prison, my hope would be that they are, what do they call it, what’s that word, rehabilitated. Let’s all say that word, rehabilitated. Now, if we have a system that rehabilitates people, we should not be shutting them out of earning an honest living. I just can’t do it anymore, Representative. Connie Howard is constantly fighting to remove the record of people so they can get jobs and work and here we are increasing the number of people who can’t work. Should we say to them, don’t get off the bus, Gus, not in Illinois. When you leave prison, keep walkin’. Don’t stop here ‘cause there’s nothing for you but a continued life of crime because we don’t believe you’re rehabilitated. We’ve got more laws to keep you from working and earning an honest living and I’m just concerned about it. Representative, I know that you have the best interests of this state at heart, but I have the… I happen to have the best interests of my families in America at heart. I’m concerned with this Bill.” 09300063.doc 44  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“Further discussion? The Gentleman from Bureau, Mr. Mautino.”

“Thank you, Speaker. Lovely tie.”

“Thank you.”

“You’re welcome. Sponsor yield.”

“Sponsor yields.”

“Just as a clarification, I appreciate some of the earlier discussion on here, but Sarbanes-Oxley that dealt with basically a thousand companies. Those are your major corporation. Anyone who is an issuer of debt.”

“Yes.”

“So, there are no individuals in here unless that individual’s name might have been Arthur Andersen or… It’s all corporations’ instruction. That was designed to protect the general public from the Enrons, the WorldComs, those types of things with certain criteria and ethic standards that they had to meet, such as creating false documents, that is a violation and a felony under Sarbanes-Oxley under Federal Law not Illinois yet, but we’re working on that.”

“Exactly. Or destroying documents or having…”

“Right.”

“…such egregious corporate fraud. It has nothing to do with individuals.”

“Right. And I appreciate that. I appreciate the work that you’ve done on the legislation. I believe we do have a Bill that’s gonna come along and address a little bit of the Sarbanes-Oxley a little later on in this week or next 09300063.doc 45  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 Session. But it’s a good step and it would protect us from that situation where the state may contract with someone who has in the past defrauded the people that they were there to serve.”

“Thank you.”

“I stand in support.”

“Further discussion? The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Will Davis, Representative Davis.” Davis, W.: “Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield?”

“Sponsor will yield.” Davis, W.: “I have a question for you, Sir. When Representative Monique Davis was talking to you, you placed a lot of emphasis on corporation and that it’s the corporation, if you will. And I was just reading the analysis and the first line of the analysis says that Senate Bill 1530 creates a five-year prohibition against bids from and contracts with businesses with personnel convicted of a felony under that particular Act.”

“Right.” Davis, W.: “That specifies individuals.”

“Right.” Davis, W.: “But after…”

“You need people to run corporations. But we have… we wanna make sure and this was a real concern that the state chamber had as well as the CPA Society, that they were worried that they didn’t want a whole corporation to be penalized for a rogue employee, okay? So, in response, that’s why we brought in the House Amendment 1. The Bill 09300063.doc 46  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 was amended… actually, it was amended in the Senate, to make a bar of the business if the conduct of an officer or director, partner or other managerial agent resulted in either a felony conviction of the business or an award of punitive damages, because an entity doesn’t… can’t act on its own, it needs actors to act for it to direct it where it’s going to go, okay? So, we want… we’re not trying to penalize a company that has a rogue employee that might go nuts. We’re talking about a systematic abuse of the system of a corporate fraud where they’re trying to defraud innocent people. And I think it’s really important if you’ll look at that because I think it’s in the best interest of the employees that businesses be held accountable. Otherwise, you’re gonna have huge failures like we had with Arthur Andersen. Do you know how many innocent people lost their jobs because a few people at the top were cheating and because of corporate fraud?” Davis, W.: “Correct.”

“And we’re… this will really help protect those employees. Hopefully, we’ll never have to use this Bill, but with the… which is law, but with that threat of companies knowing that they won’t be able to do business and we’re gonna keep ‘em accountable, we’ll be able to keep people employed in this state.” Davis, W.: “So… so, my business that may have an employee that…”

“I’m sorry.” 09300063.doc 47  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 Davis, W.: “My business that may have an employee that engaged in such an activity, my business…”

“Right.” Davis, W.: “…can be penalized, correct? My business or…”

“It’d be the individual if he’s working on his own. We’re talking about a standardized corporate fraud, okay, under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act which is mostly… and also under the securities laws. That’s… We’re talking about big business, we’re not talking about…” Davis, W.: “But this Bill does apply to a small…”

“Oh, sure. Oh, sure.” Davis, W.: “Okay. Well, I mean, you emphasized big business, but…”

“Right.” Davis, W.: “…there’s a possibility that this can apply to a small businessperson.”

“Well, if you’re a one-man show. Okay, let’s say I’m incorporated or someone’s incorporated as business ‘x’, okay? And this business goes around defrauding the State of Illinois, okay? And is convicted of felonies and have done corporate frauds, that business which happens to be one person, of course they’re gonna be banned.” Davis, W.: “Well and I understand that one… that one, if that’s the case, but if I’m a small–business owner and unfortunately, I’ve got an employee that may have been convicted of something in the past or is maybe engaging in some type of defrauding of some customers, does my 09300063.doc 48  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 business… is my business now exempt from doing business with the state?”

“I’m having trouble hearing you, Willie.” Davis, W.: “If I’m a small business owner and I unfortunately have an employee that either has been or is engaging in some type of illegal activity that may be specified by your legislation and that person is, indeed, is caught or what have you, does… is my business exempt from doing business with the State of Illinois?”

“No, not if it’s…” Davis, W.: “It’s not.”

“…just one rogue employee, no.” Davis, W.: “Okay. Thank you, Sir.”

Speaker Novak: “Further discussion? The Lady from Cook, Representative Howard.”

“Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield?”

“The Sponsor will yield.”

“Mr. Franks, I am just confused about what you’re talkin’ about. You’re saying that if a corporation becomes a felon… Is that what you’re saying?”

“Yes. And we… oh…”

“So, there is such a thing as an inanimate object, a corporation, becoming a felon or are you talking about the people that have committed… are guilty of the crimes being the felons?”

“We have that. That’s what we… Our laws or our Federal Laws, right now, dealing with that and you read about it every day in the paper, Representative.” 09300063.doc 49  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“Let’s… let’s say that the corporation is the felon.”

“Yeah. Ya look at…”

“And the…”

“…Enron, for instance, and you look at MCI WorldCom, you’re seeing that right now, you’re reading about it in today’s papers.”

“Okay. So… so, are you… so, the persons who are the officers then carry the label of felon. Is that correct?”

“If they’re charged individually and I know many of them have been.”

“And that’s what you’re talking about, those that are being charged individually?”

“As well as corporately because they’re…”

“Okay.”

“…also the ones who run the corporation.”

“So, then these individuals, that you’re talkin’ about, and I’m just concerned about the individuals as my colleague, Monique Davis, indicated earlier. These individuals then are not able to do business with the state in any other kind of contractual agreement. Is that what you’re saying?”

“Only with the state. If they want to contract with someone else in a private party, that’s fine. Heck, I would have liked to have expanded this further, quite frankly. When you see some of the testi… and I didn’t do it, but you look at the testimony of what we’ve seen out of the unfortunate incident with Scott Fawell, for instance, in dealing with other individuals and people who are self- 09300063.doc 50  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 dealing and they admitted under oath that they were self- dealing, I think they should be banned from dealing with the state as well. We didn’t…”

“But… I meant… I’m thinking of…”

“We didn’t go that far. We didn’t go that far.”

“…clarification in your example, thank you. But I’m… the clarification I need is that you’re saying that those individuals then are barred from having contractual agreements with the state.”

“If they’ve been convicted, not charged.”

“Okay. But if a felon is a person who had been convicted and has done some time, right?”

“Yeah.”

“So, it has nothing to do with just being charged. So, that individual then… so, that individual then… you’re saying for what period of time is not able to be involved in the contract again?”

“Well, let me tell you about what the current law is right now.”

“Okay.”

“Right now, and I’ll read this to you, ‘no person or business convicted of a… no person or business convicted of a felony shall do business with the State of Illinois or any state agency from the date of conviction until five years after the date of completion of the sentence for that felony.’ That’s what the law is now in the State of Illinois. We’re…”

“And your changes…” 09300063.doc 51  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“And we’re changing it because…”

“No, just tell me what the change is.”

“…well, see if they’re getting back and we are changing ‘cause right now current law provides that a contract ‘may’ be declared void and we’re saying that the contract ‘shall’ become void. That is the main difference in this Bill.”

“Okay. So, you’re changing from ‘may’ to ‘shall’.”

“It is a ‘shall’ Bill now, not a ‘may’ Bill.”

“Okay. And so this… the individual that you speak of is not then able, for five years, and that’s already in the law, you say?”

“Further discussion? The Gentleman from Cook, Mr…”

“I haven’t finished yet, Sir.”

“Oh, I’m sorry. Pardon me.”

“I’m still waiting for an answer.”

“With the current provision that we have in the law is not being changed, what we’re adding is because of the recent federal enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. We are also including those businesses. We are trying to comply with the Federal Law. And those are the only ones that become ‘shalls’ under the Sarbanes-Oxley. The others remain as it is, because that’s what the Federal Law states.”

“But if the Federal Law is covering this, why are we doing something on the state level?”

“Because we’re complying.” 09300063.doc 52  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“But if we don’t do this, does the Federal Law still prevail?”

“Yeah. The Federal Law does not prohibit them from contracting with the state, this would do that.”

“You know, as my colleague, Representative Davis, said earlier, Monique Davis, it seems as if we are rushing to always make things much more difficult for individuals who’ve made a mistake and I’m just wondering if at what point will we comply with the Constitution of the State of Illinois. Representative… Jack, are you still with me?”

“Yes, yes.”

“We are busy complying, I’m asking, at what point will we comply with the Constitution of the State of Illinois, Article I, 11… Section 11, that says, that we as a state have a responsibility to help individuals become productive citizens again. If we continue to include the barriers or add barrier on top of barrier, then we’ll just be a state of criminals at some point. People will not be able to feed their families. They’ll be going back to prison. The recidivism rate will rise rapidly. I just think this is not a good idea. Thank you.”

“Further discussion? The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Delgado.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield?”

“Sponsor will yield.”

“Representative Franks, there seems to be some confusion as to criminal felony laws and white-collar crime in terms of what the Sarbanes-Oxley law is. Are you, Sir… 09300063.doc 53  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 are you… yours is white-collar crime Bill. Is that correct?”

“Basically, yes.”

“This is like under the Securities… this is like the Securities Act violations. Is that correct?”

“Yes, Sir.”

“This isn’t… this would be like MCI WorldCom.”

“Yes.”

“That, of their president… this is… we gotta be careful. We’re defending white-collar crim… white-collar crime. We’re not talking about… we’re not talkin’ about a small corporation, because they don’t fall under the Sarbanes-Oxley law…”

“Representative…”

“Sarbanes, I’m sorry. The Sarbanes-Oxley law.”

“Representative, I’ve been handed… what it does and it deals with accounting. It deals with criminal penalties for willful violation of document retention regulations and also criminal penalties for securities fraud and criminal penalties for conspiracy to commit fraud and offenses in the mail fraud and also failure of corporate officers to certify financial reports and tampering with records or otherwise impeding an official proceeding and witness tampering. This is… deals with accounting. You’re absolutely right and that’s…”

“Right. Exactly this is a white-collar crime Bill. This doesn’t have to do with our level of where were at in that communities. This is going after white corp… 09300063.doc 54  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 white-collar corporate criminals. These are individuals that have stocked their books, have done a misdeed to millions in terms of consumers and then they… and they doctored their books. And under the Sarbanes-Oxley law… because if they didn’t break that law, they couldn’t be convicted under that Act. And if it was just a matter of someone stealing ten computers and because they were… and they worked at that company, that’s a felony criminal law and they would go to criminal court for that. These hearings would be held in Federal Court. Is that correct, Representative?”

“It could be state court because of securities obligation, but it’s usually federal.”

“It’d be federal and you’re attaching it to state contracts. I cannot stand here and argue to defend corporate America in what you’re doing to… and say that… I just want to distinguish. I think we’re a little confused as to who it affects. It affects multi-millionaires with multi-million bills… stock options. They’ve ripped off the public. They’ve doctored their books and we’ve paid the costs. Yes. Our community was the one that had their whatever product taken away from us, cheated on us, and they got away with it. So, it’s very… I wanna help my colleagues understand that we’re not goin’ after a little guy here. This would be the CFO, the CEO, the president, well, that’s who we get, corporate America. These are your multily… multi-national corporations that are rich and that are… and that actually are… are repressing communities, if 09300063.doc 55  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 you will. So, I wanted to distinguish that because… All right, and let me ask you this question. What does it take to get to fall under the Sarbanes-Oxley law? In order for you to be qualified to be charged under the Sarbanes-Oxley, what would… what would’ve happened? Who are you? ‘Cause I couldn’t be charged under the Sarbanes-Oxley law, we couldn’t.”

“First of all, it has to be against corporations that publicly issue securities. And that’d be the… it’d be the publicly traded corporations and then we’d be talking about the…”

“So, we’re talkin’ about the Fortune 500 companies, is that correct?”

“Yes, Sir, and also smaller ones.” Delgado: And in Illinois you could cost…”

“And also small.”

“…they’re all small.”

“It’ll pretty batch everyone listed on the New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ, American Stock Exchange…”

“On the New York Stock, on NASDAQ.”

“Right.”

“So, for the purpose of the General Assembly, it’s very clear. This isn’t comin’ home. This is a good Bill. And this Bill should be looked at well. And I would ask for your ‘aye’ votes. To the Bill, Mr. Speaker. I think that it’s very clear that Representative Franks has always gone after corporate criminals. Those corporations that have come into Illinois and have set up shop and have 09300063.doc 56  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 worked off our employees, gotten the labor out of ‘em, and then once they’ve taken the labor, they’ve put ‘em out on the street, they’ve closed their cash register, they say they didn’t make any money, they leave Illinois richer than when they came in. I would ask for your ‘aye’ vote.”

“Further discussion? The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Molaro.”

“Well, thank you. I just want… I just wanna be clear on this, so this way my record stays intact 11 years down here. I’m a firm believer in rehabilitation. As two of my colleagues have said, from the City of Chicago, rehabilitation is the cornerstone of any society. Someone makes a mistake you certainly don’t want to ostracize ‘em for years to come. The only thing I do have to make clear since I’m always against Bills of this type. I do want to make clear what Representative Delgado, but I just wanna reinforce this. In other words, if someone from our area is silly enough or makes the mistake and he gets a dope charge against him or he winds up where he went into a garage and he burglarized it and he shouldn’t have done it. It’s two years now and he straightens himself out and starts a company, that will not bar him from doing business with the state. You have to be convicted of securities fraud. So, it makes sense to me that if someone’s convicted of securities fraud, just that crime, it’s gotta be securities fraud and you’re workin’ for the state and we catch ya with your hand in the cookie jar of the state, now you can’t do business with us for five years. That makes 09300063.doc 57  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 sense. But if you’re convicted of anything else, I don’t care if it’s sellin’ dope or if you’re… you’re caught with a DUI or aggravated DUI, you can do business with the state the next day. This doesn’t stop anybody who’s convicted of 99 percent of the crime from doing business with the state. So, the only thing I can tell ya, I’m always against this Bill, but with this you’ve narrowed it enough that I can be for it because it does help with rehabilitation and none of them do that. So, thank you, Representative Franks.”

“Thank you.”

“Further discussion? The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Fritchey.”

“Thank you, Speaker. To the Bill.”

“To the Bill.”

“Echoing somewhat the comments of the previous speaker. Ladies and Gentlemen, we have to be careful not to raise specters where they don’t exist. When you see something talking about barring felons, this is not the traditional argument that we have in these issues. One of the previous speakers, the Lady from Cook, had discussed families and opportunities. This is about protecting families. A lot of families were devastated when they lost their jobs because of what happened to Enron, what happened at Arthur Andersen, what happened at MCI WorldCom. This is the type of Bill that’ll help prevent that, if we want to protect families from wrongdoing. We’re not talking about taking somebody that got into a incident as a kid or a young adult, we’re talking about somebody that has shown a 09300063.doc 58  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 pattern and practice of corporate fraud and saying and sending a clear message that we don’t want somebody that has been found to be guilty of committing corporate fraud to be doing corporate business with the State of Illinois and jeopardizing residents and families in the State of Illinois. I have nothing but the utmost respect for the Representatives from Cook and the fight that they’ve had and will continue to fight on helping rehabilitate individuals that deserve rehabilitation as they do and making sure that we put adequate resources into having that. This is a different kind of animal, it’s a different kind of Bill. I think this is the type of thing where we can put broad stroke differences aside and say these are the individuals that we don’t want coming into our community and taking advantage of our people. So, to that extent, I… I support the Bill, I support the Sponsor in this. I request an ‘aye’ vote. Thank you.”

Speaker Novak: “Further discussion? The Lady from Cook, Representative Davis.” Davis, M.: “Representative… I’m sorry. Mr. Speaker, my name was mentioned twice, so I have two minutes, right?”

“Yes.” Davis, M.: “Two minutes. Okay. First, just let me say that I understand what you’re attempting to do in reference to the security purchaser. Let me ask a question though. Let’s say three gentlemen own a business and it’s a business that does business with the state. There are three of them. Two of them are convicted of a felony, the third one had no 09300063.doc 59  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 knowledge of the felony. Can he get a contract? Does he have to change the name of the company?”

“This would not apply because they’re not under the Sarbanes-Oxley unless they’re selling stock.” Davis, M.: “To the Bill, Mr. Speaker. I have listened to the debate. I have heard Representative Molaro and I have heard Representative Delgado and mostly I’ve listened to the speaker here, Representative Franks, but more importantly I see this Bill is supported by our Comptroller, Dan Hynes. And if our comptroller is supporting this legislation, I certainly do trust his judgment to protect the citizens of the State of Illinois. Thank you. I vote ‘aye’.”

Speaker Novak: “Further discussion? The Gentleman from Vermilion, Mr. Black.”

“Yes, Sir.”

“Sponsor yields.”

“Yes.”

“Well, MCI WorldCom has not been convicted right now.”

“It only applies to the business. I’m reading the… I’m reading it… the statute. If the business itself is convicted of a felony, referenced in a previous subsection, or if the business is ordered to pay punitive damage based on the conduct of officers, directors, or other managerial agents who have already been convicted of a felony. So, it… it would have to rise to the level of exemplary damages.”

“That’s a very high standard to reach.”

“I’m not sure if they’ve been ordered pay punitive damages or just merely fines.”

“It might be a different…” 09300063.doc 61  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“Well, no, I think we’re… first of all, they’d have to be convicted, first of all, but suppose…”

“Right. Let’s assume that for the sake of argument they will be. Okay? The state couldn’t contract with them nor could a state agency, but…”

“…but Representative, I also think we would be putting our tax dollars at risk if we would contract with business felons. I’m not sure they’re gonna… if people can do this type of behavior, they might repeat it and they might not be around. So, I don’t wanna put our tax dollars at risk in doing business with known corporate felons who are supposed to certify their financial statements and then lie and cheat on ‘em. We shouldn’t be doing business with those people anyway even if they are the lowest bidder ‘cause there’s no reason to reward that type of behavior.” 09300063.doc 62  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“Sure.”

“No, Sir. There’d be a five-year ban.”

“Yes.”

“Under that scenario, correct.”

“Right.”

“I appreciate your comments and I think in that situation you talked about, if the individuals were trying to salvage something, they’d probably buy the corporate assets and reconstitute. And that would pro… that’d be a proper thing to do and create a new corporation. And that’s… if I was in that position and I was the middle manager and I happen to be the whistleblower and saw that, I would put together my own consortium, buy the assets and get a new corporate name.”

“Right.”

“Right.”

“Thank you.”

“Further discussion? The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Dunkin.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor year… yield?”

“Sponsor yields.”

“You know, at first when I read the analysis of this Bill and then I understood exactly what the intentions of it was for, then I listened to the debate and I was almost confused because it seems… apparently, folk are not… some folk are not getting this. This is a very good Bill when you look at the merits of it. I mean, deals with, essentially, white-collar crime where corporations that may have been charged with punitive damages to not come here after five years to do business. I just wanna, you know, I guess reiterate what some of the other Representatives pointed out that this is value-added when it comes to supporting some of the existing laws that we have in place already. It actually gives it teeth. This is the law that a lot of folks, in my district, at least some of the folk that I ran across, thought we probably couldn’t pass or we were too brought up or brought into someone’s corporate 09300063.doc 66  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 pocket by way of our campaigns, by way who sponsored us, et cetera. But what this Bill does is just the opposite. This Bill gives it, gives the existing law of procurement, ban of five years, to those very corporations who have taken advantage of working people across this nation, workin’ people who live here in this State of Illinois and this is good government. This Bill does exactly what some of you, probably most of us here in this room, argued about or debated about when we were campaigning or when we were comin’, tryin’ to get down here. This Bill speaks to that and it comes to level the playing field with other felonies who have not committed a white-collar crime or securities crime, who otherwise today can come to this state and do business at a windfall. They have no current restrictions today because this loophole has not been closed. So, I really think if we focus in on passing this Bill and closing up that loophole so folk who commit white-collar crimes can’t get away with further crime potential. I think a lot of people in our respective districts, irregardless of where we live, would see the value and the benefit of such a legislation. I would strongly, strongly encourage an ‘aye’ vote for this piece of legislation. Thank you.”

“Thank you.”

“Any further discussion? Seeing none, the… Mr. Franks to close.”

“Mr…”

“Sorry. It’s okay.” 09300063.doc 67  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“I appreciate the spirited debate here, Mr. Speaker. And I just wanna be very clear on what the intent is. If a business commits such an egregious, fraudulent act that it warrants a felony conviction, then it should be the policy of this state to bar such businesses from doing… having state contracts for five years. It’s in the best interest of our employees that these businesses be held accountable. And it’s the best interest of our state to protect our state in not doing business with these convicted felons. I’d ask for an ‘aye’ vote.”

“Thank you. And the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 1530 pass?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 114 voting ‘yes’, 2 voting ‘no’, 2 voting ‘present’. Having received the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 1530 is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 1542, the Lady from Cook, Representative Nekritz. She in the chamber? Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.”

“Representative Nekritz.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Senate Bill 1542 applies to… appeals for general assistance through the townships. Right now, in Cook County if a general assistance recipient is denied general assistance and appeals, they go to a board, a countywide board… not a countywide board, but a 09300063.doc 68  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 board of several of the township supervisors and if one of those supervisors has a conflict, many times the group cannot get a quorum to hear the appeal. So, this Bill would simply allow for a substitute on that appeal board and… so that the appeal could be heard. And I ask for your support. I’ll be happy to answer any questions.”

“Is there any discussion? Seeing none, the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 1542 pass?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Black. Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 117 voting ‘yes’, 1 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. And having received the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 1542 is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 1543, the Lady from Cook, Representative Lyons, Eileen Lyons. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.”

“Representative Lyons.” Lyons, E.: “Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Senate Bill 1543 requires the Department of Public Health, the director of public health, to appoint a residential health care facility abuse prevention review team. Long-term care facilities do an amazing job of caring for patients, however, incidents do happen. This legislation is not intended to be punitive or add to the regulatory oversight already imposed on long-term care 09300063.doc 69  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 facilities. This is a measure that is aimed at finding ways to increase the quality of care provided. Each team would include medical professionals, law enforcement professionals, experts who work with persons with mental illness and developmentally disa… disabilities and nursing home experts. The purpose of these independent reviews would be to recommend changes in policies and procedures for the Department of Public Health, nursing homes and any other agency that care for or have responsibility for nursing home residents in order to reduce the incidence of sexual assault and unnecessary deaths among residents. Every nursing home resident is entitled to live in safety and decency and to receive competent and respectful care that meets the requirements of State and Federal Law. I’d be happy to answer any questions.”

“Is there any discussion? Seeing none, the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 1543 pass?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 117 voting ‘yes’, 1 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. And having received the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 1543 is hereby declared passed. The Lady from Lake, Representative Osmond, for what reason do you rise, Ma’am?”

“Please state your point.” 09300063.doc 70  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

Speaker Novak: “Welcome to the Illinois House of Representatives. Senate Bill 1545, the Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Saviano. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.”

“Mr. Saviano.”

“Thank you. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 1545 pass?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk… Representative Graham. Take the record. On this question, there are 118 voting ‘yes’, 0 voting ‘no’, 0 voting 09300063.doc 71  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 ‘present’. And having received the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 1545 is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 1546, the Gentleman from DuPage, Representative Froehlich. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill.”

“Mr. Froehlich.”

“Is there any discussion? Seeing none, the question is, ‘Shall sal… Shall Senate Bill 1546 pass?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Bradley. Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 118 voting ‘yes’, 0 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. Having reached the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 1546 is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 1581, the Gentleman from Lake, Mr. Beaubien. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.”

“Mr. Beaubien.” 09300063.doc 72  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“Thank you. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, the question is, ‘Shall Senate… Excuse me. Mr. Black.”

“Sponsor will yield.”

“Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 1581 pass?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 118 voting ‘yes’, 0 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. Having received the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 1581 is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 1638. Out of the record. Senate Bill 1668. Out of the record. Senate Bill 1749, a Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Saviano. Out of the record. Senate Bill 1751, the Lady from Cook, Representative Mendoza. Mr. Clerk, call the Bill, please.”

“Representative Mendoza.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Senate Bill 1751 is a technical Amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure. Senate Bill 1751 will streamline the process of obtaining prejudgment attachment on the 09300063.doc 74  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 assets of an inmate being sued to collect the costs of his or her incarceration. The Bill would also allow the Attorney General to file the complaint against the inmate and the request for attachment of his assets at the same time, which would allow for the Attorney General to make one trip to the courthouse rather than two. And I think this is a good Bill because it would eliminate a wasteful procedure right now and would also take care of, like I said, this duplicative procedure which allows an inmate, once he finds out that he is a defendant in a lawsuit brought by the Attorney General, to dispose of his assets before we get a chance to freeze them. So, be happy to answer any questions and would ask for your support.”

“Is there any discussion? The Lady from Cook, Representative Davis.” Davis, M.: “Will the Sponsor yield?”

“Sponsor yields.” Davis, M.: “Representative, my question is, are those assets totally belonging to the defendant? Does the wife or do the children have any ownership or the innocent person, do they have any ownership to those assets?”

“They’re assets that are of the defendant that we currently have a right to go after, but what we wanna avoid is the defendant, once he finds out that he’s subject to the assets being frozen, ya know, moving them out of… to different accounts or to giving them away to different people and not allowing us to help…” Davis, M.: “Well…” 09300063.doc 75  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“…pay for his cost of incarceration.” Davis, M.: “Would a home be considered an asset?”

“Excuse me?” Davis, M.: “Is someone’s home an asset?”

“It would be considered an asset if we can help pay for the cost of that incarceration, as would bank accounts and things of that nature.” Davis, M.: “For example, a person is convicted and they have a car or two cars and once they’re incarcerated the daughter and the wife drive those cars. Are those assets removed from that individual? Is the wife or the children forced to move away from those… the home?”

“Representative, anything that is currently seen as an asset that we can currently, under the law, go after would apply to this Bill. The only difference that this Bill does is changes the technical procedure which would allow for the Attorney General to make sure that the defendant does not have the ability to dispose of the assets that we can currently go after legally before we have an opportunity to go ahead and file that lawsuit.” Davis, M.: “And you make sure that they don’t dispose of them in what time frame?”

“Excuse me?” Davis, M.: “The time frame?”

“Oh it’s… this an inmate who has already been found guilty, who is already pretty much for the most part serving time in…” 09300063.doc 76  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 Davis, M.: “So, what a minute. Representative Mendoza, they’ve been to court?”

“Yeah, they’ve been convicted.” Davis, M.: “All right. Hold on.”

“They’ve been found guilty.” Davis, M.: “They’re found guilty and then you go after their assets. Is that right?”

“Yes, we go after what we need to pay for the cost of the incarceration.” Davis, M.: “After they’re found guilty. Is that correct?”

“After they’ve been found guilty.” Davis, M.: “Okay. I support your Bill.”

“Yes.” Davis, M.: “Thank you.”

“Thank you.”

“Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 1751 pass?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 117 voting ‘yes’, 1 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. And having reached the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 1751 is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 1785, the Gentleman from McHenry, Mr. Franks. Mr. Franks in the chamber? Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.” 09300063.doc 77  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“Mr. Franks.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I… hopefully, this Bill won’t be so long. I was told that this last Bill we argued lasted longer than Representative Poe’s chicken. Sorry. I appreciate the chicken, though. What this Bill does is it amends the Whistleblower Act. And it clarifies and simplifies the procedures used by the Attorney General in conducting prelitigation investigations under the Whistleblower Reward and Protection Act. First of all, it simplifies te… terminology and we’ll be using the word ‘subpoena’, now, instead of ‘civil investigative demand’. It also standardizes the requirements for the information to be contained in the new subpoenas. And replacing three separate standards in the current law with a single standard. It also gives the Attorney General the discretion… the discretion to issue and serve subpoenas directly rather than referring all matters to the State Police, therefore, we could save some time and expense in those cases which actually originate in the Office of the Attorney General. I’d be glad to answer any questions.”

“Is there any discussion? Seeing none, the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 1785 pass?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the 09300063.doc 78  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 record. On this question, there are 117 voting ‘yes’, 1 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. Having reached the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 1785 is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 1592. Out of the record. Senate Bill 1765, Representative Currie. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.”

“Majority Leader Currie.”

“Thank you, Speaker, and Members of the House. This measure creates a tax expenditures commission to look at the ways in which tax expenditures work, to assess their effectiveness and to report back to the General Assembly. I’d be happy to answer your questions. And would appreciate your support.”

“Is there any discussion? Seeing none, the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 16… 1765 pass?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Chapa LaVia. Mr. Giles. Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 117 voting ‘yes’, 0 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. Having reached the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 1765 is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 1804, the Gentleman from Madison, Mr. Steve Davis. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill.” 09300063.doc 79  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“Mr. Davis.” Davis, S.: “Yes. Thank you, Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Senate Bill 1804 is a companion Bill to House Bill 2273 that passed out of the House on March 25 on a vote of 95-17. Passed out of the Senate Committee or Senate 55-0. It increases from 60 percent to 85 percent the portion of dollars from the existing Off-Highway Vehicles Fund that must be allocated to motorized recreation. I would urge an ‘aye’ vote. Be happy to answer any questions.”

“Is there any discussion? Seeing none, the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 1804 pass?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Representative May. Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 101 voting ‘yes’, 17 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. And having reached the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 1804 is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 1789, the Gentleman from Macoupin, Mr. Hannig. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.”

“Representative Hannig.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. This is the Audit Expense Fund transfer Bill that provides for 09300063.doc 80  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 the cost for the auditor general to do audits for agencies that are non-GRF or at least in part non-GRF. So, this is a annual Bill that we provide so that we can pay for the auditor general’s audit of those accounts. And I’d be happy to answer any questions. I’d ask for your ‘yes’ vote.”

“Is there any discussion? Mr. Black. The Gentleman from Vermilion, Mr. Black.”

“Sponsor will yield.”

“Representative, this doesn’t address the issue of an administrative fee, but it addresses that concept so that is you have an agency, for example, that is funded from a dedicated fund, the theory is that we should audit them from that dedicated fund as opposed to audit them… auditing them out of GRF’s mo… GRF money. So, it’s an effort to try to match up the audit expenses with the actual revenue stream that you’re auditing.”

“Yes. And this is the… for the auditor general and if he doesn’t spend all the money, when he provides these audits, it does come back to us…”

“…and go back into the fund, but… but it is a significant amount of money to audit the books in State Government.”

“Well, an example might be like the fire marshal who has some moneys that are non-GRF and so we would consequently say that we should not use General Revenue money for that audit.”

“Or let’s say, we audited the Road Fund. Well, we should… we should take the Road Fund money to pay for that audit.”

“Yes. So, in cases where you have an agency that let’s say it is all GRF, well, then they would pay for their audit out of the General Revenue Fund, but when you…”

“That’s the current practice.”

“This… this is not a change in the practice, Representative. This is the same way that the auditor general has assessed these funds for a number of years.”

“No. No, that…”

“This is current practice.”

“Yes.”

Speaker Novak: “Any further discussion? Seeing none, the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 1789 pass?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 118 voting ‘yes’, 0 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. And having reached the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 1789 is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 1872, the Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Fritchey. Mr. Fritchey, Senate Bill 1872. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.”

“Mr. Fritchey.”

“Thank you, Speaker. Senate Bill 1872 is a further enhancement of the whistleblower protections in the state. What this does is prohibit an employer from taking any actions to prevent an employee from disclosing information to the government, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that there was a violation of law. I’d be happy to answer any questions.”

“Is there any discussion? The Gentleman from Vermilion, Mr. Black.”

“Yes, Sir.”

“Actually, I would say there’s a lot of nuances to it. What this Bill addresses is the whistleblower in a private situation. If they… what we’re saying is that a boss cannot fire an employee for going to the authorities and saying, something is going on that’s a violation of the law. That’s a different scenario than a public sector employee being protected from retaliation. So, what we’re trying to do is say, you know what, in any segment, Representative…”

“I have this…”

“I have a whistling in my ear.”

“Ladies and Gentlemen…”

“Ladies and Gentlemen…”

“…would you give Mr. Black your attention.”

“Mr. Black.” 09300063.doc 85  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“Well, not hardly.”

“Mr. Black, proceed with your question, Sir.”

“Yes, Sir.”

“I think one would look no further than Enron to see that type of situation where there may be retaliatory action taken.”

“Yes, Sir.”

“It basically provides for a Class A misdemeanor as a civil penalty against that employer from taking actions.”

“And I’m not just whistlin’ Dixie.”

“Thank you. Further discussion? The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Scully.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield?”

“Sponsor yields.”

“Representative, I’m concerned about the… the situation in which an honest employer has an employee on the payroll and this employee thinks wrongfully, incorrectly thinks, that the employer is violating the law. And under this legisla… and this employee incorrectly accuses the employer of violating laws and does so on a regular basis, in each case being incorrect, but reasonable in their belief, but incorrect. Are you saying, the employer has to keep that person on the payroll?”

“There are no protections provided under this Bill for frivolous running to the authorities. There has to be a finding, if there was a reasonable belief that there was a violation of the law.”

“But if the employee is incorrect, the employer has to keep that person on the payroll. Is that correct?”

“The employer cannot take actions in retaliation for an employee going to any authorities based upon a reasonable belief. That’s correct.”

“Even if the employee is wrong.” 09300063.doc 87  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“The ul… whether or not there was an ultimate finding to be a violation of the law is irrelevant.”

“To the Bill.”

“To the Bill.”

“Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, under current Illinois Law an employee has a duty of loyalty to his or her employer. Now, if this Bill is enacted into law, we will completely strike down that very basic principle. There’s also no limitation in this law on what type of violations of law would constitute justifiable whistle blowing by the employee. They’d have the right to blow the whistle anytime they reasonably believe they can and the employer has no recourse. They can’t retaliate. They cannot terminate that person who is… who was incorrectly and wrongfully accusing the employer of violations of law. I think this is a horrible piece of legislation for businesses both large and small in the State of Illinois. I strongly urge you to vote ‘no’ on this Bill. Thank you.”

“Further discussion? The Gentleman from Lake, Mr. Mathias.”

“Sponsor’ll yield.”

“That… It’ll be any… for disclosing a violation of a State or Federal Law, rule or regulation. You’re correct.”

“No, that’s not correct.”

“The supposition.”

“To the Bill.”

Speaker Novak: “Further discussion? The Gentleman from Jackson, Mr. Bost.”

“Sponsor’ll yield.”

“Could you give… could you give Mr. Bost your attention, Ladies and Gentlemen.”

“The employ… nothing in this limits any right of an employer nor should we to violate… to terminate an employee for cause. If you have an employee that’s incompetent, if you have an employee that’s not performing, if you have an employee that you would have terminate for any reason under the sky that you’re allowed to terminate that person for, you still can. What we’re saying is, you can’t terminate them solely for going, in good faith, to the authorities to let the authorities know that there’s been a violation of law occurring.”

“Representative, the same line of thinking will go to today that nothing stops an employee from alleging that they were fired because of their gender, of their age, of their race, but they still need to come up and show that. You just can’t make that claim and hide beneath it. So, nor would you under this Bill just be able to come in and get an absolute protection and say, I was fired because I went to the Attorney General’s Office or I was fired because I went to the Securities and Exchange Commission. 09300063.doc 91  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 You gotta show that that’s why you were fired. If they say, yeah, they went to the authorities, but that’s not why I fired him. I fired him because he’s a lousy employee.”

“Under the law, today?”

“I don’t believe… you do not have a specific remedy today for a retaliatory discharge stemming from going to the authorities to report a violation of law.”

“That’s why… The judge could say, I think what you did was wrong, but you didn’t violate the law. Mike, you hit it on the head and that’s exactly why we need this Bill because you and I, I think, both think that somebody should have protection from doing that. And as we stand here today, they don’t have that protection.”

“I… Let me clarify this to say, in my sincere belief, and I’m pretty sure I’m right on this one, you do not have a cause of action for retaliatory discharge today stemming 09300063.doc 92  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 from going to the authorities to disclose a violation of law.”

“Common sense would tell you that you should have that protection and this law would codify that.”

“Again, if this…”

“No, again, and I don’t mean to be redundant, it’s the same thing today. You can have somebody come in who gets fired and they’ll say, I was fired because I’m 70, I was fired because I’m a minority, I was fired because I’m overweight, I was fired for whatever it might be. They need to come and show… they can… anybody can make any claim, we all know that. There’s a lot of frivolous lawsuits out there. Just filing the lawsuit doesn’t get you home.”

“To the Bill.”

“Further discussion? The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Rita.”

“Would the Sponsor yield?”

“Sponsor yields.”

“I’m finding it… I’m a little confused on this. You’re saying that only is for one specific thing for a whistleblower that someone cannot use this as a tool to pro… have job protection?”

“Can you restate that?”

“This is for one specific reason if they… it protects ‘em from being a whistleblower is what you’re saying.”

“It protects…”

“How could… how could… couldn’t they use this as a shield to have job protection?”

“No.”

“You have not answered that from what I’ve heard through the previous speakers.”

“I would tend to disagree, but what… Today, you can be fired for poor performance as an employee. Under this 09300063.doc 94  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 Bill, you can fired for poor performance as an employee. Today, you can be fired for running to the authorities. With this law in place, you can’t do this. This is really as much, if not more so, a public safety Bill than it is an employment Bill or a whistleblower Bill. You do not want to have employees afraid to go to the authorities to disclose an environmental violation, a worker protection violation, a labor law violation, a tax evasion violation and not go to the authorities because they’re afraid that doing the right thing will cost them their job and their families’ ability to have a roof over their head.”

“But in turn, if an employee knows that he’s on bad paper, could use this in turn to keep his employment. That’s how I’m looking at this.”

“I… I… I…”

“That’s what I’ve heard in this debate.”

“I would vehemently disagree with that because an employee that was going to be terminated for a cause the employer would be able to show that that employee was terminated for a cause that that was in case the fact.”

“Thank you.”

“Further discussion? Mr. Fritchey to close.”

“Thank you. As I just responded to the last speaker, this very much is a public safety and a matter of sound public policy. The Senate, in its review, passed this Bill out on 57-1 after a thorough debate and discussion on these issues. We need to send a clear signal that we are not going to harbor employers who try to take actions out on 09300063.doc 95  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 employees who are simply trying to do the right thing and disclose violations of the law. I’d request an ‘aye’ vote. Thank you.”

“And the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 1872 pass?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 87 voting ‘yes’, 31 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. Having reached the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 1872 is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 1918, the Gentleman from Clinton, Mr. Granberg. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.”

“The Gentleman from Clinton, Mr. Granberg.”

“Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Currently under an Illinois law when our employees are reimbursed for mileage, that tracks the federal system, so whatever reimbursement there is at the state level mirrors what the Federal Government receives. This Bill is a request of CMS that says if the Federal Government lowers their reimbursement rate for mileage then the state’s rate will also be lowered in accordance with our normal policy. But it will change so if the Federal Government lowers their reimbursement rate ours will also be lowered like we do now, but we just won’t have to wait to the beginning of the next fiscal year to do 09300063.doc 96  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 that. It can go into effect immediately. I’d be happy to answer any questions.”

“Thank you. Is there any discussion? The Gentleman from Madison, Mr. Davis, Steve Davis.” Davis, S.: “Thank you, Speaker. Sponsor yield?”

“The Sponsor will yield.” Davis, S.: “Just one quick question. You said that we don’t have to wait until the next fiscal year to lower it?”

“Yes.” Davis, S.: “So, the Federal Government, when they lower it, is it… is it the same guidelines… does there… when they lower it or they vote to lower it or they determine to lower it, does it automatically go into effect with them or do they wait for the next year for it to go into effect?”

“Yes. Well, what we do, Steve, like… I don’t know if I could hear all of what you said. And so, when the Federal Government does it, whatever they do, we follow it. We follow their practice because of accounting and just policy. So, when they lower it, we have to wait until the next fiscal year. Whenever they might do it during their fiscal year because our fiscal years our different. So, whenever they do it, with this Bill, then we could immed… have it take effect immediately.” Davis, S.: “But what’s the purpose of that?”

“Metzger would say money. It would mirror the Federal Law. It would have to save the state some money, I’m not sure how much.” Davis, S.: “How much does that save?” 09300063.doc 97  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“Not enough.” Davis, S.: “Good answer. Thank you.”

“Further discussion? Seeing none, the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 1918 pass?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 118 voting ‘yes’, 0 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. And having reached the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 1918 is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 1983, the Lady from Cook, Representative Yarbrough. Mr. Clerk, call the Bill, please. Read the Bill.”

“Representative Yarbrough.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members of the General Assembly. I have for you today Senate Bill 1983 which makes a change in a definition of ‘pharmacist’ to add as an individual health care professional and provider to that definition. The Illinois Pharmacists’ Association desires that the Pharmacy Practice Act reflects proper respect to the responsibilities and professions of pharmacist. Currently, the Act merely states that they are licensed to practice pharmacy in the State of Illinois. The Pharmacists’ Association asserts that this language is simply codification of the practice that pharmacists 09300063.doc 98  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 currently engage in. I’d be happy to answer any questions.”

“Is there any discussion? Seeing none, the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 1983 pass?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those oppose vote ‘no’. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 118 voting ‘aye’, 0 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. And this… having reached the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 1983 is hereby declared passed. We’re going back to page 8 on the Calendar, Senate Bills-Third Reading. Senate Bill 167, the Gentleman from DuPage, Representative Froehlich. Representative Froehlich, Senate Bill 167. Do you wish to call your Bill? Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.”

“Mr. Froehlich.”

“Is there any discussion? Seeing none, the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 167 pass?’ All those in 09300063.doc 99  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 118 voting ‘yes’, 0 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. Having reached the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 167 is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 191, the Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Miller. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.”

“Representative Miller.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Senate Bill 191 is a measure that was passed last year, House Bill… from this chamber, House Bill 4101. What it does is provide compensation to school districts once a child is adopted. I would ask for a favorable vote.”

“Is there any discussion? On that question, the Gentleman from Vermilion, Mr. Black.”

“Sponsor’ll yield.”

“Well, I think… I mean, it’s an excellent observation. I think the question though centers on the fact that these children which many of ‘em have learning disabilities or whatever they need as foster children, and not all foster children are like that, but they’re eligible for additional aid just from… from that formula. Once they get adopted, then there are those problems that the child may have does not just magically disappear. And so, what this Bill does is provide that in conditional funding for the school districts and as you know, as a supplement that he needs just because as a child and still adopted. So, somebody like Bill Gates could adopt a child and… a person like Bill Gates could have a child that needs these additional services regardless and is still eligible for ‘em and whether he decides or the parent decides to pay for ‘em, that’s entirely up to them. But I still think that those 09300063.doc 101  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 services are being provided now and simply just get caught on… cut off once the child is adopted.”

“No. I think… I think where the… first off, you and others are be… are to be commended, those who open up their houses and their hearts to our children for adoption. I think there is… is… is probably one of the greatest gifts that a person or family can give. And as you know, our 09300063.doc 102  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 former director, Jess McDonald, his initiative was to get children placed in families to be adopted. That’s to be commended. Still there are families that even if they weren’t adopted children who have special needs. These children are… do receive and are eligible under Department of Children and Family Services for deficiencies that they may have. In this particular case under the Orphanage Act, these children do not become eligible because they’ve once been adopted and so, I think those are two separate arguments. I can definitely understand the state board, but however, they’re providing the services and additional funding when they weren’t adopted and simply just cut it off because they are.”

“Thank you.”

“Further discussion? The Lady from Champaign, Representative Jakobsson.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield?”

“The Sponsor will yield.”

“I just wanna understand that this allows an adoptive parent to have assistance for the child. Is that correct? It doesn’t mean that they automatically do.”

“I’m sorry. Could you repeat the question?”

“Yeah. This allows the child to have these special services if the parent cannot afford… if the newly adoptive parents cannot afford the services. Is that correct?”

“Let me rephrase it. What happens is, is that child is eligible… A child may have certain deficiencies and whether it’s… the child is my child or a foster child, those children are eligible under DCHS, let’s say, and so when these children become adopted, they no longer are eligible for this yet they still have the deficiencies that they… that exist. And so, my child would still be eligible for it, unfortunately, the foster child that was adopted would not. And what this does is say that, this legislation says that, once the child is adopted as long as they’re still eligible, as long as they still have this certain deficiencies, that they would still receive additional… the district would receive additional funds.” 09300063.doc 104  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“Thank you. To the Bill.”

“To the Bill.”

“I, too, am an adoptive parent. My husband and I adopted six of our eight children. We also had several foster children in our home. We’ve been involved in parent support groups, both adoptive parent and foster parent support groups and we saw a lot of adoptive parents take children who had multiple disabilities and then they often had to apply to the state to have the assistance that their children needed. These were wonderful parents, care-giving parents, loving parents, but they happened to spend their time taking care of their children rather than sending the second parent out to work for a second job. And I think this Bill allows more families who would be loving parents and very caring parents to become adoptive parents. I ask for an ‘aye’ vote.”

“Thank you. Further discussion? The Lady from Cook, Representative Feigenholtz.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield?”

“Sponsor yield.”

“Representative Miller, first, I just wanna make some clarifications based on what the Senat… the Representative from Danville and Representative Jakobsson had just talked about. The reason you’re doing this is because there are some parents who are considering adoption, perhaps they are foster parents who are being disincentivized by adopting this child because of their 09300063.doc 105  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 fear of losing these dollars. Is that correct? So, what you’re… Is that what…”

“That rationale can be made, yes.”

“So, essentially, what you’re doing is, you’re trying to be… for purposes of placement in permanency we’re trying to fix this little problem so that we can finalize these adoptions and create opportunities for families. Is that correct?”

“Absolutely. I believe it would help not only with the parent, a potential parents, but also provide relief for the school district. You gotta remember that the school district is still in charge and still has to be able to educate a child and unfortunately, they’re not receiving any additional or supplemental aid for it. And so, then, I believe, would affect every child in that district just simply because of the funding not there because of somebody opened up their heart to a foster child.”

“Thank you very much. I think this is a great Bill and given the nature of our budget this year, we certainly don’t want to adversely affect permanent placement of children who are special needs children. So, I commend you for your efforts and encourage an ‘aye’ vote.”

“Further discussion? The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Giles.”

“Thank you, thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Bill.”

“To the Bill.” 09300063.doc 106  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“You know, first I’d like to commend the Sponsor, Representative… Doctor Representative Miller, for bringing forth this piece of legislation. You know, when you sit in the Elementary & Secondary Education Committee and you hear a lot of piece of legislation come before you, a lot of creative ideas, a lot of innovative ideas, a lot of programs that… to help our children in the State of Illinois to be given the best opportunity to be educated. This piece of legislation is a piece of legislation that I am truly proud to support and I think this is the type of legislation that we all come down in this Body to support. We’re talking about helping individuals who… who start out at a disadvantage. They start out from a household that… that… that may not have been there for them financially or whatever the social reasons there are. And so, we have state agencies. We appropriate resources to these various agencies to give these children the opportunity to be whole, to be educated in our society and moreover, in the State of Illinois. And so, I am just… I’m here standing proud to be able to support legislation like this. We support a lot of things in this Body. We support it, as one previous speaker loves to talk about Sue the dinosaur. We put millions of dollars in programs such as that and these are and they may be good programs we support. We support all sorts of incentives and tax breaks for corporations like Boeing and other corporations, but nevertheless, programs that mean the most and programs that we don’t put a lot of money into such as what this piece of 09300063.doc 107  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 legislation does, Senate Bill 190… 191 does. It truly gets to the heart of the matter, to support a child who would not have the opportunities and for… for a particular agency of the state that we appropriate dollars to, to continue, to continue the support services. I just stand… I just felt compelled to stand to commend the Sponsor with his foresight and his ideas and his diligence to continue to work hard on this matter. And I am just proud… I was proud to support this legislation in committee and I’m proud to stand on this House Floor and support this legislation because this is what we should be about doing the business of the people and the children of the State of Illinois. Thank you.”

“Further discussion? The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Will Davis.” Davis, W.: “Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Bill.”

“To the Bill.” Davis, W.: “I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the Sponsor of this piece of legislation. Since his tenure here in the Illinois General Assembly, he has taken the lead on trying to right some of the inequities that exist as it relates to education. And I’m certainly proud to be his seatmate and have the neighboring district. And what he’s doing though, is also illustrating some of the bigger problems that we have as it relates to education funding and some of the problems that we have. In our society, when we’re trying to bring normalcy and put families together and help those who are less fortunate than others 09300063.doc 108  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 and we have the opportunity to help a child who unfortunately has special needs, but who now has a loving family who’s willing to take care of them, we have to be able to provide that resource or make that resource available so that this young person despite their particular disabilities has the opportunity to have a normal way of life. So, I’m very proud to… to now be listed as a cosponsor of this legislation and thank the Representative for bringing this legislation and I look forward to all of you supporting this legislation. And ask for the entire chamber to vote ‘aye’ on this legislation. Thank you.”

“Thank you. Mr. Miller to close.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I’d like to thank all the… those who spoke up against. This legislation was brought to me last year based on some problems and the influx of foster children in our south suburban community. It really is satisfying to know that you’re able to take an issue on a local level, Superintendent Doug Hamilton, Superintendent Effie Harris, and others and bring it to my attention and for everybody in this room to realize that the importance of it and to move this forward. I would ask for everybody for a favorable vote. Thank you.”

“And the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 191 pass?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk… Mr. Granberg. Take the record. On this question, 09300063.doc 109  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 there are 117 voting ‘yes’, 0 voting ‘no’, 1 voting ‘present’. Having received the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 191 is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 192, the Lady from Cook, Representative Mulligan. Representative Mulligan. Representative Mulligan, Senate Bill 192. Do you wish to call your Bill? Mr. Clerk, read the Bill for Representative Mulligan.”

“Representative Mulligan.”

“Is there any discussion? Seeing none, the question… oop. Mr… from… the Gentleman from Whiteside… 09300063.doc 110  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 Seeing no discussion, the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 192 pass?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 118 voting ‘yes’, 0 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. Having reached the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 192 is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 196, the Lady from DuPage, Representative Pankau. Mr. Clerk, call the Bill, please.”

“Representative Pankau.”

“Is there any discussion? Seeing none, the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 196 pass?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Milner. Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 78 voting ‘yes’, 40 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. And having reached the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 196 is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 240, the Gentleman from Cook, Mr. 09300063.doc 111  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 Dunkin. Mr. Dunkin, do you wish to call your Bill? Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.”

“Mr. Dunkin.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House. This Bill is regarding home repair fraud as it relates to senior citizens. And it is a… it’s for individuals who may come to your door and misrepresent themselves to a senior citizen. And so, we’re calling for… making it a Class II felony when the contract is for more than $500, a Class IV felony when the contract is for $500 or less, and a Class III felony when the contract is $500 or less, as well, but the offense is second or subsequent violation. And am I asking for an ‘aye’ vote.”

“Is there any discussion? Seeing none, the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 240 pass?’ All those in favor… excuse me. The Gentleman from… the Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Fritchey.”

“Thank you. Thank you, Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield?”

“Yes, Sir.”

“Sponsor yields.”

“Representative, who brought you this Bill?”

“Who gave…”

“Who’d this Bill come from?”

“Say, who gave me the Bill?”

“What was the origin of this Bill?” 09300063.doc 112  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“I’m sorry?”

“Where did this Bill come from? Was this your own initiative? Did somebody bring this to you?”

“Yes.”

“Which?”

“It came from the… one second. Yeah. This is… this Bill was picked up a long time ago. It was one of the senior citizen fraud Bills that I signed on to early on. So, I don’t recall, Sir.”

“All right. Who is the Senate Sponsor of this Bill?”

“I’m sorry?”

“Who was the Senate Sponsor of this Bill? All right. Well, let me ask you… What you’re doing is lowering the dollar levels for these violations. Is that correct?”

“Correct.”

“And so, if it was a contract presently to charge somebody with a Class IV felony, I believe, it needs to be at $10 thousand, maybe?”

“I can’t hear you. You say, what now?”

“Well, for a Class… if there’s a violation and the contract is for more than $500…”

“Okay.”

“…somebody could be charged with a Class II felony. Is that correct?”

“Yes, Sir.”

“Do you know what the potential incarceration time is for a Class II felony?” 09300063.doc 113  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“You know… Four to six years, Class II felony, roughly.”

“Do you think that it’d be wise to potentially put somebody behind bars for six years for entering into a contract for $550?”

“Right. If… Well, the judge’ll make that decision, that determination. But if they knowingly deceive or misrepresent themselves or the… or a facts, in terms of trying to generate business from senior citizens, they should… you know, if they… they should suffer the consequences with that. But, again, that’s only if they knowingly deceive a senior citizen by misrepresenting themselves.”

“Are you aware of what the penalties are for theft of an automobile?”

“You know, I don’t recall. I know it’s a felony, if you steal an automobile.”

“How about for aggravated battery?”

“It all depends.”

“How about for carjacking?”

“Carjacking?”

“Would it surprise you if I told you that you could commit any of those crimes and go to jail for much less time than you would for entering into a $550 contract for fraudulent home repair. And let me tell you where I’m coming from, Representative. I actually was the author of the home repair fraud Bill initiative and worked with the City of Chicago to get protections. The people that do 09300063.doc 114  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 this are very disreputable individuals when they are committing fraud on seniors and taking advantage of them. There’s not a question in my mind about that. They need to be penalized. They need to be put out of business. They need to be punished. And I do commend you for wanting to be severe with that. However, with all the Bills that we deal with down here, when we start talking about sending somebody to jail for 3, 4, 5, 6 years and clogging up an already overcrowded jail system by just saying we are going to take a fraudulent business transaction and put somebody in Cook County, Stateville, Joliet, wherever it may be for a lot of years because of this, I don’t know that this is the right policy that we wanna be setting. I don’t know that if… that we aren’t unintentionally minimizing these other crimes. I mean, you know, I guess, Ken, where I’m coming at, I find it very difficult to say to somebody that commits the crime of fraudulent home repair should go to jail for five years, but somebody that commits armed robbery should maybe go behind bars for two years. Do you see that…”

“I see the difference.”

“…the potential disparity here.”

“Sure. There are distinctions, but what this does, Representative, is it puts teeth into legislation that already exists and it tries to… most laws that are on the books are pre… try to be preventive in nature. In other words, if folk know that if they normally deceive a senior citizen by misrepresenting… by deliberately misrepresenting 09300063.doc 115  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 themselves, there are consequences that they’re gonna run across. And it’ll be determined by the judge and/or jury whether or not the level of penalty is gonna be… is gonna suffice for the particular crime. But I mean, I can’t speak for other crimes, what I’m trying to address here is there’s an issue right now of fraud among senior citizens across this state, as you know, across the country and we have to put in… put in measures that’s going to protect senior citizens, that’s gonna intimidate potential criminals, that’s going to give them a big message that’s quite clear that if they normally deceive or misrepresent themselves for financial gain or just a flat out fraudulent act, that there are consequences that they should pay.”

“And under the law today, there’s teeth in this law. There’s strong teeth in the law today. I think that we need to be very careful when we start talking about problems with our prison system, with unjust penalties, with overcrowding in our prisons. To take a law that’s already a good law, that’s already a strong law and for the purpose of a campaign piece, for the purpose of saying, hey, I made the laws. I mean, hell, we can come back and we can say, let’s take every criminal law on the books and let’s ratchet up every penalty one level, but I don’t think that’s what we’re trying to do. We have a law that’s a deterrent. You are setting the threshold so low to potentially put somebody behind bars for 4, 5, or 6 years that I, you know, I think it’s excessive. And I… yeah, I’m proud of my record on senior citizen issues. I’m proud of 09300063.doc 116  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 my record on combating fraud and on consumer protection. I chaired the Consumer Protection Committee for four years, but there’s a certain point where you say this may be overkill and I think we may be right there with it. I applaud you for what you’re doing. I just think that we cannot as a Body run headfirst into every law that says, hey, if it’s bad to do this, then we’ll make it even worse to do this. We’re gonna be throwing more and more people in jail. We’re gonna be taxing our jail system that much more. We’re gonna be churning people out of jail that are likely gonna wind up right back in there again. Ya know, we talk about rehabilitation, we talk about trying to let people be productive members, but this is a situation now we’re really takin’ a step backwards, I think. Again, not directed at you whatsoever, good intended Bill, but a bad Bill in my opinion. Thank you, though…”

Speaker Novak: “Further questions? The Lady from Cook, Representative Davis.” Davis, M.: “Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield?”

“Sponsor will yield.” Davis, M.: “Representative, I realize that a person who has a license to do business in the State of Illinois is expected to be more responsible than a robber. It was mentioned that a robber only gets two years, but he’s not licensed by the State of Illinois. He’s not licensed by the municipality, and the expectation for honesty may not be as great. I know from experience of constituents of business people attempting to defraud senior citizens. Senior 09300063.doc 117  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 citizens on a fixed income scamming them with repair services that either don’t get done or overcharging them more than their monthly income. Who are we trying to protect here? Who are we trying to protect? I’m with you, Representative Dunkin. You’re trying to protect senior citizens from unscrupulous businessmen, not businessmen who are acting accordingly and appropriately, you’re trying to protect senior citizens from unscrupulous business people. And if they recognize the penalty involved, they may be better off robbing than attempting to rob an innocent, poor, senior citizen who can barely, barely pay their monthly bills. Representative Dunkin, I don’t know where you got this Bill from, but I’m glad you got it ‘cause I hope it continues to protect the citizens in my district from unscrupulous business people who usually don’t live in my district. Thank you.”

“Further discussion? The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Molaro.”

“Thank you… thank you, Mr. Presi… I’ll be as… Mr. Speaker, I’ll be as brief as I can. I’m gonna have to agree with Representative Davis on this. We’re clear on the Bill. All it does is it… it takes the amount… they’re already Class II and Class III felonies. Am I’m right, Representative? And all you’re doin’ is you’re takin’ the amounts from 5 thousand… from 10 thousand down to 5 and from a thousand down to 500. Anybody who’s gonna be charged with this is gonna be charged with it anyway. I think, what you’re tryin’ to do makes sense that we’re 09300063.doc 118  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 lettin’ the people out there know it’s not a public policy of the state that we’re not gonna… we’re not gonna put up with this. As far as overcrowding the jails, which is always a concern, but you always know this. And just for the record, I want it to be known that a Class II and Class III felony are probationable. And most people who have this first time offense will get probation. Now, if you do it two or three times, well, god dang it, you belong in jail. So, I don’t know if we’re gonna put many people in jail because of this, that were just public policy and I might add, there’s another beautiful part of this Bill which is that if the person commits this aggravated… this… this particular Bill, they have to pay and they lose their license and we get ‘em off the street if they have… We’ll let ‘em know their license is now in jeopardy. So, it’s a good Bill. And I would urge an ‘aye’ vote.”

“Thank you.”

“Further discussion? The Gentleman from Rock Island, Mr. Boland.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just rise in support of this Bill. I think what we’re talkin’ about here, not, you know, some poor underprivileged person who maybe didn’t have much education and they get into a situation where they commit a crime, we’re talking about people who generally are scheming and they know that many of our senior citizens are rather helpless victims, in a sense, or more easy to prey on and so they’re particularly trying to trick these people. They’re scheming to predict them. And 09300063.doc 119  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 you know, so, what we’re doing is we’re sending a powerful message to these people that, you know, they may cheat you out of $500 or something. Some… some individuals, some senior citizens who $500 is a terrific amount of money to them, it may mean whether they heat their home for the winter or whether they get to maybe go out for lunch once in awhile, these types of things. This is a very powerful message and I believe, I do have one question for the Sponsor. On these felony charges, is there fines that can be levied in place of time in jail?”

“Representative, the… right now… actually, there isn’t any. And I can’t answer that. What this does is… because I don’t know if that exists, you know, how far reaching that exists with other crimes that one commits. I know there are penalties that could occur if you defraud certain folk, but or if you vi… if you have accidents or if you break someone’s window, you consider that a crime, I guess. Maybe you could then, but this Bill doesn’t address that. But I do know that you’ll be fined $4 thousand, $4 thousand, no more than, if you commit this crime.”

“So…”

“And that’s one of the beauties of it.”

“Right. So, that… that’s what I’m kinda getting at is that… that even if somebody does commit this crime, you know, they… to me they don’t have much of a conscience if they’re gonna pick on senior citizens. Usually, they pick on low-income, lower-educated people that they can trick in some way and here they may not even go to jail. So, we may 09300063.doc 120  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 not be crowding the jails, we may actually just be fining them and therefore, helping out our local governments with raising a little bit of money from wrongdoers. So, I would say there… this is a good Bill. The only fault, I would say, in this Bill is that it only deals with senior citizens and this is what we’ve done in the past. We’ve only dealt with home repair fraud as far as senior citizens, but I get complaints and I would guess many of the rest of you get complaints from people who are not senior citizens who get ripped off by home repair fraudulent practices. So, I would hope that the Sponsor, in the future, and I’ll be more than happy to work with him on it, promotes the same type of legislation, but let’s just include people under the age of 65, as well. So, good work, Representative Dunkin and I commend you for this. And I’d be more than happy to cosponsor any future legislation that deals with other folks who often get taken advantage of as well. These are… these type criminals are not, you know, your common type we think of. These are folks who are actually practiced in this. They know what they’re doing. They’re schemers. So, again, I hope you get a ‘yes’ vote. Thank you.”

“Thank you.”

Speaker Novak: “Further discussion? The Gentleman from Vermilion, Mr. Black.”

“Thank you. Mr. Dunkin to close.”

“Thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. This Bill speaks to some of our worst fears as it relates to people that we love at home: our mothers, our grandparents, our fathers, Representative Black and others who are over 60. In terms of individuals taking advantage of them or just the idea of folks taking advantage of them, we need to have failsafe measures or measures that will give folks the 09300063.doc 122  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 right message that it’s a new day in terms of taking advantage of people who are more vulnerable, who may be frail, less educated, and who are on a fixed income or no income or irregardless of income. The senior citizens in this state must be protected. If we have to intimidate criminals who knowingly misrepresent themselves, who knowingly commit fraud towards our senior citizens, who knowingly look to make a quick buck off of the backs of people who have gone before us. I say, vote ‘aye’. Thank you.”

“The question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 240 pass?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 117 voting ‘yes’, 0 voting ‘no’, 1 voting ‘present’. Having reached the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 240 is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 278. Oh, excuse me. The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Lyons, for what reason do you rise, Sir?” Lyons, J.: “For the purpose of an announcement, Speaker.”

"State you announcement.” Lyons, J.: “Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I have some… a little announcement here, I’d to give your… give me your undivided attention for about two minutes. In the Speaker’s Conference Room we have the Comptroller’s Office and Central Management Service there to do any changes we may need to do on our personal health insurance, our 09300063.doc 123  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 beneficiaries, our flexible spending accounts, for anything that you wanna do on your dental or your health insurance, your life insurance. Every year I participate in the flexible spending accounts for out-of-pocket expenses that aren’t covered by our health plans. So, they’re gonna be behind the Speaker’s Office at least ‘til 4:00 and in case the Raymond Poe chicken has worn off, they’re giving Paydays for all of us to stop there. But the deadline to do this is May 31. So, if you have any personal things to do for you or family with our health benefits, please stop behind and… to the Speaker’s Conference Room, spend a few minutes with those people and make sure everything you need done is done and grab a candy bar. Thanks, Speaker.”

“Thank you, Mr. Lyons. The Gentleman from Vermilion. For what reason do you rise, Sir?”

“State your inquiry, Sir.”

“No, I know that.”

Speaker Novak: “He made some statements about Central Management Services and there’s a representative in the Speaker’s Conference Room that will discuss with you any potential changes that you wish to affect in your policy.” 09300063.doc 124  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“He said… I think he said when you’re there, stop by and pick up a candy bar.”

“Well, I think that’s out of order.”

“Thank you, Mr. Black. Mr. Aguilar, for what reason do you rise, Sir?”

“State your purp… point.”

“Welcome to the State Capitol. Thank you. Now, Senate Bill 278, the Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Brosnahan. Out of the record. Senate Bill 306, the Lady from Cook, Representative Feigenholtz. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.”

“Representative Feigenholtz.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Senate Bill 306 which was amended in the Senate, Amendment #3, is an Act providing the Department of Public Aid may provide Medicaid 09300063.doc 125  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 reimbursement for all prenatal and perinatal health care services that are provided. Many of you know that some of these programs that we do for babies, like comprehensive risk assessments, breast feeding education and lactation counseling and other interventions have really been an incredible… have demonstrated incredible outcomes. This Bill is now… went from ‘shall to may’. It is now cost neutral. The Bill is about developing a plan based on these aforementioned support services that have been proven to improve birth outcomes. I’d be glad to answer any questions.”

“Is there any discussion? Seeing none, the question is, ‘Shall the Senate Bill 306 pass?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 118 voting ‘yes’, 0 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. And having received the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 306 is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 372, the Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Rita. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.”

“Mr. Rita.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Senate Bill 372 amends the School Code. This is agreed language that come out of committee, it’s not a mandate on the schools. What it does is allows that school 09300063.doc 126  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 districts that require service credits to graduate, allows them to organize in blood drives and award them the service credits for that. Also will distribute pamphlets on organ donation for the ninth and tenth grade. Any questions.”

“Thank you. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, the ques… The Gentleman from Lake, Mr. Sullivan.”

“Sponsor’ll yield.”

“What was that?”

“Yes, this all…”

“…everybody’s agreed on this with the language, with all the Amendments that have been put on.”

“Yes.”

Speaker Novak: “Any further discussion? Seeing none, the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 372 pass?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 118 voting ‘yes’, 0 voting ‘no’, 0 voting ‘present’. And having received the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 372 is hereby declared passed. Senate Bill 09300063.doc 127  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 404, the Lady from Cook, Representative Nekritz. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.”

“Representative Nekritz.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Senate Bill 404 creates the Children’s Privacy Protection and Parental Empowerment Act. This legislation prohibits the sale or purchase of personal information in regarding children under the age of 16. It sets… up mechanisms for notifying organizations that are buying and selling such information and giving parents the opportunity to withdraw any consent that they may have given to the sale of that information. It also gives the state… provides that the State Board of Education will disseminate information regarding the ability of parent… parents to withdraw their consent to the sale and purchase of the information. I ask for your support.”

Speaker Novak: “Is there any discussion? Seeing none the question… The Gentleman from the Cook, Mr. Dunkin.”

“Just… Will the Speaker yield?”

“The Representative will yield, yes.”

“Representative yield. Just a quick question. Yeah, is… is there… is there a Federal Law that’s along the lines with… this here, Representative? This reminds me of that.”

“I… I believe there is some Federal Law… laws with regard to Internet children’s protection. But I don’t think there’s anything comparable to this in Federal Law.” 09300063.doc 128  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“Okay. Thank you.”

Speaker Novak: “Further questions? The Lady from Will, Representative Kosel.”

“Sponsor will yield.”

“No. I don’t believe it would, Representative. For two reasons: one, it only prohibits the purchase and sale of purchase of information. So I don’t, it doesn’t sound like that would be the situation under the scenario you describe. And also, consent is presumed given unless the… the… parent actively withdraws consent or gives you something in writing. So, you could presume that the consent would be given in that case.”

“Correct.”

“On that question, the Gentleman from Vermilion, Mr. Black.”

“Sponsor will yield.” 09300063.doc 129  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“And, Representative, I would agree that… the Amendment does change the Bill significantly in its… from its original form. We did have an agreement in committee that we would hold the Bill until we had, on Second, until we had an agreed Bill. And so this is what, frankly, the best I think that we were able to do. And we did recognize that that was one of the weaknesses, so we wanted to try to get information out to parents as best we could and felt that the schools was the best way to do that. So that was…”

“…that hence we… we talked to the State Board of Education to get that information out there as best we could.”

“To the Bill.”

“Further discussion? Representative Nekritz to close.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and Gentlemen, I think we’re all aware that there is a lot of information about all of us, including our children, out there that we have lost control over. But right now we have no mechanism to deal with it. And Senate Bill 404 is a small step 09300063.doc 133  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 forward in trying to bring that under control. And I would ask for your support.”

“And the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 404 pass?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 98 voting ‘yes’, 18 voting ‘no’, 2 voting ‘present’. And having reached the required Constitutional Majority, Senate Bill 404 is hereby declared passed. Representative Turner in the Chair.”

“Fasten your seatbelts. On the Order of Third Reading, we have House Bill 496. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk. Senate Bill 496.”

“Out of the record. Senate Bill 553. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk.”

“The Lady from Cook, Representative Howard.”

“Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Senate Bill 553 does a couple of things. It creates the Data Security on State Computers Act which requires that sensitive information on state-owned computers be overwritten prior to any transfer of the hard drive. It also amends the… the Act to create a version of the Digital Divide Elimination Infrastructure 09300063.doc 134  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 Program. The criteria would be determined… would be to determine those that… those areas that are eligible to get funds for accessing the… accessing broadband in rural areas. The committee… the Computer Technology Committee has developed a subcommittee to work on this latter feature. And I’d like, at this time, for both the vice- chairman… or the… or the chairman of the subcommittee, Ruth Munson and Representative Eddy to join me in describing this second feature.”

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman from Crawford, Represent… Representative Eddy.”

“Any questions? Seeing none, the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 553 pass?’ All those in favor should vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is now open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, there are 118 voting ‘aye’, 0 ‘noes’, 0 ‘presents’. And this Bill, having received the Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. The Lady from Cook, Representative Currie. For what reason do you rise?”

“Thank you, Speaker. On a point of personal privilege. We’ve been joined by students and faculty from Kenwood Academy in the 25th District in the City of Chicago. I hope you’ll join me in welcoming them in the gallery to the right. Thanks.”

“Wanna welcome to Springfield. On the Order of Third Reading, we have Senate Bill 619. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk.”

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman from Cook, Representative Scully.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I present to you Senate Bill 6… Senate Bill 1619, which is a very simple Bill that addresses the issue of state employees who are called up to active military service. Presently, the State of Illinois has a general 09300063.doc 136  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 policy of making up the pay difference between that state employee’s regular state pay and their military pay. This Bill, Senate Bill 619, will make that a matter of law and clarify any ambiguity as to the impropriety of this state policy. I’d ask for your favorable support and I’d be happy to answer any questions.”

“Seeing no questions, the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 619 pass?’ All those in favor should vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is now open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, there are 116 voting ‘aye’, 1 voting ‘no’, 0 ‘presents’. And this Bill, having received the Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. The Gentleman from Cook, Representative Morrow. For what reason do you rise?”

“Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I rise on a point of personal privilege.”

“State your point.”

“I’d like to introduce the ninth and twelfth graders from Kenwood High School. They’re in the gallery here. Would they stand up and wave. They’re with their teacher, Ms. Witt.”

“Welcome…”

“Let’s welcome them to the Capitol.”

“Welcome again, Kenwood. On the Order of Third Reading, we have Senate Bill 715. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk.” 09300063.doc 137  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman from Knox, Representative Moffitt.”

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman from Bureau, Representative Mautino.”

“Thank you. I just wanted to rise in support of the legislation. I think that Representative Moffitt has done a tremendous amount of work. This is a Bill that will benefit all the veterans. And I’m proud to be a cosponsor 09300063.doc 138  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 and I wanna thank him for his work. And just ask for an ‘aye’ vote.”

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman from Fayette, Representative Stephens. For what reason do you rise?”

“State your point.”

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman from Knox, Representative Moffitt to close.” 09300063.doc 140  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“The question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 715 pass?’ All those in favor should vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is now open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, there are 118 voting ‘aye’, 0 ‘noes’, 0 ‘presents’. And this Bill, having received the Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. The Gentleman from Champaign, Representative Rose, for what reason do you rise?”

“State your point.”

Speaker Turner: “Welcome to Springfield. And you did say Arthur, Illinois, right? Great place. The Order of Third Reading, we have Senate Bill 748. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk. On the Order of Third Reading, we have Senate Bill 808. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk.” 09300063.doc 141  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman from Cook, Representative Daniels. First it was Cook, DuPage.”

“Seeing no questions, the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 808 pass?’ All those in favor should vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is now open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, there are 115 voting ‘aye’, 1 ‘no’, 1 ‘present’. And this Bill, having received the Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. On the Order of Third Reading, we have Senate Bill 844. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk.”

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman from Clinton, Representative Granberg.” 09300063.doc 142  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Senate Bill 844 contains identical language to a House Bill that passed this chamber unanimously prior to the Third Reading deadline. It directs the state auditor general to conduct three separate audits of the Rend Lake Conservancy District located in southern Illinois including programmatic and financial. There were a number of allegations that have taken place and have been made during the course of the last year and because this district is the largest taxing body geographically in southern Illinois, we feel it’s very important to restore the public confidence in this entity. The auditor general would conduct these three audits, but the cost would be borne buy the conservancy district itself. These allegations have become much more serious recently. The public confidence is greatly eroded, we need to restore that public confidence, get this out into the… out into the air for the people to see full and complete disclosure so we can remedy the problems… all the problems which may exist.”

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman from Bureau, Representative Mautino. The Lady from Kane, Representative LaVia. The Lady from Kane, Representative LaVia. Chapa? Linda.”

“Speaker, I’d just like to be recorded on that last Bill as being a ‘present’. I had a malfunction with my switch.”

“The record will so reflect. Seeing no further questions, the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 844 pass?’ All those in favor should vote ‘aye’; all those opposed 09300063.doc 143  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 vote ‘no’. The… the voting is now open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, there are 118 voting ‘aye’, 0 ‘noes’, 0 ‘presents’. And this Bill, having received the Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. The Gentleman from Vermilion, Representative Black, for what reason do you rise?”

“State your point.”

“It’s the… it’s the mother ship he’s talking to.”

“We’ll find out.”

Speaker Turner: “Just never know. On the Order of Third Readings, we have Senate Bill 884. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk.”

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman from Madison, Representative Davis. For what…” Davis, S.: “Yes, thank you, Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Senate Bill 884 is a trailer Bill that is fulfilling an agreement and a commitment that was made upon the passage of Senate Bill 885. And it simply removes the requirement that providers to… payphone service providers are… come under the new wholesale rate under the Telecommunications Act. It exempts them for two years just as if… just as the small CLECs were exempted for two years. So, this an agreement trailer Bill. Be happy to answer any questions.”

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman from Jackson, Representative Bost. For what reason do you rise?”

“He indicates he will.”

“The Gentleman from Cook, Representative Lyons, for what reason do you rise?” Lyons, J.: “To the Bill, Mr. Speaker. I just stand in… and compliment the Speaker (sic-Sponsor) for keeping his word and the industries’ words to follow up with this. It’s certainly appreciated by those who are affected by it, 09300063.doc 145  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 Representative Davis. So, on behalf of them, thank you very much.”

“The Gentleman from Vermilion, Representative Black, for what reason do you rise?”

“State your inquiry.”

“Mr. Clerk, what’s the status of the House Republican Leader’s Amendment?”

“The Lady from Cook, Representative Lyons, for what reason do you rise?” Lyons, E.: “Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. This trailer legislation to Senate Bill 884 exempts those small payphone companies that were included in the SBC Bill and this is an attempt to help them, because they 09300063.doc 146  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 would all be put out of business. I… I hated… I mean, I was strongly opposed to 884, this doesn’t make it any better, but it certainly helps. Thank you.”

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman from Madison, Representative Davis to close.” Davis, S.: “Simply ask for an ‘aye’ vote.”

“The question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 884 pass?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is now open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, there are 117 voting ‘aye’, 0 ‘noes’, 1 voting ‘present’. And this Bill, having received the Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. On the Order of Third Reading, we have Senate Bill 974. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk.”

“The Lady from Cook, Representative Bassi.”

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman from Cook, Representative Miller, for what reason do you rise?”

“To the Bill.”

“To the Bill.”

“I’d like to commend the Sponsor for adding the Amendment to this legislation. Ford Heights is in my district and it would help our community tremendously. I would ask for ‘aye’ votes.”

“Seeing no further questions, the question is, ‘Shall Se… shall Senate Bill 974 pass?’ All those in favor should vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is now open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, there are 111 voting ‘aye’, 5 voting ‘no’, 2 voting ‘present’. This Bill, having received the Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. On the Order of Third Reading, we have Senate Bill 1003, 1-0-0-3. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk.”

“The Gentleman from Kankakee, Representative Novak. Out of the record. On the Order of Third Reading we have Senate Bill 1028. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk.”

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman from Cook, Representative Dunkin.” 09300063.doc 148  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members of the General Assembly. This Bill… excuse me, this is a commemorative resolution day here in the United States. Many of us may not be aware that this was… many of us are not aware here or probably have forgotten in some of our history books that in 1865, June 19, black people were freed from slavery by that man over there in the corner on the Republican side by the name of Abraham Lincoln. What this Bill does is commemorate that very pivotal day of getting America back on track and doing what’s right. And all this does is celebrate that day of freedom for some of us here in this chamber. And I’m asking that every Member not only support this legislation, however, but for us to make sure that we celebrate it in each and every one of our counties, our township and marking this day as a day that this country moved on into another chapter of life. This is one of the commemorative dates that certainly black people would never forget, June 19. See, black folk have so much flavor and pizzazz and rhythm in a lot of things that we call it Juneteenth. That’s why you have the name Juneteenth as related to June 19. So, I’m asking that we have an ‘aye’ vote on this. Thank you.”

Speaker Turner: “The Lady from Kane, Representative Chapa-LaVia.”

“He indicates he will.”

“No, this is a… this is just a commemorative freedom day to commemorate the abolition of slavery here in America. And hopefully, hopefully, we’ll talk about this travesty that this country went on for 400 years and the ending of this, this is the conclusion of this devastating, catastrophic event. So, this celebrates freedom for black people, the abolition of slavery. So, this is a commemorative day designed for the third Saturday of June, the third Saturday. So, most kids’ll probably be off on Saturday, Representative.”

“You are a sharp cookie. I am supporting this and I recommend that everybody gives it an ‘aye’ vote.”

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman from Fayette, Representative Stephens, for what reason do you rise?”

“State…”

“Gentleman from Cook, Representative Dunkin to close.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker.”

“The question is…”

“This June…”

“…‘Shall Senate Bill 1028 pass?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is now open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, there are 118 voting ‘aye’, 0 ‘noes’, 0 ‘presents’. And this Bill, having received the Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. On the Order of Third Reading, we have Senate Bill 1126. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House. 1126 amends the Clerk of the Courts Act. It permits the Department of Revenue to provide by rule for certification to the comptroller of unpaid fees and costs owed under a court order. Provides that rules must allow notice to and an opportunity for a hearing for the person owing fees or costs. Provides that the purpose of certification is to intercept State Income Tax refunds and other payments due to persons owing fees in order to satisfy unpaid debts from a court order. Allows the clerk of court to negotiate 09300063.doc 151  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 payment of convenience in administrative fees to credit card and debt card companies. Permits the clerk of the court to enter into contracts with third-party guarantors under which those third parties contract with court customers in guaranteed payments to the clerk. Permits fees of up to five dollars or amount charged to the clerk by a third party where offender pays fines, penalties or costs through a third party. It permits the clerk to negotiate assessment of convenience and administrative fees by a third-party guarantors, provides that revenue earned by the clerk to be remitted to the county general fund. Also, the Amendment we added in the House, when the Senate reviews that it is likely they will nonconcur with that Amendment and at that time the comptroller and Revenue Department will try to work out the details for resolution.”

“The Gentleman from Vermilion, Representative Black, for what reason do you rise?”

“He indicates he will.”

“This is all part of the Homeland Security. Federal dollars.”

“Yes, they do.”

“Oh, absolutely.”

“And in talking to the comptroller and Revenue and the Senate Sponsor, they agreed that if it’s not gonna work out, they will nonconcur with the Amendment.”

“I appreciate your remarks.”

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman from Cook, Representative Molaro, for what reason do you rise?” 09300063.doc 154  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“Thank you. Will the Sponsor yield?”

“He indicates he will.”

“Talks here in the rules about, ‘the rules shall provide’, who’s gonna make up these rules?”

“Corr…”

“Department of Revenue or is it gonna be the clerk of the circuit court?”

“Well, that’s gonna be determined in the Senate when they confer on it.”

“Okay. Says here, ‘the rules shall provide for notice to opportunity be heard.’ Well, if you know about parking tickets in Chicago, let me tell you what happens. You get a parking ticket in Chicago and you wanna have a hearing or you wanna go to court, they make you put up a bond of about… you have seven or eight tickets, you say it’s not my plate, to go to court you gotta put up $200 per ticket just to be heard. Now, is it your intention that someone says, wait a minute, I paid that judgment or it’s not mine and I wanna be heard, that we’re gonna make ‘em put up two or three hundred dollars just to be heard?”

“That is not the intention.”

“And good. And you’ll do something about that if we get to the rules?”

“Absolutely.”

“Third thing that I wanna make clear, it says here, ‘tax refunds and other payments due’. Now, are paychecks other payments due? When you read this Bill does it say that they can take it from our paycheck without 09300063.doc 155  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 garnishment, without going to court? And remember, let me tell you how this happens now with the state. You know we do this for the state. In other words, if you owe the state money what they do is, the Department of Agriculture and Department of Natural Resources and I’ll talk to those two directors about this. When they… they wind up fees are owed to them they give a tape once a month, Representative, that goes to the Comptroller’s Office and the Comptroller’s Office runs these 300 thousand warrants they do every year, they run it through this other tape given to them by DNR or agriculture and if it pops up that they owe the money, they don’t give the check out. Then they call the Department of Agriculture, they have to let ‘em know what it is, give ‘em notice and all of that. But the Department of Agriculture updates that every month. I was… I share Representative Black’s concern that if we’re gonna get it from all these counties, we gotta make sure that they’re updated. We gotta make sure that they put it in the system when someone pays it, we gotta make sure that these people have these hearings. I mean there’s a heck of a lot to make sure of between now and the end of this. But I just have to have your word that you’re gonna also be part of this so you can give them the concerns that we with stating here on floor.”

“I agree with you and I’ll work with the Senate Sponsor on that. And again, it will not go any further if there’s no agreement between the comptroller and revenue.”

“The Lady from Kane, Representative Lindner, for what reason do you rise?” 09300063.doc 156  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“He indicates he will.”

“Correct.”

“Well, the intent is not to interfere with the court judgment and the child support, that is not the intent of this at all.”

“I agree with that suggestion.”

“And I’ll pass it along into the Senate.”

“Question is… seeing no further questions, the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 1126 pass?’ All those in favor should vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is now open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take… Turner. Somebody. Clerk shall take the record. On 09300063.doc 157  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 this question, there are 94 voting ‘aye’, 19 voting ‘no’, 5 voting ‘present’. And this Bill, having received the Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. On the Order of Third Reading, we have Senate Bill 1353. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk.”

“The Lady from Cook, Representative Munson.”

“Seeing no questions, the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 1353 pass?’ All those in favor should vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is now open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, there are 118 voting ‘aye’, 0 ‘noes’, 0 ‘presents’. And this Bill, having received the Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. On the Order of Third Reading, we have Senate Bill 1003. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk.” 09300063.doc 158  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Senate Bill 1003 is a… is an initiative that Senator Link that represents a good portion of Lake County along the… along the Lake Michigan near Waukegan asked me to handle this Bill for him dealing with the proposal by the North Shore Sanitary District to construct a thermal sludge treatment facility right near… right near or on the shores of Lake Michigan. The Bill in itself prohibits the construc… the EPA from issuing a permit for the development and construction of this type of a facility. This is kind of been an ongoing environmental issue of great… great importance to the residents of the area. Congressman Kirk, who represents that area in Lake County, is also in support of this legislation. The concern is about the excessive mercury emissions that may affect the water quality of Lake Michigan. What this Bill does again, is provides that the EPA shall not issue any permits within one mile, it’s a setback standard of the area of concern and the area of concern is Lake Michigan, the water quality of Lake Michigan. I’d like just to point out that this technology, I don’t know if you would considerate it an incinerator, but this technology is untested. It has never been used in the United States. So, there’s a lot of… a lot of concern and consternation indicated through the constituents to the 09300063.doc 159  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 local Legislators as well as to the Federal Legislators. I’ll be more than happy to entertain any questions.”

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman from Cook, Representative Molaro, for what reason do you rise?”

“Thank you. Will the Sponsor yield?”

“He indicates he will.”

“Two questions. What’s thermal sludge? I’ve never heard that before.”

“Well, Representative Molaro, it’s sludge. It’s the residue that as a result of treating raw sewage, municipal sewage. Okay? There’s a wet… there’s a wet residue and there’s a dry residue. This was gonna be proposed to be put into a… into a… some type of a new technology and heated at very high temperatures.”

“Well, thanks. Just on a lighter note however, do you represent part of the area that’s governed by Lake Michigan or now that you’re a Leader you think you could take Bills…”

“I’m a…”

“…from all over the state?”

“Mr. Molaro, I’m a State Legislator.”

“Okay.”

“Thank you.”

“The Gentleman from Cook, Representative Parke, for what reason do you rise?”

“He indicates he will.” 09300063.doc 160  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“Well, it’s… the City of Waukegan was, of course, is gravely concerned about this, but those are his constituents. I mean…”

“And yet…”

“Well, I don’t know about the economics of the question, Representative. The purpose of this Bill is based upon environmental reasons, the excessive, uncertain amounts of mercury emissions, mercury from the emissions of this untested technology that would have a deleterious effect on the water quality of Lake Michigan. That’s the bottom line on this Bill.”

“I’m sorry, Representative Parke, could you…”

“I suppose that could be interpreted that way, yes.” 09300063.doc 161  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“Mr. Parke, I can’t answer… I mean, if they’re gonna… if they wanna build in another location, once again, the bottom line is environmental safety. I was… I’ve just been advised, ya know, there’s a treaty between Canada and the United States on environmental quality of the water and the other environs of the Lake Mich… of the Great Lakes. And this project was identified out of this treaty as an area of great concern. So, once again, the reason behind this is to prevent any future type of facilities to be sited within or within close proximity to this area of great concern.”

“Well, I think the technology has been done in Europe, but it is untested in the United States. Now we have many, many… we have a lot tougher standards than Europe has when probably it comes to environmental regulation or for that matter any other country in the world.”

“The Lady from Will, Representative Kosel, for what reason do you rise?”

“He indicates he will.”

“Yes, there are.”

“Well, that’s the purpose of this Bill, once again. This technology is untested.”

“Well, that may be true.”

“That might be true.”

“Well, what it…”

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman from Lake, Representative Washington, for what reason do you rise?”

“Mr. Speaker, does the Sponsor yield?”

“He indicates he will.”

“Mr. Novak, in this legislation can you once again clarify as to what is the intent here?”

“Yes.”

“Is it… is it… and is it the particular project or is it something else?”

“Mr. Washington, what this does is pro… this Bill prohibits… provides for a measure to prohibit the EPA from issuing a permit to construct a facility that would utilize thermal sludge, a thermal sludge heating process, within one mile of the shores of pristine Lake Michigan. That’s all this does.”

“To the Bill, Mr. Speaker. And to my colleagues who have expressed interest in this particular legislation, I speak with direct knowledge of this legislation being I am a former trustee of the sanitation district and this particular technology that you’re referring to came about under my watch. But first, let me back up for one second. I’ve been on record and I remain so that the technology, I think it far exceeds a lot of things in terms of what it can do with taking waste and making it applicable to highway construction as well as roof shingles, et cetera. But at the same time, without my colleagues having the advantage of being involved in Lake County politics, there was an argument between the North Shore Sanitation District 09300063.doc 165  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 and the City of Waukegan. And the North Shore Sanitation District, which I was a part of then and I just left my term in December of 2002, we went on record to admit that there was some oversight on the sanitation district part to properly involve the City of Waukegan in respect to it being an independent municipality with a purpose and a mission for the development of this lakefront. And as you may know, some of you may know, Waukegan sits on one the most beautifulest parts of the lakefront that is yet to be developed. So, a lot of priorities is being set on the future of that lakefront development to compliment Chicago and other surrounding areas and enhance the total economic development of the State of Illinois. So having said that, let me say that Congressman Kirk, who is the Republican Congressman of the 10th District, went on record as to have some concerns about this particular project, his concerns were in some people’s estimation not true and correct and to others it was exactly correct. But I think that we should give full consideration to this legislation, sponsored by Senator Link. I think it is the right of the municipality to have a say-so as to what is put in its backyard. And if Waukegan today it may be some of you tomorrow. You should have a say-so and follow the will of the people and I’m here to say that the will of the City of Waukegan and the vast majority of the voters there are against this particular site, not the… not the technology, but the site. And as of today and as of weeks ago, North Shore Sanitation District has entered into a contractual 09300063.doc 166  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 agreement with the City of Zion, Illinois, which is north of Waukegan, that Zion, Illinois, will become the host for the site that was worked out in the agreement for this particular technology to advance forward. The technology, I think, is very good. It is… it is… The genesis of it is in Europe. It hasn’t been tested out. There have been some glitches, but I think they’re really on to something as far as waste disposal that all of us can appreciate instead of dumping it into our drinking water and letting it seep into underground water. So the technology I stand up for like I have consistently done, I won’t be a hypocrite. But I’m here to say that I’m asking you to join me to support this particular legislation that Representative Novak is advocating for, because right now Zion is already on record to be the host city. So, the problem has been worked out. And I think what Senator Link and I can’t speak for him, but I think what he is trying to do is to head off any eventual duplication of a similar problem that may crop up and waste our time in deliberating on what’s the best solution. So, I think that’s at the crux of his motive with that. And I ask that you consider and support this legislation, which is in my area. And I am advocating for that area and that’s Waukegan in north Chicago. Thank you.”

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman from Clinton, Representative Granberg. For what reason do you rise?”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Bill. I, too, rise in strong support of this legislation. As Representative 09300063.doc 167  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 Novak and Representative Washington indicated you can summarize this for three reasons. First of all, I think we give some preference to our own districts and we’ve always tried to help other Members with issues in their districts. These Gentlemen have a lo… they have a long-term strategy for economic development in that area. The siting of this facility would jeopardize that long-term economic strategy. I don’t think any of us would do that and I don’t think any of us would appreciate a company coming into our district and jeopardizing our projects, as well. Secondly, as Representative Novak indicated, this technology is untested and to place it adjacent to Lake Michigan, I think is simply not pragmatic. And finally, when we look in the scope of things as Representative Washington indicated, they are… have entered into an agreement with Zion to build the facility there. This Bill merely provides the legislative assurance that this project will not move forward in this contested area which might be violative of a multi-contra… or a multi-country compact. That’s something none of us want to do. So, I strongly urge an ‘aye’ vote.”

“Gentleman from Cook, Representative Fritchey. For what reason do you rise?”

“Speaker, just to state that I may have a conflict on this matter and for that reason I’ll be voting ‘present’. Thank you.”

“That’ll be so noted. The Lady from Lake, Representative Ryg, for what reason do you rise?” 09300063.doc 168  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, rise to support this legislation. It truly is an issue of local control and environmental concerns. This entire region has been environmentally at risk through PCBs in the Waukegan harbor and nuclear waste in the Zion nuclear reactor location. So, I think it’s behooves us to take our time in approv… in approving an unproven technology and this… it’s not such a question of whether this technology would be effective, but to as to whether this is an appropriate site to add more environmental risk. So, I, too, encourage an ‘aye’ vote. Thank you.”

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman from Lake, Representative Mathias, for what reason do you rise?”

“He indicates he will.”

“Mr. Mathias, I wasn’t privy to any of the debate in the Senate. Obviously, someone brought up turf battles, ya know, the local… issues of local concern that have a political flavor to ‘em. So, for what reason the other Senator from Lake County voted against it and spoke against it, I don’t know. Senator Link represents Waukegan and this is… this Bill is focused on that geographical area.” 09300063.doc 169  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“I…”

“You’re right…”

“…it shouldn’t be a partisan issue, but for whatever reasons, I don’t have the answer, Sir.”

“The Gentleman from Kankakee, Representative Novak to close.”

“Ladies and Gentlemen, I think this issue’s been pretty well-debated. Once again, even though the North Shore Sanitary District has signed an agreement or is attempting to sign an agreement to site this facility in another area, that’s fine and dandy. The thing is, is that we wanna push on with this legislation, get it to the Governor’s Office, so if there were ever any type of facilities of this nature, even an incinerator or let’s say a landfill for that matter or some other type of refuse or a transfer station for that matter, none of those facilities could be sited within this one area of one-mile setback as designated an area of great concern pursuant to this international treaty between Canada and the United States over water quality of our Great Lakes. I ask for an ‘aye’ vote. Thank you.” 09300063.doc 170  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

Speaker Turner: “The question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 1003 pass?’ All those in favor should vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is now open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, there are 94 voting ‘aye’, 20 voting ‘no’, 4 voting ‘present’. And this Bill, having received the Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. The Gentleman from Ver… from McLean, Representative Brady, for what reason do you rise?”

“State your point.”

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman from Jackson, Representative Bost, for what reason do you rise?”

“What if we shut you down? It’s a lot easier to cut off one mike.”

“On the Order of Third Reading we have Senate Bill 1363. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk.”

“The Lady from Cook…” Davis, M.: “Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.”

“…Representative Davis.” Davis, M.: “Okay. This Bill is a Senate Bill that amends the Historic Preservation Agency Act. It creates the Freedom Trail Commission. The commission would preserve a master plan… I’m sorry, prepare a master plan to promote and preserve the history of the freedom trail and underground railroad in the State of Illinois. This Bill passed out of the Senate 53 to 0 and it passed out of our committee with unanimous vote. I stand ready to answer questions, Mr. Speaker.”

“Seeing no questions, the question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 1363 pass?’ All those in favor should vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is now open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, there are 118 voting ‘aye’, 0 ‘noes’, 0 ‘presents’. And this Bill, having received the 09300063.doc 172  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. On the Order of Third Reading, we have Senate Bill 748. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk.”

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman from Madison, Representative Hoffman.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Senate Bill 748 addresses an issue of equal representation on the SIU board of Trustees. What this Bill would simply do is reconstitute the board of seven members on the SIU Board, which is a system board. It would make sure that there is adequate representation that is either a graduate from SIU Carbondale, SIU Law School or Medical School or is a resident of Johnson, Randolph, Perry, Franklin, Williamson, Jackson, Masic… Massac, Hardin, Pope, Saline, Hamilton, White, Gallatin, Alexander, Pulaski or Union County. Three graduates from SIU or their law school or the medical school or from one of those counties would be members of the board. In addition, the Governor would appoint and the Senate would confirm three graduates from either SIU-Edwardsville or the SIU School of Dentistry or residents of Madison, St. Clair, Bond, Macoupin, Clinton, Fayette, Montgomery, Washington, or Monroe. And one resident would be from… one would just be an Illinois resident, they would ensure that four… would no more than four would be from the same political party, such and what this would do is it would provide for adequate 09300063.doc 173  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 representation from the SIU-E system as well as from the SIU-Carbondale College on the SIU board.”

“The Gentleman from Vermilion, Representative Black. For what reason do you rise?”

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman from Fayette, Representative Stephens, for what reason do you rise?”

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman from DeKalb, Representative Wirsing, for what reason do you rise?”

“The Gentleman from Madison… The Gentleman from Jackson, Representative Bost.”

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman from Madison, Representative Hoffman to close.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I appreciate the previous speaker and the other supporters of this legislation. What this is trying to do is just make sure that the system board, and it’s not like other universities and that’s a distinction, I believe, the other Representatives need to understand. This is a system that oversees SIU… SIU university as well as SIU Carbondale University. It’s different than ISU, Western and others. What we wanna do is just make sure that the people that serve on the board either have some… either have some geographic locational ties to the university system or have graduated from one of the universities in the system. It’ll make sure that people are interested in making sure that we prosper and the university continues to… 09300063.doc 178  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 universities continue to grow, they will support the entire system. So, with that, I thank you Representatives for your kind words and I ask for an ‘aye’ vote.”

“The question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 748 pass?’ All those in favor should vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is now open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, there are 85 voting ‘aye’, 27 voting ‘no’, 5 voting ‘present’. This Bill, having received the Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. On the Order of Third Reading, we have Senate Bill 1668. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk.”

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman from Cook, Representative Madigan.”

“Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, Senate Bill 1668 would provide a death benefit for the survivors of regular U.S. military as well as activated National Guardsmen and Reservists who are residents of Illinois and who were killed during the Iraq War or the earlier conflict in Afghanistan. The death benefit would be $259,038 plus a percentage increase for the consumer price index for all urban consumers. This is simply designed to give some benefit to the families of those who have given their lives for our country and our effort in 09300063.doc 179  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 Iraq and Afghanistan. And I move for a favorable Roll Call.”

“The Gentleman from Kankakee, Representative Novak, for what reason do you rise?”

“Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield?”

“He indicates he will.”

“Speaker Madigan, I know when we talked about this in committee, the Amendment I think that you adopted some time ago was it redrafted to include the individuals that were involved in the Afghanistan conflict prior to the Operation Iraqi Freedom operation?”

“The answer is ‘yes’, Representative. The language of Amendment #2 uses the terms ‘Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom’. And the United States Defense Department uses the term Operation Enduring Freedom to reference our activity in Afghanistan.”

“Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in very, very strong support. I think what you’re doing, what this Body is doing with your leadership is the least we can do for those individuals that have given the ultimate sacrifice. Just the other day we had another one of our colleagues get up on the House Floor and ask for a moment of silence for a departed service person that lost their lives in this conflict overseas. And it’s a very, very humbling experience to all of us when we’re affected by individuals in our districts and we try to pay them the proper respect. And I say this is a wonderful way to pay the families and the loved ones a proper respect for a 09300063.doc 180  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 military person that gave their life for their country. Thank you.”

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman from Morgan, Representative Watson, for what reason do you rise?”

“To the Bill.”

“The Gentleman from Will, Representative Meyer, for what reason do you rise?”

“The Gentleman from Winnebago, Representative Sacia, for what reason do you rise?”

“The Gentleman asks… Mr. Speaker.”

“I would suggest that we request leave of the Body to ask all… to add all Members as cosponsors of the Bill.”

“Gentleman in the middle of debate request that leave be given so that all Members of the Body could be added as cosponsors to this legislation. Is there leave? Leave is heard and leave is granted. The Gentleman from Fayette, Representative Stephens. For what reason do you rise?”

“To the Bill.”

“Seeing no further questions, Speaker Madigan to close.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would a request a favorable Roll Call.”

Speaker Turner: “The question is, ‘Shall Senate Bill 1668 pass?’ All those in favor should vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is now open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? The Clerk shall take the record. On this question, there are 118 voting ‘aye’, 0 ‘noes’, 0 ‘presents’. And this Bill, having received the Constitutional Majority, is hereby declared passed. On the Order of Second… page 15, Second Readings, we have Senate Bill 472. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk.”

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman from Kendall, Representative Cross.” 09300063.doc 183  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

Speaker Turner: “The Lady from Iroquois, Representative O’Brien, for what reason do you rise?”

“Seeing no further questions, Representative Cross to close.”

“The question is, ‘Shall Amendment #1 to Senate Bill 472 pass?’ All those in favor should vote ‘aye’; all those opposed… We’ll take voice. All those in… all those in support vote ‘aye’; all those opposed… All those in support say ‘aye’; all those opposed say ‘no’. The ‘ayes’ have it, in the opinion of the Chair. And Amendment #1 is adopted. Further Amendments?”

“Third Reading. On the Order… On page 7, on the Order of Third Reading, we have House Bill 465. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk.”

Speaker Turner: “The Lady from Champaign, Representative Jakobsson.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Bill amends the School Code to limit the dates by which the General Assembly Members may nominate recipients for the General Assembly scholarships. Any scholarships that have been awarded by June 1, 2003 are still in… will be awarded, but none after that. This Bill is very important, I think, to look at and pass this year. We have talked about it for a long time, but I think now we need to think about the implications this has and the impact that it has on our budgets for the state universities and the cuts that they are having to make, the deep cuts that our state universities are having to make because of our shortage of funds. And last year alone, the University of Ill… these legislative scholarships cost the University of Illinois over $4 million. They cost the state university systems over $6.2 million. And I think it’s incumbent upon us when we are looking at our budget and struggling in here to come to an agreement with budgets that we vote to pass this Bill.”

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman from Cook, Representative Miller, for what reason do you rise?” 09300063.doc 187  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“Will the Sponsor yield?”

“She indicates she will.”

“Representative, you’re talking about eliminating the General Assembly scholarships. Correct?”

“That’s correct.”

“And you cited that due to costs to the institution, if I heard that correctly.”

“I’m sorry, I didn’t hear your question.”

“I heard that you had said that based on the increase costs to the schools or that the schools are losing money.”

“There’s no money that follows these scholarships when they are given to the state universities. And so, yes, the state universities have to pick up this and it’s a high co… they have to absorb the costs. And when they absorb the costs of educating these students of course the tuition then may, ya know, be reflected a higher tuition for other students who are paying.”

“So, you’re sa… Let me just get this correct here and I might be mixing apples and oranges here. But you’ve said that because of the cost the university… are you sayin that the university cannot afford to teach children on these scholarships?”

“What I’m saying that… is that this… no money follows these scholarships, they’re waivers, they’re not, ya know, we call them scholarships, but they’re really waivers and no money follows these and the universities have to absorb that.” 09300063.doc 188  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“Yeah, but my understanding was that legislation that we dealt with earlier this year, including one of my seatmates dealt with the rising cost of tuition to… to the… to the… for students in the university and my understanding was that… or is the fact that the tuition costs have increased and yet the numbers have stayed the same. And so are you saying that the fact that… that there’s not enough money to provide these scholarships?”

“I’m not sure when you said tuition costs have increased and the numbers have stayed the same, I’m not sure what numbers you’re talking about.”

“I’m sorry, could you repeat yourself?”

“Yeah, I’m asking you to clarify what you said. Tuition… I think what you said so you can help me out, tuition costs have increased and yet the numbers have stayed the same. So, I’m not sure what you mean by that. What numbers?”

“So, all right. I guess what I’m getting at is, are the universities… you’re basically… you’re… based on some of your argument, at least I heard, is that the universities are suffering to some degree and that scholarships are causing it suffering.”

“It adds to their suffering because it causes the universities to absorb this amount of money.”

“How much… Okay. Based on what you’ve said, how much will the universities save if they do not give out these scholarships… but these waivers?” 09300063.doc 189  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“Well, I can give you the figures from last year, which I already did…”

“Mr. Speaker, I can’t hear.”

“Shhh. Proceed.”

“We know what the figures are from last year. We don’t know what they’re gonna be this year because the tuition has not been set for all the state universities.”

“But it… but it’s a… it’s a waiver and so my understanding is, you’re saying that the numbers aren’t known this year, but let’s say in previous years. I mean, if this is… if this is… if a child is going to a university and he’s offered a scholarship, I mean it’s a set amount of what the tuition will be, if I’m just understanding, this doesn’t include other additional costs. And so, you should have some figure on what that number should be, what this cost saving, because that’s what you’re arguing is the fact that this is… because the universities are hurting here in the State of Il… State of Illinois.”

“That’s right. As I said, it costs the universities over $6 million last year, our state universities.”

“$6 million. Is that attributed to these scholarships? $6 million is that attributed to these schol…”

“Yes, that’s…”

“…General Assembly scholarships?”

“That is all I’m talking about, that amount.”

“That’s correct that monies would’ve been lost if these children assuming… assuming that someone else would’ve went there in their place. So, you’re saying that… that the 09300063.doc 190  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 slot that these children have for these scholarships that another student would’ve been eligible to attend who would’ve paid full ride?”

“Yeah. If they…”

“Is that he way these figures are achieved?”

“If those students had… even those students had gotten scholarships through ISAC or some other way the universities would’ve received that amount of money in dollars.”

“I’m sorry, I can’t hear you. Could you… I’m sorry, could you repeat your answer? I couldn’t hear you.”

“Even if these students had, let’s say they got scholarships through ISAC, then the universities would’ve received that amount of money in dollars, they wouldn’t of had to give the waivers.”

“But what I’m saying, I guess and I’ll… I’ll, ‘cause I know other speakers wanna speak on this issue and I don’t wanna belabor. So, what I’m sa… what you’re saying is the fact that if these slots… if these slots were taken away, these scholarship slots, are you saying that a full paying traditional student would’ve filled this place?”

“It could have. A student with an ISAC scholarship or any other scholarship may have filled the place or… or a student who has applied and ya know, earning their way through with mom or pop’s help.”

“And, really, I’m sorry, I couldn’t understand what you said.” 09300063.doc 191  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“If these slots were filled by students who were awarded scholarships through ISAC or if they were paying their tuition or if they had some kind of a private scholarship or they were paying their tuition out-of-pocket, yes, the universities would’ve received that money, but those slots wouldn’t have gone unfilled.”

“I’m just trying to make sure that… where you’re coming from. To the Bill, Mr. Speaker.”

“To the Bill.”

“We talk about how education’s important in the State of Illinois here. We have some of the finest higher education institutions in the country. I’m a graduate of the University of Illinois College of Dentistry, I’m very proud of that fact. We have some of the highest, well-qualified educated people. These individuals who will receive a General Assembly scholarship first are hardworking students who deserve it, they are accepted by the university. These aren’t ‘hardship’ cases as far their academia is concerned, that’s a very important point to make. So, this goes beyond race, goes beyond geographical boundaries, goes beyond party affiliation here. Second point is the fact that if we in the State of Illinois are committed to education, education is the equalizer in all forms of society. It is the equalizer to bring those children where I represent Carver High School in low-income areas, Altgeld Garden to be able to achieve the heights of any individual in this room here. I am a recipient of a General Assembly scholarship. It is not always a child 09300063.doc 192  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 from the inner city, it those who are trying achieve themselves who went through hardships at some point or another. This is the absolute wrong direction that we need to go to try to balance the budget off of those who need it the most. I accept the fact that we need to vote ‘no’ votes on this Bill.”

“We heard you. The Gentleman from Jackson, Representative Bost, for what reason do you rise?”

“I’d like to remind the Membership that this Bill is on Short Debate. I have 18 people waiting to speak on the Bill. I was going to turn the timer on… Repre… Representative… the Gentleman from Cook, Representative Giles.”

“Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like for this Bill to be taken off Short Debate and I have the requisite amount of individuals… Members that would love for this Bill to… to be taken off.”

“The Motion has been made and it’s obvious that there is a request to take it off of Short Debate. The Bill will be put on Regular Debate. I am going to implement… I will be implementing the timer, so for the 18 people that wanna speak, note that you have five minutes on the Bill. The Gentleman from Cook, Representative McKeon.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield?”

“He indicates he will… or she.”

“Representative, can you tell me what the total budget is for the entire state university system?”

“I’m sorry the total budget for what?”

“Can you tell me what the total budget is for the state university system, the entire system of higher education? Do you know what the total budget is?”

“I don’t know that…” 09300063.doc 194  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“So, do you know… do you know if this is 1 percent of the budget, 10 percent of the budget, what’s… what kind of… to resolve this fiscal crisis you’re talking about, ya know, it this a needle in a haystack or is this a significant amount of money?”

“It is a small percent of the budget, but I think any way that we can address the budg… the shortfall in the budget is important for us to do.”

“Yeah, Representative, with all due respect and please don’t take this personal, but ya know, this seems to me that the argument you’re using regarding the fiscal situation is a rather convenient argument, but I think your primary motivation for moving this Bill, and please correct me if I’m wrong, was the fact that you don’t think General Assembly scholarships oughta exist at all. Is that a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’?”

“I don’t give them and I don’t… and so I don’t do it.”

“And that was part of your campaign, I believe.”

“I did talk about it in my campaign.”

“So the fiscal argument is really a convenience to…”

“The fiscal argument stands as a fiscal argument.”

“Yeah. All right. To the Bill, Mr. Speaker.”

“To the Bill.”

“The General Assembly scholarships have always been absorbed by the university systems. They submitted a budget to the Governor, which was submitted to this chamber. They didn’t recommend that we eliminate these 09300063.doc 195  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 scholarships, they didn’t elimin… recommend that we eliminate other forms of scholarships. I give these scholarships out in a very structured way in my district to avoid any… any possible criticism. But most importantly, let me share you with… with the Members here a part of my program. Half of my scholarships, which I give for one year at a time, go to what I call continuing scholars. These are students, mature adults, who have raised their children, put their children through school, they’re not eligible for any other scholarship program and they would not be able in midlife to go to college, get a degree, improve their income. Now you look at all the students, like one of my colleagues here that finished dental school, they increase their income, they increase the quality of their standard of life. They also increase the amount of taxes they pay and I can assure you in their lifetime, in their work in Illinois, they’re gonna pay in taxes far more than we ever gave them for these General Assembly scholarships. These can be used well. The university system did not ask for their elimination. And I urge you for a ‘no’ vote. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.”

“Lady from Cook, Representative Mulligan, for what reason do you rise?”

“She indicates she will.”

“No, I don’t, I’m not addressing those with this.”

“I didn’t hear your question, I’m sorry.”

“As I said, I don’t know the number and I… so I don’t know the breakdown.”

“Certainly not, I know that there are a lot of people who go through a process that, ya know…”

“…is very ethical.”

“No, I don’t have that figure.”

“No, they didn’t.”

“I didn’t hear your last question.”

“I think there are a lot of scholarships that are available to students in this state and that when those scholarships are given and the students use them then the universities receive actual money.”

“The Gentleman from Winnebago, Representative Sacia.”

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman from Fulton, Representative Smith, for what reason… reason do you rise?”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With all due respect to the 18 or so colleagues who would like to speak on this, I think we all know how we’re gonna vote. And I would move the previous question.”

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman has request to move for a previous question. All those in favor say ‘aye’; all those opposed ‘no’. The Motion fails. Representative… or the Lady from Cook, Representative Monique Davis.” Davis, M.: “Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We can end debate after I complete my comments. First of all, I believe that a lot of people in the State of Illinois don’t realize that some of the most prestigious university in the world are here in Illinois. Those taxpayers who usually get very little in return for their tax dollars are among those who are recipients of these scholarships. In my district we have an education committee. We attempt to give scholarships to those perhaps who are needy, we attempt to give scholarships to those who are going into fields that are needed in our community, for example, engineering. I am proud to say that there are a number of veterinarians, there are a number medical doctors and dentists who have gone through the educational scholarship program in the State of Illinois. And I don’t think we should balance the budget on students in Illinois. We should never become that callous in what we do by saying we’re going to reduce opportunity for students. I urge a ‘no’ vote with my 09300063.doc 201  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 illustrious colleague, Representative Sacia. I urge a ‘no’ vote with my illustrious colleague, Representative Miller. I urge a ‘no’ vote on this extremely bad legislation.”

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman from Cook, Representative McCarthy, for what reason do you rise?”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I…”

“Proceed.”

“To the Bill. I would just like to rise in full support of the Lady’s measure. I think that there’s been one opponent after another criticizing her for her judgment and I can tell you that I think that this is a measure that should get over a hundred ‘yes’ votes. And I can tell you in the General Assembly of the 1997 it got close to a hundred votes saying that we would eliminate this. I think some of the votes knew that it wasn’t going to be received to well over in the Senate, so they felt comfortable voting for it. Those who always oppose the measure and give out the scholarships, I hold them in esteem. I have been here for seven years and I’ve never participated in this program. My reasons for that, I have 280 students in families in my district who send children to the University of Illinois, if I give four of them a scholarship and I know we all have real great numbers around here, but there is no argument you can make that if the four of them get scholarships the other 276 families who are paying are gonna pay a little bit extra. The families in my area, they know that their chances of getting the scholarship are about 1 in 80, but their chances of paying for the 09300063.doc 202  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 scholarship are about 79 out of 80. One of the colleagues said that this isn’t something to do with geography, this is absolutely a hundred percent to do with geography. The students that are going to free… free school at the Southern Illinois University School of Dentistry or the University of Illinois School of Medicine they have not made one pledge that they’re gonna go practice medicine or dentistry in an underserved area. The only thing they’ve said, is that I live in the district of the Gentleman or the Lady who are giving me this scholarship. These places saying that the spaces are there, I mean, I think that’s kind of a ludicrous argument, especially at a time where Eastern Illinois University, who is down visiting us of today, they closed off their enrollment in February of this year, the earliest they ever had to do that. Our people in our state know that we have a fine higher education system and they wanna take advantage of it. But these scholarships really, they have no basis on academia, they do have to get into the university, but every kid who goes to a university has to get into the university. The only standard is that they have to live in the district of the Representative. So, I really think the Lady should be complimented instead of criticized for her courage in bringing this forward. But I wanna tell you that whether the program goes forward or not, you really don’t have to participate in it. If you wanna talk to the families in your area and tell them as I do, 1 out of 80 of you will get this if I participate, but 79 out of 80 of you will pay 09300063.doc 203  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 for it because you’re not gonna be able to get it. And I think that’s true not only at the University of Illinois, but all the families of mine that pay tuition at their other universities. So… But I would say lastly that, if you are a strong supporter of this I would encourage you not to participate in the program. And finally, as chairman of the Higher Education dep… Committee, we have tried to look at all the waivers ‘cause the Lady from Cook or DuPage earlier talked about all these waivers, we do wanna look at that as a committee. Unfortunately, with the budget crisis that we’re undergoing today, that kinda took precedent and we haven’t been able to look at that closely. But we are gonna look at these, because I have to admit myself when looking at it, that our waivers are less than like 2 percent of the total waivers of the university system. So, I think there is some abuse in that and we will look at that, but I have always considered this a program that did not stand on its own merits. And I would certainly encourage a ‘yes’ vote and I thank the Chair for allowing one proponent to speak on behalf of the Lady.”

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman from DeKalb, Representative Wirsing. For what reason do you rise?”

“She indicates she will.”

“Last year it cost the uni… the state universities over $6 million to absorb these tuition waivers, these scholarships.”

“Yes.”

“Yes. The University of Illinois was 4.2 million.”

“From the universities. From the… from the universities according to the Board of Higher Education.”

Speaker Turner: “The Gentleman from Cook, Representative Davis.” Davis, W.: “Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield?”

“She indicates she will.” Davis, W.: “Representative, where did this initiative come from?”

“What initiative?” Davis, W.: “Where did this initiative come from?”

“The Bill?” Davis, W.: “Did somebody ask you to do it? You thought of doing it?”

“No, I… I… this is something that I wanted to do.” Davis, W.: “Some… I’m sorry, could you repeat that, please?”

“This is a Bill that I wanted to work on.” Davis, W.: “Okay, that you wanted to do, as well. Answer this question for me, Representative. If you are a faculty 09300063.doc 207  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 member at one of the state universities, does your child get to go to school for free?”

“I think that there are some waivers now, it differs from campus to campus. It’s true in some cases. None of my children went to the university for free.” Davis, W.: “I didn’t say specifically you, I just asked the question.”

“Right.” Davis, W.: “I just asked a question, that’s all.”

“Right and I answered it.” Davis, W.: “Okay. Then why are we not trying to… why aren’t we trying to do away with that?”

“That’s…” Davis, W.: “I’m sure there are many more faculty members than are Members of the General Assembly and if they have college-age children, then why aren’t we trying to do away with that?”

“Those benefits are negotiated. I’m talking about the tuition scholarships that we give here that then are imposed on the state universities as unfunded mandates.” Davis, W.: “Exactly. Well, the Gentleman said what’s the difference, if you’re talking about a cost-saving measure for a university, isn’t that the same thing? Wouldn’t that be the same thing?”

“That’s… that’s something for the… that’s something that the universities negotiate and that’s why it’s different from campus to campus. But I’m talking about the legislative scholarships.” 09300063.doc 208  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 Davis, W.: “Well, I didn’t necessarily want to try make this personal in anyway, but I think it’s going in that direction. Let me tell you a little something about myself, Representative. I grew up in a town called Harvey, Illinois, which by most standards in the State of Illinois, is considered one of the most economically depressed communities. I went to the public schools there in Harvey, junior high school, high school and went onto a public university, which happened to be Southern Illinois University. Now, I was fortunate enough that my parents did okay and they were able to pay for my college tuition. But when I think about many of my friends whom of which I still communicate with on a regular basis, who didn’t go onto colleges… go onto college or go to a university, in many cases that was because their parents could not afford to send them there. Here in the General Assembly we have an opportunity to allow young people to achieve what we can call the American dream and I can’t for the life of me understand why we would want to try to limit that particular opportunity. Now, you mentioned that approximately $6 million are absorbed by the universities, the lion’s share of which is absorbed by the University of Illinois, but that is indeed the most costly of the state universities, the largest of the state universities and correct me if I’m wrong it probably gets the most state dollars. Correct?”

“That’s correct. It’s the largest one, it would.” 09300063.doc 209  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 Davis, W.: “And based on the testimony that I heard being in the Higher Education Committees, they also get the most federal funding, they do a very good job of getting federal grants, they get a lot of resources from government. So, looking at it from that perspective, why not offer the opportunity to send young people from Representative Districts across the entire State of Illinois who may not have the opportunity to go otherwise, give them that opportunity to go to college or to at least attend a state university? Why would we not want to do something like that, Representative? Why? Is it solely money? I think someone mentioned earlier about the amount of money that they give away in athletic scholarships, then why not take away athletic scholarships?”

“I’m not addressing that in this Bill. If you wanna, ya know, do a Bill on that, go ahead.” Davis, W.: “Excuse me? What was that again, Representative?”

“I was not addressing that in this Bill, I was addressing… am addressing the legislative scholarships. If you want to address other scholarships or other waivers…” Davis, W.: “But wouldn’t that be a cost-saving measure because if I’m not mistaken that was the basis of your argument, trying to save money for the universities.”

“Well, also, a lot of universities, most of them, raise money for their athletic scholarships.” Davis, W.: “Well, if they’re fortunate enough to, but I don’t… I don’t necessarily think that in case. Not only did I have the opportunity to attend one of the public 09300063.doc 210  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 universities, I also worked there for six years as a college recruiter. And the students that I went to recruit happened to be from the communities throughout the entire State of Illinois…”

“Mr. Davis.” Davis, W.: “…where they could not afford…”

“Please bring your remarks to a close, Sir.” Davis, W.: “Yes, Sir.”

Speaker Novak: “Your time has run out, please bring your remarks to a close.” Davis, W.: “Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Bill, Mr. Speaker.”

“To the Bill.” Davis, W.: “Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a bad Bill, plain and simple. I would like the Representative to hopefully save herself the embarrassment, pull this out of the record, it doesn’t need to go to the Senate. We need to allow this opportunity for our young people who can’t afford to go to college to go to college. So, I encourage everyone in the chamber to vote ‘no’, ‘no’, ‘no’ on this Bill. Thank you.”

“Representative Novak in the Chair. Further discussion? The Lady from Cook, Representative Graham.”

“Thank… thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, with all due respect… Will the Sponsor yield?”

“Sponsor’ll yield.”

“I have sat next to Representative Jakobsson for quite some time and I… I… Jakobsson… I… I have a great fondness for her, but I stand in strong and opposition to this Bill. 09300063.doc 211  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 I am the only high school graduate and the only college graduate in my immediate family. And in my community I have a lot of bright students, a lot of bright people who want to go to college and don’t have the funding to do so. This Bill would help us to continue to send the people in our districts to school who can’t afford to go to school. The Representative brought up cost-saving factors. Can anyone tell me how much the President of the United States makes? Is it $200 thousand someone said? $400 thousand. A president… the president of UIC makes $385 thousand dollars. He almost has a President’s salary. So, I… I think if we wanna look at cost-saving measures, I think that we need to look at some other areas and not look at these scholarships. Our children need these scholarships. They qualify for the university. We’re not handing them something that they’re getting for free. They’re bright people who qualify to get into the universities but can’t fund their way through it. And I know that the Sponsor is fighting for something that she believes in and I commend her for that because it’s… that’s what we’re here for, to fight for something that we believe in. And I just have to stand in opposition of this Bill. And I urge us all to say ‘no’ to this Bill, because our children need these scholarships in order to further our education. If we don’t educate our children we’ll have to build more prisons. If we don’t educate our children we’ll have more dropouts. If we don’t educate our children we’ll create more vocational programs on the backend. If we don’t 09300063.doc 212  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 educate our children we’ll be another part of some sad statistics of our children standing in a waiting line. And you’re saying you don’t want us to ask for handouts, but you don’t wanna give us the scholarship. They don’t wanna increase the MAP Grant Bill, they’re taking away some of the other programs that we have to fund our children. Let’s keep this measure in place. I urge you all to vote ‘no’.”

“Thank you. Further discussion? The Gentleman from Cook, Representative Colvin.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield?”

“Sponsor will yield.”

“Representative, good afternoon. Representative, how many General Assembly scholarships were you allotted in your district to give away if chose to this year?”

“Same number as you.”

“Do you know how many there were?”

“That I would be allowed to give a… Was that your question?”

“No. How many… I was asking you simply, how many scholarships were you allotted to give away this year in your district.”

“Right, that’s what I said, the same number as you.”

“Okay. And at this point, have you committed to giving any of those scholarships away?”

“I’ve not chosen to participate in this.”

“Yeah. And I wonder aloud how many people… and the last time this Bill was brought forth, chose to make the 09300063.doc 213  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 same decision as you made to never give out any of those General Assembly scholarships for those who simply did not believe that this program was just or fair. I wonder aloud how many did that. Now, I know you don’t have the answer to that. And, Mr. Speaker, to the Bill.”

“To the Bill.”

“And the reason I asked that question is, Representative McCarthy was right, the last time this Bill was brought forth more than 100 Members of the General Assembly voted in the affirmative to get rid of those General Assembly scholarships, but at the same time more than 80 or 90 percent of those individuals still gave out those scholarships. That’s hypocrisy at the rankest level, at the highest level. I would simply believe that any individual who don’t believe in this program would simply let those scholarship lay on the table. Yes, it would cost up to $6 million if all of those scholarships were funded. But what if all those individuals, if it’s a hundred, if it’s a fifty, if it’s sixty, enough to pass, those individuals who didn’t give out those scholarships, who have the courage to vote ‘no’ would have the same amount of courage to leave those scholarships on the table, will it still cost $6 million? No, it’ll probably cost about half of that. And if a hundred people voted for it, then it would probably cost less than a million dollars for those individuals who simply believe in the program. This isn’t about cost-cutting measures in a tight budget year because this Bill came forth when the state was doing pretty good. 09300063.doc 214  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 This isn’t about making the opportunity equal for individuals all across the state or the corruption in the program and the hypocrisy of the program, this is simply about opportunity and education in a word equates opportunity. We here in the State of Illinois are right now grappling with a situation where we gonna pass, whether many of us like it or not, we’re gonna commit billions of dollars in elementary and secondary education and upper education. What we’re asking you to do in terms of preserving this program is to ask the universities to absorb just this much, literally less than 1 percent of the entire appropriation for higher education. Now, I’m not gonna argue and say that there has been abuses in this program. I was speaking to one university administrator in my office earlier this year on this particular issue and there are Members in our General Assembly who will vote ‘yes’ on a Bill like this, will give out these scholarships and will call and twist the arm of university administrators to try to get ‘em into the University of Illinois that the student didn’t even match up to the grade. All we’re asking for in this situation for those who believe in the program have the opportunity to use it and for those who don’t simply don’t use it and then it won’t cost $6 million, may be it’ll cost a million dollars or two million dollars. And I think that would be a much better and a much more appropriate way than to ask everyone to cut off that educational opportunity for those who truly 09300063.doc 215  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 believe in it to use it. Thank you and I urge you to vote ‘no’ on this Bill.”

“Further discussion? The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Delgado.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield?”

“Sponsor’ll yield.”

“Representative, is it true that tenured professors’ family members get a half-price discount once they’re tenured on the university level?”

“I think we already had that question and it varies from campus to campus.”

“All right, I just didn’t hear the answer. Is it… are you familiar… is it true that presidents of the University of Illinois they have their own scholarship program to give out from the president’s office. Are you familiar with that, Representative?” Jakobsson: “That’s a scholarship and that’s not an unfunded mandate.”

“Representative, would you be amenable to amend this piece of legislation to include all professors getting their tuition… all their scholarship and free tuitions as an Amendment? Would you have an Amendment to this? Are you willing to amend this piece of legislation?”

“Not at this point.”

“To include professors? And would…”

“It’s part of their negotiations and so I’m not…” 09300063.doc 216  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“Well, I think it would be fair if we had to go across the board that we have an Amendment that would include all professors. To the Bill, Mr. Speaker.”

“To the Bill.”

“It’s very clear that we have many standards in regards to how we wanna try to be once again selective and peek in behind that scale of justice to determine who gets a scholarship and who doesn’t. And as we know, I worked with an 18-year incumbent, my State Senator, and before I was elected I was his aide. And we have given scholarships to young folks that today are doctors, they are lawyers. And we have a prerequisite, they work in the Humboldt Park Community, they give back to that community. Their children are now going to college, too. They’re in high school and in college. We get to see them as a product of our community. We see that they do remain, they don’t go off to Pennsylvania and New York. We know we stay in the neighborhoods and that communities need this type of scholarship. And Mr. Speaker, for my close, for those Members who do vote ‘yes’ on this particular measure, I challenge you to sign a pledge today for us other Members that says that if you do vote ‘yes’ that you sign a pledge and say that you will not issue your scholarships. And make sure, because once we do, take this Bill where it belongs, and that’s down the drain, we’re gonna need to know that you’re not out talking out the other side saying how you went out there and dealt with this in the media and then be able to give those scholarships out on the other 09300063.doc 217  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 side. So, Mr. Speaker, if this particular piece of legislation doesn’t get the requisite votes… does get the requisite votes, I would ask for a verification.”

“Thank you. Further discussion? The Gentleman from Vermilion, Mr. Black.”

“Shh.”

“Mr…”

“Mr. Black, please bring your remarks to a close.”

“Thank you. Mr. Black, Mr. Black, the Chair agrees with your comments. Would please, everyone refrain from any demonstrations during this debate. Further discussion? The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Giles.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. Ya know… Will the Sponsor yield?” 09300063.doc 221  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“The Sponsor will yield.”

“I just have a couple questions and I debated this Bill in committee and the Sponsor know how I feel about this piece of legislation. I’ve fought against this piece of legislation since I’ve been in the General Assembly since ’97. And I fought so hard in the Higher Ed Committee on this piece of legislation that the Speaker of the House at that time decided that he will not bring that piece of legislation back before the Higher Education Committee. So… so, Representative, I respect you for having the courage to do so, nevertheless, I think it is in complete error that you do so. Now, you stated, I believe, the statistic that you gave that the university spend… the total budget… What is the total budget of the University of Illinois? Because I believe you stated that you were not introducing this legislation because of the University of Illinois. Is that correct?”

“About 690 million is the budget for the University of Illinois for GRF.”

“I’m sorry, I didn’t hear your…”

“Around… from state funds it’s about 609 million.”

“Six hundred and nine million dollars.”

“Oh, 690.”

“What is that number for?”

“Six hundred and ninety million in state funds and about a billion dollars total.”

“That’s… that is what the General Assembly approp to the university… appropriate to the University of Illinois?” 09300063.doc 222  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“The 690.”

“Okay. What is the higher education overall budget?”

“Approximately 2.2 billion.”

“Billion dollars.”

“And that’s state funds.”

“And this General Assembly scholarship is how much?”

“It cost the un… the state universities 6.2 million last year.”

“Million dollars and… and I mean, I don’t know I’m not that bright. Could we come up with a percentage of what that would be, the General Assembly program compared to the overall higher education budget, which is $2.2 billion?”

“Oh, I’m sure if you get your calculator out you can do it or I could if you, ya know, wanna take that time. I… I did answer before…”

“Rep… Represen… let’s move on, ‘cause I got a short amount of time. Representative, have we talked to… have you talked to… Do you have a Senate Sponsor for this piece of legislation? Have you talked to someone in the Senate once you get the required number of votes out of this chamber on this Bill, that you have talked to someone in the Senate about sponsoring this Bill and moving this Bill forward?”

“I have not yet asked anyone in particular to be a Sponsor.”

“Okay. No one in particular. To the Bill.”

“To the Bill.” 09300063.doc 223  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“Let me say, to the Bill. You know, I think earlier today we presented some good legislation that came out of this chamber and now from my perspective we’re listening… we are here entertaining some of the worst piece of legislation before this Body. The Representative I respect because I respect she has the courage to bring this Bill forth. But I just strongly believe that we are here to try to encourage our young people and individual to get their higher education, to go to school to be educated, that’s what we’re trying to do in the State of Illinois. Ya know, we had a proposal before us that cut many of the categorical programs for elementary and secondary education to begin to give our youth the educational background that they need to be successful in our life to go onto higher education. And now, we are here trying to cut students off at the feet by saying that we’re going take away opportunities for higher education. The previous speaker spoke that this is free… these are free scholarships, ya know, and in life I’m sure you’ve… we have heard the phrase, ‘there’s nothing free in this world’. When you have a two… when you appropriate $2.2 billion that is not free. That is coming out of the taxpayer dollars. Nothing is free. I don’t know of anything free. If it’s free, I don’t want it. So something is being paid somewhere. Somebody is paying somewhere. I just truly believe that… and to the respect of the Sponsor I don’t know if this is a political ploy. This is something that truly young individuals, truly if you were to poll all the…” 09300063.doc 224  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“Please bring your remarks to a close.”

“…all the young individuals… Thank you. All the young individuals that receive these scholarships waivers, what would they say to you. These are our real constituency that we have not polled and asked. And so I would urge every Member on this chamber to vote ‘no’ on this piece of legislation. This is… this will be a bad day for the State of Illinois.”

“Thank you. Ladies and Gentlemen, we have two more speakers seeking recognition. The Gentleman from Cook, Mr. Molaro.”

“Thank you. I didn’t… I just wanted to… I think it’s that I should have to point this out as the self-proclaimed dean of the freshman. Representative Will Smith got so… Will Smith, Will Davis. Sorry, you look like Will Smith, Sir. I’m sorry. Handsome man. Anyway, Representative Will Davis did say when he got caught up in debate that he wants every person that’s in this chamber to vote ‘no’ on this Bill, but I just want him to know, you have to be a Member to be able to vote. So, I’d just like to point that out. Thank you.”

“Thank you, Mr. Molaro. Further discussion? The Gentleman from Macon, Mr. Flider.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My name is on this Bill as a cosponsor largely because I thought that there may be some ways that we could improve this program. There have been many arguments about why we should continue to keep these scholarships, most of them have been based on need. And I 09300063.doc 225  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 don’t think any of us here can question the importance of providing help to people who have a need. And I’m not sure how the scholarships are perceived in all parts of the state, but certainly in many parts of the state they are perceived with skepticism as one Gentleman indicated particularly after the investigation in the Champaign News Gazette. And I… I’m really not sure why Amendment #1 is… was not considered, but if I could tell you a little bit about Amendment #1 this would’ve created the Opportunity Scholarship Program. It would have enabled these scholarships to continue to be provided but with certain guidelines and rules. And basically, what this would’ve done is would’ve required each applicant to apply in a standard way, would’ve had required that they be a resident of the legislative district where they… the Legislator resides. They would’ve had to be required for the… they would’ve had to be eligible for the Monetary Award Program, grant assistance program. They would have to meet certain academic criteria. In other words, this program could be applied consistently and equally and I think that each Legislator would still be able to provide this scholarship. One thing I might point out and I don’t know if my math is correct or I think it’s pretty close, each of us… if it’s true that this program results in scholarships in the amount of $6 million and there really are no guidelines as to how they’re given out and each Legislator decides their own guidelines and I am certain and I have no doubt that the majority, if not everyone, who gives out these 09300063.doc 226  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 scholarships does so according to standards and criteria that they believe are appropriate for their district. But, ya know, I would… I would also say that each of us has a district allotment that we have to follow and we have certain guidelines and rules that we have to follow and we have to follow that to the letter of the law and that amounts to about $7.4 million according to my math, I think that’s about right. So, we’re talking about a large magnitude of money that we have and so I guess the thing I would suggest is in order to eliminate the skepticism, in order to eliminate the criticism that we face, why not consider standard rules and regulations so that we could continue to give out these scholarships, but perhaps do so in a way that nobody could ever point the finger at us and say you gave it to a political friend or you gave it to somebody who was a buddy. And I think that’s all I would suggest, is that we look at this and standardize it and continue to give ‘em out and feel very good about doing so. Thank you.”

“Please bring your remarks to a close. Are you finished, Mr. Flid…? Yes. Representative Jakobsson to close.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I, too, believe that we wanna educate our children. I’ve worked hard in my district to help children get their education, not only mine but to encourage other children for the number of years that I’ve lived there. And I’ve worked with students, I’ve taught students, but in addition to that I 09300063.doc 227  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 sponsored an ISAC workshop in my district so that students would have the opportunity to learn about the scholarships that are available to them. I just wanna close by saying that I think it’s important that we understand that when the state… when these universities are mandated to cover these scholarships, that other students end up paying for them, other students whose parents are working hard, or who the students themselves are working hard may be in jobs 20 or 30 hours a week and it has to be covered somewhere. So, I am asking you all to vote ‘yes’ to eliminate these legislative scholarships. Thank you.”

“The question is, ‘Shall House Bill 465 pass?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Representative Feigenholtz. Mr. Clerk, take the record. On this question, there are 55 voting ‘yes’, 60 voting ‘no’, 2 voting ‘present’. Having failed to receive the required Constitutional Majority, House Bill 465 is hereby declared lost. Representative Jakobsson.”

“May I take it out of the record, please?”

“No.”

“Or take… take the roll. Let the record stand.”

“House Bill… House Bill 3064, the Gentleman from Cook, Mr. McKeon. Read the Bill, Mr. Clerk.”

“Mr. McKeon.” 09300063.doc 228  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. House Bill 3064 started out as a rather controversial Bill and with the help… assistance of the Speaker, Michael Madigan, we put it into negotiation and retired Judge Michael Getty, former Member of this House, is still working with us. What we’ve done in this Bill is strip out all of the controversial parts and what remains in Amendment #1… Committee Amendment #1, which becomes the Bill, is only those portions of the Bill that we had agreement on between labor and management. And what it does, is increase the number of years in the contract bar from three years to four years or more depending on the length of the contract. And I’ll gladly answer any questions of the Members and we’ll continue the negotiations in the Senate. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.”

“Thank you. The Gentleman from Cook. For what reason do you rise, Mr. Giles?”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe I’ve been so roused up and upset on this particular issue I pressed the ‘yes’ button for this particular legislation and I want the record to reflect I intend to vote ‘no’. I am too embarrassed.”

“Mr. Giles, the record will reflect that. Is it… Is there any discussion? Is there any discussion? Seeing none, the question is, ‘Shall House Bill 3064 pass?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’; all those opposed vote ‘no’. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Mr. Clerk… Representative O’Brien. Mr. Clerk, take the record. On 09300063.doc 229  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 this question, there are 116 voting ‘yes’, 0 voting ‘no’, 1 voting ‘present’. And having received the required Constitutional Majority, House Bill 3064 is hereby declared passed. House Bill 3060… 3668. The Lady from Cook, Representative Lou Jones. Mr. Clerk, read the Bill, please.”

“Representative Jones.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House. House Bill 30… 3668, the language amends the Illinois Public Aid Code and provision concerning the State Disbursement Unit. My good friend, Representative Hoffman, will explain the Bill and also answer any questions that you have.”

“Thank you. Is there any discussion? The Gentleman from Madison, Mr. Hoffman.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my understanding that all this does is it ensures that the Illinois Department of Public Aid is allowed to not suffer financial sanctions due to the inability to disburse child support payments within the federally mandated two-day turnaround period. This is an initiative of public aid so that they can have the Disbursement Unit Revolving Fund after June 30, 2003. And it removes a provision that the State Disbursement Unit Revolving Fund apply only if the Department of Public Aid performs the functions of the State Disbursement Unit. I ask for…” 09300063.doc 230  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“Mr. Hoffman, is that… are you reading in a statement?”

“I am discussing the Bill.”

“Okay.”

“Couldn’t you tell?”

“I do… Do you want the Sponsor to respond?”

“No, she had asked me to make a statement.”

“Okay. Okay.”

“I made a statement.”

“Thank you.”

“And I think it was quite profound.”

“Thank… I…”

“Don’t you think?”

“Yes, I do, too, Sir.”

“Yes.”

“Thank you. Further discussion? The Gentleman from Vermilion, Mr. Black.”

“The Sponsor will yield, Sir.”

“Mr. Hoffman.”

“What this actually does, it removes a provision that the State Disbursement Unit Revolving Fund apply only if the Department of Public Aid performs the functions of the State Disbursement Unit. So, not only does it allow there to be a State Disbursement Unit Revolving Fund after June 30, 2003, it would’ve sunsetted, Representative. It also allows them… the State Disbursement Unit Revolving Fund will apply… will apply not only… I’m saying it wrong… it removes the provision that indicates that it can only apply if the Department of Public Aid performs the functions.”

“Again, this removes the provision that requires… this removes the provision that requires that only the Department of Public Aid perform the function of the State 09300063.doc 232  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003 Disbursement Unit and have the revolving fund. So, I think maybe you’re mis… misreading the Bill, but I think what it does is it allows… it allows what you’re talking about to occur and also removes the sunset provisions. If we do not do this… if we do not do this and the Bill is not passed, the Department could suffer federal financial sanctions due to IDPA’s inability to disburse the child support payments within the federally mandated two-day turnaround period. All this is allowing us to do is to keep the revolving reloan fund and indicate that the State Disbursement Unit Revolving Loan Fund apply only if the Department of Public Aid performs the functions.”

“I don’t know.”

“I should know, but I don’t… I don’t.”

“Mr. Speaker, in order to try and clear up the discrepancy, I’ll take… I would ask the Sponsor to take the Bill out of the record momentarily.”

“Mr. Clerk, take this Bill out of the record. Thank you. The Lady from Lake, for what reason do you rise?”

“Yes, Mr. Speaker, on Bill 465 my switch was… I hit the wrong switch. I wish to be recorded as a ‘no’ vote.”

“The record will reflect that. House Resolution 173, the Gentleman from Madison, Mr. Hoffman. Mr. Clerk. House Resolution 173, the Gentleman from Madison, Mr. Hoffman.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. This simply urges the United States Congress and the White House to support proposals to increase the level of funding for public transportation in the TEA… the reauthorization of TEA-21 in 2003.”

“Is there any discussion? Seeing none, the question is, ‘Shall House Resolution 173 be adopted?’ All those in favor vote ‘aye’… excuse me, all those in favor say ‘aye’; all those opposed say ‘no’. The ‘ayes’ have it. And House Resolution 173 is adopted. Clerk, Committee Reports. Please read the reports, Mr. Clerk.”

“Thank you. It is the intent of the Chair to adjourn until 8:30 tomorrow morning. But at this time… at this time, the Chair recognizes Mr. Brady for an announcement.”

“Representative Mendoza.” 09300063.doc 235  STATE OF ILLINOIS 93rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 63rd Legislative Day 5/22/2003

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to make an announcement that there’s a COWL business meeting tomorrow at 8 in the morning. We thought we were getting an early start, but you’re a stinker, Mr. Speaker. 8 in the morning, Ladies, in Room 122-B in the Capitol. So, thank you.”

“Thank you. Mr. Fritchey.”

“Inquiry of the Chair.”

“State your inquiry, Sir.”

“8:30 a.m.?”

“8:30 a.m. So, we will… we will convene at 8:30 in the morning, take our quorum call, the Republicans will caucus immediately and we will reconvene at 9:30. So, allowing perfunctory time for the Clerk, Representative Granberg now moves that the House stand adjourned. All those in adjourned until Friday, May 23 at the hour of 8:30 a.m. All those in favor say ‘aye’; all those opposed say ‘no’. The ‘ayes’ have it. The House now stands adjourned.”